Something New

[Mistomeer]

Originally posted by HarmNone
A new mechanism is in place to deal with posters who come to these forums for the specific purpose of derailing threads, posting personal insults despite repeated warnings to cease, and generally causing disruption on the boards. This type of poster will have received U2Us from the moderators letting them know of the problems associated with their posting style, and giving them a chance to rectify the problem.

If you are found by a consensus of the moderators to be such a poster, and if you do not choose to change your posting style to fit more amenably into the boards as a whole, you will be banned for up to 90 days.


Looks like the ToJ rule....Disregard the next paragraph if I read it wrong.

I could give a shit about ToJ or any of his WoW issues, but making up rules just to ban one person is pretty dumb. You have a set of rules, and if he's not violating them to the point where you can ban him, then what you're essentially doing is just banning someone you don't like/agree with. I don't really care and haven't read half his complaints, but from what I have seen, you're just validating his conspiracy theory.

Add to that the several incarnations of post-ban Lycain really just means you're making him come up with a new account as a ban on a free board are completely ineffective.

[Gan]

I actually applied it first to Xcalibur's deluge of ignorant posts. Thinking that this was created just for TOJ is giving him way too much credit.

[Mistomeer]

Originally posted by Ganalon
I actually applied it first to Xcalibur's deluge of ignorant posts. Thinking that this was created just for TOJ is giving him way too much credit.

LOL.

[HarmNone]

This was under discussion before Kranar had to leave for the summer. We just didn't get the chance to implement it. I really don't expect to have to use it very often. It's not something we encounter with the vast majority of our posters. :)

[SpunGirl]

Mistomeer, go look at the "Staff Issues" folder. There are like nine threads in there bitching about issues, all created by TOJ, all recent. Since you said you haven't read them, just take a second to browse through them. ANY TIME that people attemtp to discuss TOJ's complaints and/or accusations with him in any fashion, he either responds that they're fat, stupid, or should not be reading the thread.

Yet he continues to complain over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. This kind of behavior even bled over into the Negativo thread where he was called out for lying about a WoW character. I'd say that he was disuptive to the extreme, if nothing else. In a perfect message board world, there would never need to be a rule like this... but even Xcalibur isn't as bad as TOJ was.

Not to mention the fact that TOJ also resorted to threatening people in u2u and outright on the boards. Really, what else do we need for a ban? I say bravo to the mods for taking care of this shit.

-K

[Mistomeer]

Originally posted by SpunGirl

Not to mention the fact that TOJ also resorted to threatening people in u2u and outright on the boards. Really, what else do we need for a ban? I say bravo to the mods for taking care of this shit.

-K

I was under the impression that the current TOS and Rules were there to assign points for such posts that would lead to the ban without having to add the ToJ clause. I just think that, without wasting 2 days reading all his complaints, that giving him the attention will just validate him.

It's like, Hey, they're out to get me, now they made up a rule and banned me based on that new rule. Again, I'm not reading all that crap, I've skimmed it, but if it's as bad as you, and most everyone else for that matter, says, there should be plenty of material to assign poitns based off of. That and if you use the board, U2U or otherwise, to threaten someone, I would think that would just be an auto-ban. Hell, posting dirty tatoo pictures is, why not a personal threat?

[Artha]

He might've been banned based on the rule that the Administrator is allowed to ban whoever they want. Or he might've been banned because he posted something you didn't see that pushed him over the edge in points.

The world may never know.

[HarmNone]

A lot of damage can be done before 50 points are accumulated, Mistomeer, considering that one point is dropped for each five days elapsed. There are those who will play just within the limits of 50 points and cause a lot of problems while doing so. Those are the people to which this rule applies.

Additionally, personal threats will fall under this rule, as well. Like I said, it won't affect the vast majority of posters and isn't something to be concerned about.

[Latrinsorm]

If you're worried about people hovering, wouldn't it make more sense to have a sliding scale for point absolution? Like the points from 40-49 take 25 days each to go away, the points from 30-39 take 20 each, 20-29 15 each, 10-19 10 each. I thought the point of the rules was to reduce subjectivity, while this one seems to be wholly subjective.

I can't say I agree with this rule or the sliding scale.

Sliding scale would make bans ridiculously long and not very fun.

This rule? Awful. Listen.. You get banned at 50 points. People shouldn't be subject to a "Mod descretion" with no solid measurable substance to back it up. Nope. Don't like it.

- Arkans

[Gan]

I look at it like a loophole for the mods to use against those who exploit loopholes in the rules.

If I ever am the target of said rule, then I would just move on and find another sand box to play in. Its not like this is the only bbs on the internet.

