Proposal: Ban Warnings

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?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You've got my vote.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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.

Yes, you are certainly one that would have to work on a small behavior modification. Embrace change.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yes.

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

Same as above - or perhaps you are volunteering to help with a difficult and thankless job?

:m: Peace.

 

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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

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

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.

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

Bah.

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.

 

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.

 

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

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

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