Since SFOG is really a powerless body within an absolute monarchy, it would be much more honest to just have a personal complaints department- Or PM mods with your hurt feelings, so long as public personal aggrandizement and schadenfreude isn't what's driving you.

I doubt that Dave makes such decisions on the basis of unpopularity contests, because it wouldn't be sensible: These little mobs, with most always the same cast of characters, are not in the least bit representative of our Intelligent Communities. Thanks.

You are free to restrict your own powers. But doesn't it seem rather curious that you would voluntarily deny yourselves a particular avenue of power I have granted you?

Obviously the mods and myself would still ban people, lest spammers and trolls run rampant.

Ban everybody and let God sort them out.....

Dee cee

Isn't there such a thing as "IGNORE" if you have an issue with someone?

How would this be enforced? Would there be an addendum to the rules?

Ban bans ban banning banlessly. Such powers are rightly left to the almighty al-Porfiry. But if bans be not banned, I propose that popularity polls be not tallied, in strict accordance with the Tally-ban.

Ban bans ban banning banlessly?

What?


Wouldn't this act nullify itself?

This does seem fairly silly. Rather then people attack each other in other threads, it would seem better for them to attack each other in a 'ban so an so' thread.

More so, it brings attention to people the mods may not have been paying attention to. The decision is theirs in the end anyhow.

Then an SF Obnoxiousness Community definitely should be established, so that annoying and inane posters can be singled out for culling with minimal effort.

Um... I gotta go.

I think there should be more banning. But not for being 'mean' or 'offensive' but rather for being stupid. Like really stupid.
You know how there's a clearly visible line between rational and irrational? Come on, we can all see it, if you can't you are probably on the irrational side.
Plenty of people I don't like are on the rational side.
Some people though are just really really bad. This is apparently an intelligent community, not a friendly community, so instead of banning mean people we should ban dumb people.
I know someones going to say "ahh what like you? lol" but we all know what I'm saying here. Flagrantly mentally challenged individuals. The ones that can't learn a thing.
They're everywhere. Its kind of embarrassing. We should really do something about it.

I was first drawn to Sciforums by the assumption that it attracts more intellectually active people than other boards I've seen. For me, spontaneous cleverness among the unwashed masses is more stimulating than a gated intelligent community. I think we have to suffer fools grudgingly if we're not going to mimic so many intellectually inbred snobs in so many ivory towers.

There is no point in banning since you could just make a new account under a different e-mail address. Wow, you lost all your posts, who will care?

There is no point in banning since you could just make a new account under a different e-mail address. Wow, you lost all your posts, who will care?

they can do more than just ban your email address.

How about this, instead of banning bad members, porfiry tweaks some software so that bad members can actually be litterally sucked into sciforums through their monitor at home, so that there bodies are eternally trapped inside sciforums.
There could be a special subforum for displaying their wriggling anguished carcasses.
Porfiry would need to tweak it just a little more so that the experience of being trapped in sciforums was particularly painful and uncomfortable.
It would be really neat to look into the pained tortured face of a banned/trapped member in a special part of the forum set aside for that purpose.
Also perhaps we could paypal baskets of cyber-tomatoes, and click on a button so that the tomatoe would be thrown at the banned member. Ofcourse for the banned member this would feel like he was really being pelted by big juicy tomatoes and it would hurt, but not really enough for him to forget the inherit non-stop pain that naturally comes with having your body trapped inside an internet message board, which would be unbelievably horrible. As would the humiliation of being looked at while in such pain- and pelted with tomatoes- by thousands of people. Thats the most important part, it needs to be an incredibly painful experience, both physically and emotionally. That way the sci-crim display case subforum would act as a great deterrent to would be sci-crims because the look on the face of those displayed would make it all too apparent how torturous it is.
Or would this take up too much bandwidth?

Or would this take up too much bandwidth?

I'm willing to pay for the extra bandwidth to see this!!!!!

How about instead of banning member we put them on a "Master ignore" so that everyone sees them as "this person is being ignore by the forum for _____ reasons, click here if you wish to read their reply.” But most of all don't tell the person such a thing is being done to them!

No seriously I think some from of better control has to be done on Banning polls, they just come out as popularity contest instead of actually judging the accused based of the crimes they supposedly did. I think only a moderator should be allow to make banning poll as they can put together all the logical and valid reason to ban a person and enforce quality control.

And/Or lock a banning poll from having posts added to it, so that no one can add there illogical and possibly stupid reason below it.

Or we could have trials with radomly selected Judge and Jury?

Dr Lou Natic,
Here a pic of Green_world in the sciforum torture chamber your described:
Green_world in sciforum hell!!! (http://www.theexcuse.com/scannered/images/vertical/face.jpg)

Keep the polls; require the voting to be open.