Although it is the AUTHORITATIVE GEMSTONE PLAYERS CORNER bbs, so one must recognize its authorita-a-a-a-a-y.

[Anebriated]

They should at least add into the clause that no points will be taken away if a point has been gained in the previous 5 days.

Either way most of what ToJ has done has been within the guidelines, its just annoying. Can't ban someone just for being a little bitch(much to the admin team's dismay).

[Gan]

I dont think it was all the whining that got TOJ banned. I could be wrong though.

[Anebriated]

Dont know, the majority of his posts that I actually read were just him whining about how he was wronged in some way or another. I must have missed everything worthy of the ban.

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Ganalon
I dont think it was all the whining that got TOJ banned. I could be wrong though.

I think the threats (both posted and U2U'd) were the final straw.

Having access to his violations, I can say that he had been accumulating points for the past month - and was notified multiple times of his current score.

This wasn't some "spur of the moment" banning.

It may not be, but it's all about how the posting public percieves it. To me, this is a little bit much. I'm not a fan of this one bit.

- Arkans

[Mistomeer]

Originally posted by HarmNone

Additionally, personal threats will fall under this rule, as well. Like I said, it won't affect the vast majority of posters and isn't something to be concerned about.

I'm not personally concerned about it affecting me, but I am concerned that you put clearly defined rules in place then decide that they're basically crap and the mods will just ban who they want, as long as a majority agrees.

[Gan]

I think it would be a rare day for a majority of the mods to find agreement on something as serious as banning someone. We have a fairly free minded and independant mod staff from what I've seen. Collusion on their part would be very rare indeed.

It might be rare or it might not be rare. No one knows for sure. What we do know for sure is that it goes straight against the whole "clear cut system" that the message board was trying to create.

- Arkans

[DeV]

I agree with Arkans. Also, I thought the demerit system was working out pretty well.

[Bobmuhthol]

The idea of, "If most mods want it, then it shall be done," goes so far against the entire purpose of a set of rules that it makes a tyrannous dictatorship look like utopia.

[Trinitis]

So insted of complaining about the rule, how about giving us ideas?

Problem : A very small % of the board are being disruptive and "walking the line" with the 50 point system. They will work themselves up to 40-45 points, then be good for a while, and do it again.

Solution : Add a clause to the rules that, once a trouble maker of the above standered is identified, the mods can vote, and ban this person for up to 90 days. (Note, using the point system, then minimum ban time is 100 days.)

Responce : This is stupid! You guys suck at making rules.


So, it's not like we can't take ideas. Help us out if you don't like it.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<So insted of complaining about the rule, how about giving us ideas?>>

I think everyone that complained about the rule also implied (some said outright) that they liked the demerit system. Why should we give you ideas when you're making entirely new rules that shouldn't exist?

<<Responce : This is stupid! You guys suck at making rules.>>

Okay, I will honestly give my best advice for your problem/solution.

Shut the fuck up and deal with it, because the posters in question are unquestionably being banned for not breaking rules if they are banned under a 'disruption clause.' Why should I have to make your job easier by telling you how to easily ban members who do not qualify for banning?

<<(Note, using the point system, then minimum ban time is 100 days.)>>

So it's like specifically lowering the threshold of allowable demerit points to 44 instead of 49 for people you don't like! High five!

[Miss X]

Yes, that is basically our problem. The demerit system rocks, I much prefer it. However, there are a small number of posters that skate so close to the line, yet never quite cross it. They are causing disruption though, often a lot of it.

We have a routine where those posters will come here, cause problems but never quite hit 50 points. They then go away for a while, let their points go down and return and do the same thing.

This is not fair on our regular posters, and it is not fair when it is taking all of my time and other moderators time simply dealing with one poster.

The rule about being banned at the discretion of the admin has always existed, it's nothing new. Harmnone was simply stating that she works mostly via consensus which in all honesty, is far better than one person making the choice.

I can assure you, we do not have some secret survivor style polling thread in our staff folders. It's more a case of discussion about a problem, and trying to gage how many of us see it as a problem. There are often differing view points which means the balance is better.

We are absolutely not going to be banning random people for no reason at all. If you stick to our ToS and violations policy you have nothing at all to worry about. It's that simple.

[Brattt8525]

<<<<Originally posted by HarmNone
A new mechanism is in place to deal with posters who come to these forums for the specific purpose of derailing threads, posting personal insults despite repeated warnings to cease, and generally causing disruption on the boards. This type of poster will have received U2Us from the moderators letting them know of the problems associated with their posting style, and giving them a chance to rectify the problem.

