Author Topic: Bans  (Read 1843 times)

Rory Winterbourne

  • Guest
Bans
« on: December 05, 2012, 05:19:43 am »
Have bans for specific parts of the forum only. General being different from political stuff. For example a newly elected congressman previously banned from the general areas of the forum can still get access to the congress area once elected. Same for private party areas.

Iain Keers

  • Party - TUP
  • Posts: 12057
Re: Bans
« Reply #1 on: December 05, 2012, 08:23:57 am »
You only get banned for spam, insults or trolling. Just don't do those things, idk why it's so hard
"Come to me, all who labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." ~ Mt 11:28

Frerk

  • Posts: 8338
Re: Bans
« Reply #2 on: December 05, 2012, 09:00:09 am »
I established this in the past but it didn't really work. Perhaps such a system could be tried again, if properly designed.
Former everything
Socialist UKRP echelon

Hermanos

Quote
<Iain_Keers> I LOVE YOU FRERK
<Iain_Keers> JESUS flower
<Iain_Keers> YOU'RE MY HERO

Alice

  • Curiouser and Curiouser
  • Boblo Island
  • Posts: 18317
  • Rabbit hole explorer
Re: Bans
« Reply #3 on: December 05, 2012, 10:39:51 am »
Maybe congressmen should behave :3
Quote
Everything you say is boring and incomprehensible, but that alone doesn't make it true.
Quote from: Professor Bob Boblo
He had spent his whole life despised and hated for the mere triviality of wearing dresses and make-up despite possessing a (rather magnificent) penis, and this persecution had fostered within him both a desperate yearning to be loved and appreciated, and an iconoclastic desire to subvert and destroy the odious traditions on which society was built.

Rory Winterbourne

  • Guest
Re: Bans
« Reply #4 on: December 06, 2012, 08:49:51 pm »
Quote from: "Iain Keers"
You only get banned for spam, insults or trolling. Just don't do those things, idk why it's so hard

If spam is posting something unrelated to the topic, then your post comes close :)

Quote from: "Frerk"
I established this in the past but it didn't really work. Perhaps such a system could be tried again, if properly designed.

How about creating an auto join group that is set up so once access is removed, users can still view all the public areas of the forum, but not post. All the private areas, such a congress, can then moderated by whoever is chosen. For the congress group, they could elect someone (or a few people) from the user group to moderate the sub-forum, removing all notions of unfairness/bias etc out of the political side of the forum.

Jamie2721

  • Posts: 290
Re: Bans
« Reply #5 on: December 06, 2012, 09:11:17 pm »
Good idea

Aces man

  • Posts: 143
Re: Bans
« Reply #6 on: December 06, 2012, 10:32:32 pm »
Quote from: "Rory Winterbourne"
Have bans for specific parts of the forum only. General being different from political stuff. For example a newly elected congressman previously banned from the general areas of the forum can still get access to the congress area once elected. Same for private party areas.

Agreed good idea.

Dishmcds

  • Party - UKRP
  • Posts: 11228
  • Look behind you
Re: Bans
« Reply #7 on: December 12, 2012, 01:47:13 am »
How about just follow the rules and you won't get banned to begin with?

WHAT A CONCEPT.
[size=150]Former 7 time Erepublikan President[/size]

Hermanos

RodneyMcKay

  • Global Moderator
  • Posts: 2901
  • The Legion Commander
Re: Bans
« Reply #8 on: December 12, 2012, 03:16:55 am »
Quote from: "Dishmcds"
How about just follow the rules and you won't get banned to begin with?

WHAT A CONCEPT.

You and your crazy ideas.

This would never work.


Admiral Rodney McKay DSO
Commander of The Legion
ex-ESO Party President
Admiral of the fleet (Ret.

Rory Winterbourne

  • Guest
Re: Bans
« Reply #9 on: December 12, 2012, 05:22:22 am »
How many constructive replys? in how many posts?

Sir Humphrey Appleby

  • Permanent Speaker
  • Party - UKRP
  • Posts: 7288
  • Sodomy non sapiens
Re: Bans
« Reply #10 on: December 12, 2012, 03:57:43 pm »
I think the point people are trying to make here is that the rules are fairly universal in nature (regardless of forum) and it's a matter of common sense to follow them rather than acquiring some sort of specific tone relevant to the sub-forum it's in (trolling will essentially still be trolling, for example)
<Guitah> not arguing with a Brit about tea is tha sensible thing to do :)
<Appleby> it is common knowledge it is pointless arguing with an addict :p
<Appleby> thus it is pointless arguing about tea with brits



Rory Winterbourne

  • Guest
Re: Bans
« Reply #11 on: December 13, 2012, 02:43:04 am »
I understand the point they are making, it's just not very constructive or addresses the criticisms a lot of people have with the forum. 'Rules is rules' isn't a very helpful post.

