I propose ban warnings. So members know where they stand. A scale of 10%-100% (And of course 0% if you haven't done anything), sounds right to me. Once you hit 100% you are then banned. Of course the ban warnings expire after a certain amount of time, like a month or so.

Thoughts?

You've got my vote.

IMO ,temporal ban doesn´t make much sense , unless it comes to a poster who doesn´t want to lose his 5000 posts !

Yes. To ban someone permanently for a first offence is too nonlinear.
Banning for a short period acts as an effective sanction.

Both of my proposals were different proposals, maybe I need to clarify in my first post?

Reread my first post.

Isn't this something that should be done on a case-by-case basis?
Also, how would this be implemented?

How to insert the code? I haven't a clue. I know an admin on another forum that could tell you.

A case-by-case basis, yes. And at the judgement of the mods. Once the user hits 100% a thread could be started about that user, and then the mods could bring all the evidence together and vote on whether or not to ban that member. Very democratic.

Also, only the mods/user would be able to see what his/her rating is.

3 – 3 days
7 – 7 days
P – Permanent 3 - inane comments and chit chat (1st)
7 - inane comments and chit chat (2nd and all subsequent)

3 - messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated (1st)
7 - messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated (2nd)
P - messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated (final)

3 – insulting another member (1st)
7 - insulting another member (2nd)
P - insulting another member (final)
7 – messages that are hateful, threatening, or contain racial slurs (1st)
P – messages that are hateful, threatening, or contain racial slurs (2nd)

3 – cursing (1st)
7 – cursing (2nd and all subsequent)

3 – Large sections of quoted material (1st)
7 – Large sections of quoted material (2nd and all subsequent)

P - Changing a moderator's edit

goofy, you cannot be serious.

How do you designate the inane, and what is chit chat?

You want to ban members three days for cursing? Thus me saying what the fuck is that, automatically bans me for three days? I find that shocking. Is this not an environment of open debate? Should the same standards apply to moderators or are they the exception? What of infringement in the forums without any moderators, or those too busy to be thoroughly moderated-- free thoughts, religion, and WE&P?

A simple 3 strikes and you're out system would suffice.

oh, and bring back spookz. :mad:

goofy, you cannot be serious.Sure I can. The reason the forums are out of control is that there is no consequence for an action. Worst case is that a mod has to edit a user's post or sends a PM - and they just wander off to do it again. Trust me, if you enjoy discussions at SciForums and you get booted of for awhile, you'll change; or get the permanent boot.You want to ban members three days for cursing? Thus me saying what the fuck is that, automatically bans me for three days? I find that shocking.Yes, you are certainly one that would have to work on a small behavior modification. Embrace change. ;)Should the same standards apply to moderators..?Yes.What of infringement in the forums without any moderators...That is what the "Report Post" button is for....or those too busy to be thoroughly moderated-- free thoughts, religion, and WE&P?Same as above - or perhaps you are volunteering to help with a difficult and thankless job?

:m: Peace.

Such a proposal would be a good idea. We'd all benefit from being booted once in a while if we overstep the line. However, it could only work if it applies to everyone who participates in this forum, be they member or moderator. That's my 2 cents anyway.

No, I don't like it.
Banning ought to be restricted to cases of serious misbehaviour, rather than just a consensus of members who think said poster is being naughty.
Otherwise you end up with mob rule.

Coffee, I like your idea. It's like the warning thing they have on messenger programs (in a way). Its a good idea and could serve as a reminder to members to be a little more considerate.

I have to disagree with goofy's sugestion and, for once, agree with Fhed.
Excess profanity is one thing, but saying "what the fuck" is no reason to be banned. Insults fly around here as do inane comments. In excess they can be distracting, but in general they are fine.
The way things are done now, on a case by case basis, while perhaps taking a bit of time, is best solution.

I would have voted yes, but goofy's idea swayed me. It reminds me of a bill in congress. They tack on shit at the end that has nothing to do with the issue in question just to get it passed. That may not have been the case here, but i would hate to see a system such as goofy's get pased do to any confusion. If there isn't any, feel free to change my vote if you can.

Das ist ja quasi wie bei der Stasi :rolleyes:

Sure I can. The reason the forums are out of control is that there is no consequence for an action.
True to an extent, but the consequence cannot always be a ban.

Trust me, if you enjoy discussions at SciForums and you get booted of for awhile, you'll change; or get the permanent boot.
Or it might simply become too much of an annoyance and deter people from joining this forum.

Yes, you are certainly one that would have to work on a small behavior modification. Embrace change.
I have mostly eliminated cursing from my posts, except of course when I feel a need to stress my position. Besides, I almost never initiated the foul or abusive language during the period when my primary goal was to flame.

Yes.
Who then shall enforce the bans on the moderators, Porfiry?

That is what the "Report Post" button is for.
Bah.

Same as above - or perhaps you are volunteering to help with a difficult and thankless job?
It is a difficult job, yes. At the same time, it is purely voluntary, and as such, one must not complain about it being thankless. There are many out there who willingfully volu0nteer for moderator positions.

Also, you have not illustrated how one can designate the inane and the "chit chat". Is not almost everything "About the Members" chit chat? What of Free thoughts and distinctions between the inane and the relevant?

"Das ist ja quasi wie bei der Stasi"
Kwasia, wo'ntime ka adia wo pe se wo ka. Wo kote soa, ena wo ye aboa.