If you are found by a consensus of the moderators to be such a poster, and if you do not choose to change your posting style to fit more amenably into the boards as a whole, you will be banned for up to 90 days. <<<<<<


I am not sure why this new rule is so hard to understand, or accept. If you want to personally insult someone take it to IMs or U2U. Or is being allowed to be an isulting king/queen that important to you? If it is then you have more then this new rule to be concerned with.

[Tsa`ah]

But how can it be that simple?

I think you lie!

[Trinitis]

So basicly us mods are screwed no matter what we do. We have a person disruptive on the board, playing a game with the point system and everyone hates them. We have 3 options.

1. Use a HMP rule. Everyone bitches at us.

2. Fall back on the "Admins can ban anyone, anytime" rule. Everyone bitches at us.

3. Ignore the poster and wait for the points to hit the cap, which they never do, and because this person never gets banned, everyone bitches at us.


Ok, if that's how you want it. Fine.

You may send all complaints about mods to my u2u box. That way everyone else can do their job, and I can ignore you.

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Miss X
I can assure you, we do not have some secret survivor style polling thread in our staff folders.
We are absolutely not going to be banning random people for no reason at all.

If we ever decided to do that, I'm pretty sure my alliance has the votes to get Dave off the PC Island.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<However, there are a small number of posters that skate so close to the line, yet never quite cross it.>>

Wait for them to cross it, or live with the fact that it's their choice to do so and should not be treated differently than any other poster because of it.

<<This is not fair on our regular posters, and it is not fair when it is taking all of my time and other moderators time simply dealing with one poster.>>

It is fair, actually. They can do it within the banning system of this forum just as much as you can. You simply choose not to.

<<The rule about being banned at the discretion of the admin has always existed, it's nothing new.>>

It's a failsafe and should never have to come into action.

<<I was simply stating that she works mostly via consensus which in all honesty, is far better than one person making the choice.>>

I'm confident enough to say with certainty that HarmNone banned TOJ with some approval from you, CrystalTears, and maybe another mod or two. It was a case of 'the admin can ban whoever for whatever reason, justified or not.' Don't try to justify it.

<<We are absolutely not going to be banning random people for no reason at all. If you stick to our ToS and violations policy you have nothing at all to worry about. It's that simple.>>

I'm well aware of this: you are banning people for doing something that is allowed but that you do not like.

[Brattt8525]

My god get a little more anal why don't you. Posting here is a privilage not a fucking right of passage. If you are trouble making poster who disrupts the boards for your own jollies then get out and find some other place to spew your crap.

As much as you feel the right to say what you want, insult derail threads etc, the people who monitor these boards have the right to ban you. If you have a problem with it, don't let the door hit you where the good lord split you.

[Anebriated]

So basicly us mods are screwed no matter what we do. We have a person disruptive on the board, playing a game with the point system and everyone hates them. We have 3 options.

1. Use a HMP rule. Everyone bitches at us.

2. Fall back on the "Admins can ban anyone, anytime" rule. Everyone bitches at us.

3. Ignore the poster and wait for the points to hit the cap, which they never do, and because this person never gets banned, everyone bitches at us.

Or use a scaling system similar to what arkans posted earlier.

First time up, a person is continuously disruptive. Add a clause stating that no points will be taken away if a point has been gained in the last 5 days.

A person gets banned and returns and is still disruptive. Lower the number of points needed the second time around. 50 points to reach ban #1, 30 for ban #2, 20 for #3(ban the IP for life).

Also, add a clause saying that if you gain a certain number of points within a certain time frame you will be banned(maybe only 30 days). This will stop those people who come, are disruptive, then leave until their points drop.

There are other options, best idea might be to just open up a thread to suggestions from those of us who do post here reguarly. Let the people speak and find the pro's and con's of different suggestions.

[Brattt8525]

>>>>Or use a scaling system similar to what arkans posted earlier.

First time up, a person is continuously disruptive. Add a clause stating that no points will be taken away if a point has been gained in the last 5 days.

A person gets banned and returns and is still disruptive. Lower the number of points needed the second time around. 50 points to reach ban #1, 30 for ban #2, 20 for #3(ban the IP for life).

Also, add a clause saying that if you gain a certain number of points within a certain time frame you will be banned(maybe only 30 days). This will stop those people who come, are disruptive, then leave until their points drop.

There are other options, best idea might be to just open up a thread to suggestions from those of us who do post here reguarly. Let the people speak and find the pro's and con's of different suggestions. <<<<


Oh be sure to add to that list when its time to burp and change the disruptive posters too!

