eRepublik UK

Announcements => Suggestions => Archive => Topic started by: Rory Winterbourne on December 05, 2012, 05:19:43 am

Title: Bans
Post by: Rory Winterbourne 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.
Title: Re: Bans
Post by: Iain Keers 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
Title: Re: Bans
Post by: Frerk 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.
Title: Re: Bans
Post by: Alice on December 05, 2012, 10:39:51 am
Maybe congressmen should behave :3
Title: Re: Bans
Post by: Rory Winterbourne 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.
Title: Re: Bans
Post by: Jamie2721 on December 06, 2012, 09:11:17 pm
Good idea
Title: Re: Bans
Post by: Aces man 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.
Title: Re: Bans
Post by: Dishmcds 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.
Title: Re: Bans
Post by: RodneyMcKay 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.
Title: Re: Bans
Post by: Rory Winterbourne on December 12, 2012, 05:22:22 am
How many constructive replys? in how many posts?
Title: Re: Bans
Post by: Sir Humphrey Appleby 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)
Title: Re: Bans
Post by: Rory Winterbourne 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.
Title: Re: Bans
Post by: Bohemond4 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.
Title: Re: Bans
Post by: Iain Keers 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.
Title: Re: Bans
Post by: Butjam 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)
Title: Re: Bans
Post by: Iain Keers 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
Title: Re: Bans
Post by: Anaxima 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/
Title: Re: Bans
Post by: Butjam 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
Title: Re: Bans
Post by: surferdude 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