In general, a bad idea.

People know when they are stepping over the line. If they need to be reminded, a temporary ban should be sufficient.

On the other hand, in practice, I think most moderators already give quite sufficient warning before taking drastic action.

I think warnings should be general practice but Porf and/or mod vote can trump general practice and ban straight away. That's probably not much different than it is now though.

I can think of a couple of bobs/flies to whom I think warnings are due.

wesmorris, because he's following me.

True to an extent, but the consequence cannot always be a ban.

No. That's why you give ban warnings. That way the member can see where (s)he stands.

Or it might simply become too much of an annoyance and deter people from joining this forum.

Many forums practice this, and I see no difference in membership rates between those with, and those without ban warnings.

Who then shall enforce the bans on the moderators, Porfiry?

Of course. If we let the members it'd be mob rule and any unpopular member would be banned (i.e. Wanderer).

wesmorris, because he's following me.

hey hype. howzit goin? :D

Fine and dandy :)

i thought this was a relevant thread, so i resurrected it.

let the debate continue, gentlemen!!

Once you hit 100% you are then banned. Of course the ban warnings expire after a certain amount of time, like a month or so.


My experience of that sort of percentage system is that it increases the tension instead of relieving it, which is rather in order.
Bans are hostile and hostility breeds hostility.

To get a tasty result think carrot, not stick.

--- Ron.

Yeak but try beating someone with a carrot, it just breaks up in your hand.

A good idea to tell if somebody has gone to far.

3 – 3 days
7 – 7 days
P – Permanent 3 - inane comments and chit chat (1st)
7 - inane comments and chit chat (2nd and all subsequent)

3 - messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated (1st)
7 - messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated (2nd)
P - messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated (final)

3 – insulting another member (1st)
7 - insulting another member (2nd)
P - insulting another member (final)
7 – messages that are hateful, threatening, or contain racial slurs (1st)
P – messages that are hateful, threatening, or contain racial slurs (2nd)

3 – cursing (1st)
7 – cursing (2nd and all subsequent)

3 – Large sections of quoted material (1st)
7 – Large sections of quoted material (2nd and all subsequent)

P - Changing a moderator's edit

I think if this was implemented there would be no need of bans as everyone would voluntarily steer clear of the forum altogether.

I think if this was implemented there would be no need of bans as everyone would voluntarily steer clear of the forum altogether.

No. Things were perfectly fine when those rules were in place.

You know what I could never figure out, when someone replies to a thread it ends up saying the threads title then by whoever posted, like

Kill'm all by sderenzi

The thing is the threads not by the last person to reply to it, so what sense does it make in saying BY this person?! Kinda confusing.

Isn't that a matter for another thread, sderenzi?

As for this thread, I'm not sure where I stand, but if forced to decide, I would decide against this.

im happy with james using his judgement rather than having to enforce a strict set of rules

For what it's worth I think all racial epithets should be banned. 2 strikes you're out for good. That would drive the wannabe nazis out and improve the atmosphere here.

For what it's worth I think all racial epithets should be banned. 2 strikes you're out for good. That would drive the wannabe nazis out and improve the atmosphere here.
FULLY agreed. this is my biggest beef, actually.

I think that starting to ban people from this site on the basis of content, is a bad idea for the most part. We could ban such things that are socially unaccptable to us, racism, personal threats and whatnot of that nature. But to ban people on the basis of swearing or insulting another member would be insane. This website, from my understanding of it, is a place to bring up questions, get answers and debate over the topic. There is no reason why we couldnt say something like.... I can not believe that you do not hold the mental capacity to understand the Fuko argument of biopower and are wasting the intellectual communitie's time with your random crap. Or to say thats stupid and must be retarded to not understand my points. but in all, the site should be open to most anything we want to say.

this website is so leniant that there is not much point in debating, james has good judgement and hardly ever bans people for content and usually it is on a temp ban

So good judgement is to ban not because of what is posted, but rather because of some other consideration?

That is a remarkable observation, which does at least stand up to examination.
I have wondered why a ban was imposed but with no actual deletion of the content which might have been alleged to offend,
nor even with an explanation of what exactly was thought to offend.

In my experience subscribers are likely to wander off voluntarily, anyway, when enough of their postings are deleted,
simply because they would not wish to waste any more of their time.

--- Ron.

Please dear god, for the love of mankind, I will become a true believer if you start deleting random posts of Ronnie.

robots are only allowed to believe in "robot jesus".

i myself am a "robot jew", we believe that robot jesus was well programmed, but he had a few security flaws that indicate that he was not our robot messiah.

what?

It is no too difficult to avoid unwelcome postings.
I do it unconsciously anyway.
Subliminally associating a particular avatar with previous experiences of extreme boredom,
I skip straight away to something else,
especially if the text extends below the lower edge of the screen.

Some people lack the personal discipline, I suppose,
or do they rather hope to see a mention of themselves?

--- Ron.
self righteousness is a stinky cologne.

i forgot how much better than the rest of us you are.


forgive me.

i dont say something unless i mean it.
please be my friend.

Too much red tape with warnings. Keep it simple.

Keep it simple and just ban woody.

Keep it simple and just ban woody.

I'm not the only banned person here. How about you?

Everytime I come back, this place has gotten even worse.

Your signal to noise ratio just went down another notch.