[Bobmuhthol]

<<My god get a little more anal why don't you. Posting here is a privilage not a fucking right of passage. If you are trouble making poster who disrupts the boards for your own jollies then get out and find some other place to spew your crap.>>

You act like you have to deal with these posters *at all*. You don't. Shut the fuck up; I don't need to read this when I'm discussing something. You've accomplished nothing.

<<As much as you feel the right to say what you want, insult derail threads etc, the people who monitor these boards have the right to ban you. If you have a problem with it, don't let the door hit you where the good lord split you.>>

I'm not guilty of any behavior that would get me banned, so it's all good on my end. But to say, "I'm using the ultimate power given to me to ban this person because I just don't like them anymore," isn't a very good reason. I'm not telling them they can't do it. I can't tell them they can't do it. I'm just saying that if they're going to do it, they should do it on their own accord and deal with any posters posting about how they don't like it. My concern is trying to make a rule to justify not liking people. There's no use in rewriting the rule that anyone can be banned at any time for no reason to make it sound better and more acceptable when you ban someone using that exact rule.

[Gan]

Case in point.

In representing one described as Miss X stated above.

I am one of 'those' posters, a parasite or board troll if you will. I will hop on any thread, and instead of contributing, I will make infmammatory remarks towards the other participants in that discussion and attempt to engender an argument on those remarks thus de-railing the thread into sheer bedlam.

I continue to argue, and post with nothing that even remotely contributes to the discussion, until I get a U2U warning me that some of my posts have been deleted and I'm accruing points. Now that the mods are deleting my posts in that thread, I move onto another thread and continue the same routine. Once I get the U2U advising me of more points accrual and deleted posts, I move on again.

And I keep doing this until I get the U2U stating that I'm hovering around the 45 point mark which means that a ban is coming up if I dont modify my posting methods, my behavior. So I take a break, and dont appear for a while, long enough in fact that my overall point total falls to within allowable limits for me to restart my non-contributing and parasitic behavior until my point totals rise back up to the 45 point mark.

Am I being disruptive as described above? Yes
Am I accruing points as described above? Yes
Am I diminishing the experience and time of others attempting to carry on a discussion as described above? Yes
Am I breaking any rules? Yes - thats why you're accruing points.
Am I abusing the rules by ceasing said behavior in order to avoid greater punishment? Yes
Am I being high maintenance for the moderators who have to deal with deleting, warning, and all the other extra activities associated with my disruptive behavior? Yes

Ergo, the most reasonable solution to date is the rule HN described above which is more lienent than just falling back on banning can be at the discretion of the administrator. The assumption of fairness only goes as far as the consideration that everyone's particpation here is voluntary and there is no fee paid for services by the user.

10 run Imanidiot.cmd
20 if points > 45 then goto sleepmode.cmd
30 goto 10

[Brattt8525]

>>>You act like you have to deal with these posters *at all*. You don't. Shut the fuck up; I don't need to read this when I'm discussing something. You've accomplished nothing. <<<

And your accomplishing what? Bitching about something that only takes common sense to understand? Play within the rules or as you like to put it Shut the Fuck Up.

[DeV]

Bratt, no one is saying the rule is not understandable. That is not a point of contention in my case.

Just because I voiced my concern, albeit short, about the new rule doesn't mean I will have any problems abiding by it for the benefit of myself and all posters and Mods on this board. I don't consider myself to be a problem poster, but I simply felt the demerit system was doing it's job. I still stand behind the Mods 100% on doing their duty and doing it in the best way they see possible, but that doesn't mean I won't say I disagree with it being implemented.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<And your accomplishing what? Bitching about something that only takes common sense to understand? Play within the rules or as you like to put it Shut the Fuck Up.>>

hahahahahahahaha

OMFG. You realize that THE VERY PEOPLE YOU ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT ARE THOSE WHO ARE PLAYING WITHIN THE RULES AND BEING BANNED FOR IT? JESUS CHRIST.


<<(ban the IP for life).>>

This is useless and should not be considered. An IP ban will be of absolutely no convenience to anyone. They are not effective on this forum. The sliding scale you're suggesting has more flaws than the current system. When you're banned and serve a minimum 100 day ban, you should come back without any penalties. If you lower the threshold for bans, ban times will also decrease accordingly. 20 points = 40 days. Three bans meaning a life ban is also personally absurd. I've been banned twice (not under demerit system), and I'd say most people agree that I am a strong member of the posting community.

<<Also, add a clause saying that if you gain a certain number of points within a certain time frame you will be banned(maybe only 30 days). This will stop those people who come, are disruptive, then leave until their points drop.>>

It will also stop people who commit one violation and get a minimum of 25 points for it (serious violations, of course). For every clause suggested, there has to be another 5 clauses explaining instances where the original clause can not be applied.