Bohemond4

  • Viscount of Cambrige
  • Woldean Court
  • Posts: 1338
Re: Bans
« Reply #12 on: December 23, 2012, 05:05:56 pm »
I see it as an indication of the frustrations the moderation team faces. I mean, whats the point of being able to threaten with a ban if it then is removed or has no effect? Basically, if there you remove, or curtail their power to threaten bans, the final weapon they can use is gone and makes their life even more difficult than it already is.

Besides, half of these subforums are open to public viewing anyway, you dont need an account to read them for example.
Viscount of Cambridge
We should all just quit the game.  It just to flowering divisive



Iain Keers

  • Party - TUP
  • Posts: 12057
Re: Bans
« Reply #13 on: December 23, 2012, 05:19:22 pm »
Maybe instead of complaining about bans, you should tell us which of the rules you think is unfair?

The purpose of forum rules is to provide a safe, hassle-free environment. That's to encourage players to come and get involved here. All the rules are based on that principle. If you break them, having some sort of official position shouldn't protect you. Otherwise we have a system of first and second class citizens. Personally (as someone who has been banned) I understand that people get angry when they get a ban, or might feel it's unjust. Most of the time people just don't like being told off by their peers. The truth is the rules are very simple and straightforward, and nobody has ever raised an objection against any of them.

Ps my post was on-topic as it addressed the question of bans being lifted in certain subforums.
"Come to me, all who labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." ~ Mt 11:28

Butjam

  • Failed Messiah
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 2732
Re: Bans
« Reply #14 on: December 23, 2012, 06:35:54 pm »
Quote from: "Iain Keers"
Maybe instead of complaining about bans, you should tell us which of the rules you think are unfair?.
This, a few hundred times over, although I always gathered that they didn't like topic locking (even though I thought the political topics were locked by the appointed MoLA)
Quote
[20:04] <&butjam> .seen TheMessiah
[20:04] <&fapfire> Looking for yourself, eh butjam?

Quote from: RodneyMcKay
Can we all just play the game and have a bit of fun please.
Angry butjam is best butjam.

Iain Keers

  • Party - TUP
  • Posts: 12057
Re: Bans
« Reply #15 on: December 23, 2012, 09:22:09 pm »
The only time a topic is locked is when it's obviously going nowhere. For example, if someone makes a thread saying:

"why did blah blah do this"

the person explains why, then it just becomes a bitch fest for 5 pages. If the question has been answered, and everything after that is just bitching, it gets locked. The point is to keep it relevant, on topic and fresh. If it's just abuse or flaming, the thread gets locked. Locking is actually a much better alternative than warning everyone in the thread, and it's up to mods to use their discretion about which option to use. If the thread is still useful they can warn individuals or parse posts out, if it's gone completely tits up then a lock is usually the better option
"Come to me, all who labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." ~ Mt 11:28

Anaxima

  • Posts: 2174
Re: Bans
« Reply #16 on: December 23, 2012, 10:15:16 pm »
Quote from: "Invalidation"
Maybe congressmen should behave :3
I am unable to behave so only post in bbh p much, works for me! o/
Nothing matters. We're all dust.
(\__/)
(+'.'+)
(")_(")

Butjam

  • Failed Messiah
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 2732
Re: Bans
« Reply #17 on: December 23, 2012, 11:55:30 pm »
Quote from: "Iain Keers"
The only time a topic is locked is when it's obviously going nowhere. For example, if someone makes a thread saying:

"why did blah blah do this"

the person explains why, then it just becomes a bitch fest for 5 pages. If the question has been answered, and everything after that is just bitching, it gets locked. The point is to keep it relevant, on topic and fresh. If it's just abuse or flaming, the thread gets locked. Locking is actually a much better alternative than warning everyone in the thread, and it's up to mods to use their discretion about which option to use. If the thread is still useful they can warn individuals or parse posts out, if it's gone completely tits up then a lock is usually the better option
Oh, I agree with this, just stating other peoples opinions. Personally, I'm happy with the forums
Quote
[20:04] <&butjam> .seen TheMessiah
[20:04] <&fapfire> Looking for yourself, eh butjam?

Quote from: RodneyMcKay
Can we all just play the game and have a bit of fun please.
Angry butjam is best butjam.

surferdude

  • Party - New Era
  • Posts: 351
Re: Bans
« Reply #18 on: January 16, 2013, 01:34:39 am »
Quote from: "Iain Keers"
PS. I can't fucking believe this is passing, is congress really so stupid as to ignore the advice of every foreign affairs expert we have? Totally stupid, and if it pisses of TWO you can guess who is going to be going round cleaning up the mess.

If anyone disagrees with this, they should be banned
Quote from: "Invalidation"
But surferdude is the hero BBH needs right now.