:m: Peace.

HAHAHA
Thats perfect WCF :cool:

In all walks of life there are idiots and troublemakers, nuisances and pests. Forums get more than their fair share due to the anonymity of the keyboard and of course, distance. Many members here would not say 1% of what they say in here if they were face to face with their "opponent". I believe that persistent troublemakers, bad posters, "arguists" (is there such a word?) who only come here to cause problems should be got rid of, firstly by warnings, then temp bans then perm bans, including their IP addresses.

Now, if that IP address happens to be a college, school etc, explain to them why their IP is banned - they can then resort to vengeance!! Bans - yes, we must have the "threat" at least.

finally, I voted yes and it should have been no - my apologies. Delete one yes, add one NO!

I think any necessary restrictions are best done by an administrator not a popularity poll. I have never favored mob rule.

I agree Candy, I was speaking more generally. As a mod is another site, I have recently banned a person for 7 days. But they know in there, that I am fair too. Here, being such a cosmopolitan site, the admin should and must make decisions.

On forums democracy is a joke, dictator rule is the best; beside unlike in the real world here the dictator is paying for everything instead of the people.

If this motion passes, I expect no one to ever again complain to me about another member.

Yeah what the hell? Why are people voting for this crap?
Can i start a poll proposing to ban the ban banning thread?

If this motion passes, I expect no one to ever again complain to me about another member.

That is why democracy is basically a dictatorship. Other people decide if I can complain about another member.

Tyranny of the masses. Indeed.

Alright it's a dead heat, and they don't rig elections in Canada. So, somebody say something convincing if you believe in banning threads, and that Porfiry faithfully makes decisions with them, eh? Me, I don't give a shit unless I get banned. But if I do, I'm going to get my banned comrades with alien friends to procure me a disconfractalization disruptor. Then you'll all be sorry.

I voted Yes to ban banning. In retrospect, I should have voted No, not because I trust that the masses will stay the current path of not having voted to ban anyone, but rather because of this statement by Dave: If this motion passes, I expect no one to ever again complain to me about another member. I really do not understand why the passing of this motion should in any way limit our rights to complain about an abusive member to a moderator. In any case, hindsight is a bitch. And anyone that votes from henceforth better vote No, in the wake of Dave's evident illogical wrath. There's a catch.

OOOOOOooooh god I understand now! Profiry allowed this banning so people would stop bitching to him! How could I have doubted the ways of our lord, forgive me oh lord, please!

What porf is saying is fully reasonable, rational and obvious. This poll is not.
People are voting to give up having a say on who gets banned, I understood this from the beginning.

"People are voting to give up having a say on who gets banned"
Or perhaps, people are declaring the masses too stupid, too vindictive, etc to posess the power of a ban. In any case, Dave has veto power, neh?

Yeah well in all honesty I don't think the masses can ban accurately either, I'd prefer to be a mod. Do you know I think i could ban over a hundred members without a single heartfelt complaint? thats efficiency.

The non-idiots have always been a minority. For that reason, I favor dictatorship.

hypewaders: "I was first drawn to Sciforums by the assumption that it attracts more intellectually active people than other boards I've seen. For me, spontaneous cleverness among the unwashed masses is more stimulating than a gated intelligent community. I think we have to suffer fools grudgingly if we're not going to mimic so many intellectually inbred snobs in so many ivory towers."


My opinion precisely, I couldn't of put it better. I doubt if there is any other cause to most forums than for the owner to gain prestige/power so they may profit and join those in the ivory towers so banning policies will continue and probably predominate..

I witnessed and participated in a forum where banning was banned. It worked great. Since everyone knew the position, policing arose from peer pressure. The owner did block obvious spammers but the stated policy was to not ban. A total disclaimer of responsibility for copyright infringements, slander, libel or other possible legal infractions was backed up with a promise to aid any law enforcement activity to disclose the guilty. Then the main owner got bored and gave his control to a total sociopath. I'm proud to say I was the first to be banned.

I bet there is a market for another such forum. Not only would many intelligent people participate, but other forums could suggest the site to those they ban and the cream of the crop would be shunted to the new forum's benefit.

On forums democracy is a joke, dictator rule is the best; beside unlike in the real world here the dictator is paying for everything instead of the people.

Actually you quite near to the point. People say things in here that they would no dare say to a person/face. Hiding behind the anonymity of the keyboard so to speak.

Even if the motion is passed, it is still up to Admin who have to be dictatorial otherwise we descend into anarchy.

Mr. Chips,

You want cleaver and intellectual stay in these sub-forums:
http://www.sciforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=1