[Brattt8525]

>>. My concern is trying to make a rule to justify not liking people. There's no use in rewriting the rule that anyone can be banned at any time for no reason to make it sound better and more acceptable when you ban someone using that exact rule.<<<

The rule is anyone who continues to derail, cause trouble to the point where they become HM then there is a problem. If they do not heed warnings to stop said behavior they can be banned, where in the hell do you get from that, that they will be banning people they just don't like?

[Brattt8525]

>>Bratt, no one is saying the rule is not understandable. That is not a point of contention in my case. <<

As has already been stated by the Mods people are skirting what they tried to put into place, so now they have to revamp the system. Who is at fault? surely not the mods right.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<where in the hell do you get from that, that they will be banning people they just don't like?>>

Who do you think determines whether or not posters are worthy of being banned? (hint: mods + admins)

Do you think they're going to be unbiased in their decision? I certainly don't. It's a matter of who annoys them the most instead of who really deserves to be banned.

[Brattt8525]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
<<where in the hell do you get from that, that they will be banning people they just don't like?>>

Who do you think determines whether or not posters are worthy of being banned? (hint: mods + admins)

Do you think they're going to be unbiased in their decision? I certainly don't. It's a matter of who annoys them the most instead of who really deserves to be banned.

You may have a point there, but so far I think they <the majority> have proved they aren't out to do that. It is all a matter of your personal perspective though.

[Gan]

I guess being a winner is having the ability to adapt to the rules of any given situation and still being successful. If you cant adapt then that makes you a non-winner. :loser:

I just consider myself a guest in someone elses house. In this house is a lot of folks sittng around enjoying socratic discussions about various and numerous topics.

If I'm rude to the point that it offends other guests and or the host/owner of the house, then I would reasonably expect to be warned. If I disregarded the warn and continued said offensive behavior then I would reasonably expect to have my ass booted out the front door.

We are all a guest in Kranar's house. Its not the only house on the block but it is his ergo we must abide by his rules if we choose to remain inside.

[Bobmuhthol]

They may have seemingly been doing a decent job so far, but it's simply not practical to say they can't miss things or prefer to ban one poster over another. The suggested (and unfortunately implemented) clause is 100% opinion-based. It goes against Kranar's original system that allowed moderators to do only their job: deleting posts they deemed a violation. Kranar handled whether or not the deleted posts were actually a violation and assigned points accordingly. Now that his position has been filled by HarmNone, problems are suddenly arising and new clauses have to be implemented to ban whoever staff deems disruptive. It's a glorified way of saying, "We can ban whoever we want." They just want to make themselves feel better by attempting to justify it.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Brattt8525
>>Bratt, no one is saying the rule is not understandable. That is not a point of contention in my case. <<

As has already been stated by the Mods people are skirting what they tried to put into place, so now they have to revamp the system. Who is at fault? surely not the mods right. Of course not, and you see no mention of blame in my posts do you?

As I stated, I fully support any changes that are made to the site. I also fully support that I will voice disagreement given my opinion about the change if I so feel.

Those who've been banned following this new implemention have only themselves to blame. As I said, my only issue is I felt the demerit system was doing what it was intended to do when disruptions were seriously getting out of hand.

What more explaining do you need me to do? Also, you might want to try and lower your use of generalizations so I don't feel a need to reply everytime you mention someone not understanding and/or comprehending the new rule simply because they do not "automatically" agree that it is necessary.

[Brattt8525]

>>What more explaining do you need me to do? Also, you might want to try and lower your use of generalizations so I don't feel a need to reply everytime you mention someone not understanding and/or comprehending the new rule simply because they do not "automatically" agree that it is necessary. <<

More explaining? wtf I merely replied to your "I think the point system worked" I pointed out what the mods did saying it was being skirted, this is a way perhaps to get past those skirting it. It was in no way an insult to your comphrensive skills.

[Sean]

It's impossible to have a 100% objective banning. Even if your banned by accumulating points via the demerit system. The inital removal of posts is subjective (mod interpretation of the rule, as we aren't a collective this varies), the determination of whether or not points should be assessed (administrative decision but still based on their feelings) and then the assessment of point value (where they fall in the range of potential points) are all based around an individuals 'bias'.

I also think it's a bit of a misconception (atleast from what I see to be the trend) that we (the mods) are in agreement on all or even most of the issues related to posters.

[DeV]

And I'm not trying to insult your comprehension either, Bratt.

However, I can refer you to the question you asked and I answered, which is also highlighted in bold. It seemed you assumed someone was out to blame someone for something that was the cause of someone's own actions either directly or indirectly. That is not the case, and so the back and forth banter culminates to simple missunderstanding of the viewpoint I was taking.

