Page 1 of 2
BANNINGS
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 2:56 pm
by J.S.
A banned player needs a review.. A panel, a meeting to justify him being banned.. Kinda like a parole officer in a prison
So here is what I propose.
A banned player must get 2 sponsors to back them up when they become unbanned. The sponsors will have to ensure that the person stays within the rules of the forum.
IF the person on Parole/Probation (sp) breaks this agreement they themselves will be rebanned along with the sponsors.. think of it like a buddy system
What does everyone think?
Jamie
Re: BANNINGS
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 2:59 pm
by J.S.
Annnnd since it is not at this present time a rule
Tokra the banned wrote
1. Incessant spamming.
One persons spam is another persons serious post. As can be seen with
many regular members posts. REKs, buck\'s, and many others. Hell, one
mod (Rienna) has joked about warning herself for spam.
2. Disrespect for the moderators, despite what he says.
Well, this isnt even a rule anymore. Plus all I did was what is being
done in the current uprising of fourm users, I challenged the mods in
what I belived to be decisions that were ruining the community.
Considering what is happening now, I think it proves I was correct.
3. Graphic vulgarity
An utter lie, as I dont recall commonly being edited for profane speach.
4. Destruction of atmosphere
Funny they accused me of this, when the mods and their overzealous
moderation of the fourm has cause that much more than I ever did.
5. The object of innumberable complaints on the part of many members
and moderators
Essently, SOME people disagred with what I had to say. Hardly reason for a ban.
6. Racism
Now this is an utter damn lie.
7. Publicly posted the IP of a member.
I posted the IP adress of a SGW teamspeak server that a player was
hosting. Apparently, and I only learned this well after the ban, he
was hosting it on his computer. Considering I also only posted it in a
thread about the TS server, the situation would have been simply
resolved by editing it out and sending a PM (but then, pookie seems to
have issues with PMs, and responding to or sending them)
Tok`ra -DaDigi says- Teh fourms are revolting! Tok`ra says- VIVA LA REVOLUTION BABY! says:
I volunter ETL and pookie as my sponsors
Jamie Sheehan - ??? Forum Admin says:
ROFL
they have to agree to it wes
Re: BANNINGS
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 9:58 pm
by System Lord Nephthys
Jack wrote::smt043
Funny but seriously I do not agree to the sponsors being banned thing
yea it would be effectivly being banned for a bas decision and for soemthing someonelse did....
~Neph
Re: BANNINGS
Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:20 am
by HellFire
I like it. It puts pressure on the rule breaker to not continue to do so, and the sponsors ( obviously people who are friends ) would be more then miffed at the fact that they were banned by their friend, for something stupid.
Question, how do you asertain who's a good sponsor? Obviously, if someone creates two new forum accounts, it's hardly fair to say that those are the sponsors, when it very well might be forum multi's. Is there a number of posts they should have?
~HellFire
Re: BANNINGS
Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 8:41 am
by Apadizamek
Jack wrote:It's a bad idea it'll cause more harm then good
Not really. It matters nobody gets to choose "sponsers" , Parole officers aren't your friends. I think it could work if we put a comittee of people who decide matters like that.
I got sponsored out of a banning
A certain mod covered for me in the mod section and vouched for me not to cause trouble.
Re: BANNINGS
Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 9:41 am
by REK
my posts are works of art ..
Re: BANNINGS
Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:24 am
by Trife
What's the point in banning people if you're just going to bring them back?
People who are banned should be banned for the life of this game/forum.
Re: BANNINGS
Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:57 am
by RobinInDaHood
The point isn't whether or not a ban should or should not be made permanent. As long as the rules are the same, a ban should stay.
However, if you have a law on the books, the law is broken, and a person is jailed for it, you can't reasonably keep them in jail if the law is later repealed.
Re: BANNINGS
Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 11:31 am
by Trife
RobinInDaHood wrote:The point isn't whether or not a ban should or should not be made permanent. As long as the rules are the same, a ban should stay.
However, if you have a law on the books, the law is broken, and a person is jailed for it, you can't reasonably keep them in jail if the law is later repealed.
Granted, but when the person is a repeat offender and has avoided bans on the past - one might see the reasoning in barring him from returning. I understand he's been given more than one chance here on these forums. How many does he need?
Re: BANNINGS
Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 12:06 pm
by RobinInDaHood
Trife wrote:Granted, but when the person is a repeat offender and has avoided bans on the past - one might see the reasoning in barring him from returning. I understand he's been given more than one chance here on these forums. How many does he need?
A valid point. However, throughout history people have stood up against an establishment and rules that they don't agree with. The establishment will brand them as miscreants, rebels, or "offenders", to use your vernacular.
In this particular case, he-who-shall-not-be-named was rebelling against a set of rules he felt were oppressive and unfair. Granted, while the rules were in place, he was subject to being banned for breaking them, even if the rules were unjust. His approach to trying to fix the rules was to simply ignore them and it landed him in jail. Others might have chosen to change the laws through other, less overt means. It's just his style.
Once the rules were dissolved, however, the reasons for the ban are summarily invalidated at the same time. That said, if he is unable to comply with the new rules, a ban may be (is?) warranted again. In the interim, the ban needs to be lifted and he be allowed the same opportunity as everyone else to comply with the current rules.
Make sense?
Re: BANNINGS
Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:50 pm
by Apadizamek
he was gonna get booted from modship if i was.
Re: BANNINGS
Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:43 am
by Rottenking
you could allways just add people who have been warned 3 times to a group were their post has to be approved( by a mod) before it gets posted
if they continue to much up, bann them appropriatly
Re: BANNINGS
Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 1:50 am
by Rottenking
Jack wrote:It's possible to do that individually and not make a group
but a group is easyer
Re: BANNINGS
Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 2:51 am
by Zeratul
parole group is much work to handle...
yes, it has been attempted...
Re: BANNINGS
Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 4:56 am
by thaltek
all very interesting concepts and ideas to be considered...
in terms of rules and the layout of the mod team i agree that there is a revolt going on. that isn't better shown here namely because people know they will be modded out, so msn is buzzing with activity right now moreso than usual and those convos are turning into heated debates about the forums.....