As an aside, I refer you to what you posted on 7-21-2005 at 11:08 Post ID: 405709. Perhaps, that being the reason for my question about what more explaining needed to be done.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<It's impossible to have a 100% objective banning.>>

Agreed. However, I think things were handled much better with Kranar as the only active administrator.

You're right about the demerit system having biases, but it's on a much smaller scale. A mod can remove 1,000 posts - if none of them were violations to Kranar, none of them received points. The only time it really causes a problem is when a post is not removed; in this instance, it can be brought to the admin. Kranar wrote the system, so he understands it best. Now that other people are trying to rewrite it to fit their needs, it sucks.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Adredrin
So insted of complaining about the rule, how about giving us ideas?Elrodin and I have each already suggested one. In response to Arkans' problem with mine, two possibilities would be people are unbanned when they reach the sub-50 mark or during a ban points are reduced at the previous rate (5 - 1). Here's another idea: lower the cap or make each rule be worth more demerits.

Of course, you ignored me the first time, I don't know why this time will be any different.
Originally posted by Miss X
They then go away for a while, let their points go down and return and do the same thing. Isn't that all a ban is?
Originally posted by Tijay
It's impossible to have a 100% objective banning.That is true but does not mean a 100% subjective banning is a tolerable practice.

[Sean]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Tijay
It's impossible to have a 100% objective banning.That is true but does not mean a 100% subjective banning is a tolerable practice.

It's a practice that you agreed to when you joined the boards and how many times has it been invoked since then?

[Gan]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Originally posted by Miss X
They then go away for a while, let their points go down and return and do the same thing. Isn't that all a ban is?

Banning is a form of punitive action awarded to those who've broken the rules. Since the frequency of the disruptive behavior seems to be the crux of the new rule, then perhaps lowering the point threshold for banning would reduce the amount of said behavior.

To reduce the frequency of said behavior as well would only requre a more lengthy time period for the demerit points to fall off. A shorter leash I'm thinking.

Basically what was mentioned earlier, just in a different description.

[Edited on 7-21-2005 by Ganalon]

[Latrinsorm]

Wasn't the point of implementing the demerit system to reduce the subjectivity inherent in the previous system? Why would we go backwards, when multiple objective (though arbitrary) solutions present themselves?

[HarmNone]

We haven't gone backward. The demerit system is still in place, and will be the primary system by which the boards are regulated.

The HMP rule is simply in place to deal with exceptions. It is not in place to deal with the vast majority of posters. In actuality, I don't expect ever to have to use it. However, before Kranar left we realized we needed something like it to deal with those rare exceptions, and were discussing the length of ban that would be assigned if it did have to be used. We'd already realized we needed to have a way to deal with people who were here for the sole purpose of disruption. If that isn't you, you have nothing to be concerned about.

The final decision as to whether a ban is to be instituted will still fall to me until Kranar's return. I happen to be a person who works through consensus. I ask others for opinions and input. Those others, in this case, will be the staff. Knowing the staff as I do, it's a certainty that nobody is going to be banned because "someone doesn't like them". There's enough diversity in this staff to prevent that altogether. Conversely, if the Administrator can ban at will, that would put everyone at my whim. I wouldn't like that if I were a poster. I'd rather know that my indiscretions were being looked at by more than one person, because I'd have a better chance that somebody in there might just understand where I was coming from.

Nothing here is ever beyond discussion. I'm reading your responses, and I'm listening and giving you my views. I'd like to see this continue. If we need to make some adjustments, we can certainly do so. Just realize that we're not putting something in place so we can "get" those we don't like. If that were true, the administrative powers granted by TOS would already have resulted in the demise of certain posters. Kranar never used it, and neither have I.

The fact is.. People can bitch and whine all they want. If a poster does not have enough points to be banned, then they shouldn't. This creates so many possibilities for problems that I can't even begin to count.

More or less though I agree with Bob 100% on this topic.

Anyway, my idea is just to keep the demerit system. It's all that can be done. Kranar should be the only one that can implement new rules and not anybody else. It is his system after all.

- Arkans

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Knowing the staff as I do, it's a certainty that nobody is going to be banned because "someone doesn't like them". There's enough diversity in this staff to prevent that altogether.>>

Knowing people as I do, it's a certainty that someone is going to be banned because "the entire staff doesn't like them."

<<Kranar never used it, and neither have I.>>

Because you made an arbitrary rule to fit the situation seconds before using it.

[Edited on 7-21-2005 by Bobmuhthol]

[Albuterol]

Originally posted by HarmNone
...problems associated with their posting style...


A GM once said that to me, cept he said roleplay style instead. I wonder who your rolemodel is...

[HarmNone]

As I said, Arkans, this is something that Kranar was well aware of. He had approved a system by which a real problem poster could be dealt with that was outside the demerit system. This has not been done without his input.

Maybe not "just because they don't like him", but someone's opinion on people will 100% have a bearing in a system like this.

I mean.. One Mod already told me their extreme dislike to me when I first started posting and actively campaigned for my removal. Hrmm..

- Arkans

[Gan]

Originally posted by Arkans
Kranar should be the only one that can implement new rules and not anybody else. It is his system after all.
- Arkans

Kranar gave that authority to HN when he granted her the Administrator over the PC in his absence. Should he disagree then I'm sure he will revise upon his return. Until then, HN=Kranar (except in ownership) until Kranar determines otherwise.

[Anebriated]

I agree with most that has been said here. However there are some people who are criticizing the suggestions being made without giving any of their own(Brattt and Adredrin are the 2 that come to mind). I am not saying that my suggestions are the only way to go, Bob gave valid reasons why mine wouldn't work. At least its something to start with.

We have established that we arent satisfied with the changes made, so make some suggestions or revisions or else STFU.

[Gan]

Originally posted by ArkansI mean.. One Mod already told me their extreme dislike to me when I first started posting and actively campaigned for my removal. Hrmm..

- Arkans


Elaborate? Such activity surely would not have gone unnoticed.

I'd rather not, honestly, so you're going to have to take my word for it.

I know it might make some posters feel uncomfortable with this information out there, but it was partially caused by bad communication. The situation was fixed before it got further.

Again, I apologize for not, but it's just to keep people that shouldn't be in the fire out of it.

- Arkans

[Miss X]

....


ROFL, when Arkans first started posting here I didn't like him. When Arkans and I became friendly, via AIM, I told him during a conversation that I did not like his posting style at the start, but felt it had improved a lot. I also jokingly said to him, that I'd have liked him to be banned at that point, and had joked about it. To my knowledge, he did not take offence at that statement and actually found it funny. Perhaps I was wrong...

Be aware, there is no conspiracy. There is no active campaign by myself to get any current posters banned. There is also no thread in the staff folders started by myself, actively campaigning for Arkans, or any other poster to be banned.

:)

I didn't mind it, Chica and I did laugh with you. Before I became friendly it might have pushed me into saying, "TAKE A JOKE GODS U UPTIGHT", but now I laugh at it.

- Arkans

PS: WAY TO MAKE ME LOOK STUPID AFTER TRYING TO KEEP IT HUSH HUSH

/cry

[Miss X]

Originally posted by Arkans
I didn't mind it, Chica and I did laugh with you. Before I became friendly it might have pushed me into saying, "TAKE A JOKE GODS U UPTIGHT", but now I laugh at it.

- Arkans

PS: WAY TO MAKE ME LOOK STUPID AFTER TRYING TO KEEP IT HUSH HUSH

/cry


Hehehe, I'd have kept it quiet if I'd felt I had anything to hide hon. ;)

[Gan]

:lol:

Understood Arkans, and I respect your approach.

:clap: Chica for her honesty and brevity.

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Arkans
Maybe not "just because they don't like him", but someone's opinion on people will 100% have a bearing in a system like this.

I mean.. One Mod already told me their extreme dislike to me when I first started posting and actively campaigned for my removal. Hrmm..

- Arkans

Heh. Oddly enough, Arkans, you're still here. Obviously, that mod's dislike for you hasn't had any adverse effect.

Now, let's say that mod had been me... I'm now the Administrator. The TOS gives me the power to remove a poster without having to explain myself. However, if I have to go to the other members of staff before I can do so, that gives you other voices to speak in your defense. It puts reins on me, so to speak.

It's nothing to hide at all, Chica, it's just this thread will surely attract the idiots that could use a funny and silly situation into something serious and try to make a case out of it. Best way to cut those jerks off is by not letting them have ammunition.

- Arkans

PS: One of the best things about being a board troll is knowing how they work :D

[Brattt8525]

>>>I agree with most that has been said here. However there are some people who are criticizing the suggestions being made without giving any of their own(Brattt and Adredrin are the 2 that come to mind). I am not saying that my suggestions are the only way to go, Bob gave valid reasons why mine wouldn't work. At least its something to start with. <<<<<

I agree with this new rule, as long as, as Bob stated which I agree with someone isn't banned just because he/she isn't liked.

My feeling is that the whole problem would be easily fixed if we didn't have people who like to be jerks. People will be so the Mods must take measures to control that, period. Sad that it comes to this but sadder that some posters can't seem to control themselves so its up to the Mods to do it for them.

[Edited on 7-21-2005 by Brattt8525]

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by ArkansI mean.. One Mod already told me their extreme dislike to me when I first started posting and actively campaigned for my removal. Hrmm..

- Arkans


Elaborate? Such activity surely would not have gone unnoticed.

Hee! It obviously did go unnoticed, as this is the first I've known of it. Just shows to go you that there's not a whole lot of plotting going on behind the scenes here. ;)

It just goes to show how slick I am with following ToS :D

- Arkans

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Arkans
It's nothing to hide at all, Chica, it's just this thread will surely attract the idiots that could use a funny and silly situation into something serious and try to make a case out of it. Best way to cut those jerks off is by not letting them have ammunition.

- Arkans

PS: One of the best things about being a board troll is knowing how they work :D

I hate to burst your bubble, Arkans, but you're not a board troll...at least, you're not my idea of a board troll. Sorry, hon. :P

So I was marching down the street and it was a nice sunny day. My parade was great, everyone was cheering, I was having a great time... THEN HARMNONE COMES AND PISSES ALL OVER IT :(

- Arkans

[HarmNone]

:dog:

It's a dirty job but somebody has to do it. :whistle:

<--- Godfrey and myself are made sad by you... Real real real sad.

- Arkans

[HarmNone]

I am succeeding in my mission! :D

[Jolena]

I honestly think that until we have reason to believe that someone was banned due to the simple fact of 'not being liked by the staff' that we really shouldn't be so quick to jump to the conclusion that it will happen.

With TOJ, which spurned all of this talk, he'd been a disruption to not only the staff and overall atmosphere of the boards but to the individual posters as well. The board admins and mods have a job to do which includes making sure that these boards are somewhere that the majority of people enjoy. When the majority of the posters here are being disrupted by a poster who manages to also skirt the demerit system and avoid being banned, its in the best interests of the boards as a whole AND its owner (if he/she wishes to continue to have boards that are visited often) to get rid of said disruption. That was the case with TOJ I'm sure IF the clause was actually used to ban him. We honestly don't know if he was banned by the clause or by his points accumulation.

Having anything to do with votes will ALWAYS be subject to bias. We are unsure who the Mods of tomorrow will be. We are unsure of who tomorrow's Mods may not like.

- Arkans

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Arkans
Having anything to do with votes will ALWAYS be subject to bias. We are unsure who the Mods of tomorrow will be. We are unsure of who tomorrow's Mods may not like.

- Arkans

I have said nothing about "votes", Arkans. You're reading into what I wrote. I mentioned consensus, which is my leadership style. It has nothing to do with "votes". It's a simple matter of requesting the thoughts of staff on a given question, whether it be a poster, the addition of new smilies, or adding another folder. I'd like to know what the rest of the staff thinks about an issue. However, the end decision will be mine. That's how it has to be, in the end. The staff input simply allows me the opportunity to question my own thinking and to ferret out areas in which my own predjudices might be putting the wrong spin on things.

[Miss X]

I hate everyone. Just so you're clear. ;)

[AnticorRifling]

I want your babies.

[Ravenstorm]

I don't see the problem myself.

There's always been the 'anyone can be banned if the administrator of the board believes it's necessary' clause. HN could simply have banned TOJ as being disruptive under previous rules. That there's this new one only gives people more warning as to what kind of behavior they need to avoid.

In other words, don't be an ass. How hard is it to follow?

Raven

[Edited on 7-21-2005 by Ravenstorm]

[HarmNone]

In actuality, the rule isn't new. As has been pointed out, it's just an explanation, and a refinement, of the administrator's right to ban anyone, at any time, for any reason. I really felt that needed defining, as it would make ME nervous as a poster. Even though it's never been used, it's there in TOS, and allows pretty sweeping powers to one person without much definition.

[Gan]

As was posted on the first page of this thread (20:59 7.20.05)... I believe HN actually described the reason why TOJ was banned, even though she did not say it outright...


Originally posted by HarmNone
A lot of damage can be done before 50 points are accumulated, Mistomeer, considering that one point is dropped for each five days elapsed. There are those who will play just within the limits of 50 points and cause a lot of problems while doing so. Those are the people to which this rule applies.

Additionally, personal threats will fall under this rule, as well. Like I said, it won't affect the vast majority of posters and isn't something to be concerned about.

Considering that TOJ sent a U2U threatening someone else, as well as making the same innuendo by requesting my address publically; I'd hazard to guess that this was the true cause of his bananananation instead of the fact that he was being a complete and utter child in his behavior here. Points aside, the threats are what sunk his little boat I bet.