I do admit the current system isn't completely right, although I do understand why. Firstly there are only about three people that can Ban here at sciforums, The administrator and two super-moderators. As for the rest of the moderators, we can only edit/delete posts in the areas we are assigned. Which makes it awkward when we spot something in a forum like a spam, that could be automatically deleted if we had access. The main reason for the low number of people with banning ability is mainly a trust issue, the more people with the ability the more chance for it to be wrongfully abused. The problem with having so few a numbers that can ban as well is the fact that they are blamed for peoples banning. They get blamed by the person thats banned and those people that supported the person that was banned. In all there are people that treat them like evil incarnate because they attempt to keep the forums operational and bareable to all those that frequent it. (It's actually a tough job when it's voluntary to take such stick) I've admittedly mentioned to the moderators the potential for a new system and it uses most of the current softwares capabilities. Previously we'd (the people on sciforums) had discussed the usage of "Reputation" which comes with the Vbulletin Software. The problem with it is that if people do their group coordinated attacks on people they don't like, they tend to run them off the forums. In essence the system is very "Mob rule" orientated. My suggestion was to allow the system just for the Moderators and Super-Moderators (Admin is obviously default). This would mean that even if a moderator doesn't have access to edit or delete a post in a forum they are not assigned, they could still post a negative reputation when it comes to spam (and perhaps more). At certain levels of negative reputation, a user could be moved to different groups which constrict their access. It could be possible to cover Temporary and Permenant bans in this manner. Using such a system would mean that posts could be dealt even when the supermods with ban power aren't available.
I think a better method would be to show a small meter or gauge that records a member's "buddy" to "ignore" ratio. If more members have TheVisitor on "ignore" than assigned as a "buddy," it would indicate a "credibility" ration or Karma guage or something. Might encourage those that are worried about their image (most kooks are, hence their status-seeking tendencies) to post more carefully and with less spam. It would also encourage more members to simply ignore the kooks -without their attention, they would go away without a ban being needed.
I heard the knock on the door. Too bad the door is covered with fast acting poison. And if that doesn't get you. The shotgun attached to the door and which I heard firing behind the door probably did. I just received a complaint from the apartment manager about the spilled brainmass on the hallway walls. Needless to say I had him arrested. And his family. The dictator is dead, long live the dictator.
I would still like to be the executioner, if the position is available. I'm even willing to do some light handyman work around your magnificind palace doing times of little to no executions. How ever i'm scandinavian as you well know and I demand all the benefits i have become so accustomt to, on top of that I also want some of those hawaii'en chicks in those hawaii'en skirts serving drinks now and then. Executing people is hard work you know.
I always delegate. I guess Happeh never will return now. (Although, I am puzzled. Where would the brains have come from?)
Perhaps it wasn't brains, perhaps it was some other similarly coloured substance, which having never found release during his short life, had filled the vacant space that a brain normally occupies.
*sigh* You skimmed, and consequently you missed important details. That is, spammers would be automatically banned so that they couldn't just keep on spamming. That's more than a simple report being sent.
im a fan of skinwalker's idea. a "status" bar, based on: 1. number of posts 2. votes garnered by that particular user, from other members 3. how long the user has been a sciforums member (retroactively, of course)
'elijiah the greatest' has now made 15 duplicate threads. my method would allow for them to banned at this point by the users, so that a mod could deal with it when they log on, as there arent any online now. :m:
usinging the report function would allow the mods to see elijahs post when they come online and take appropriot actions aswell.
Banning should stay with the mods. There would be too much temptation for the majority to use their "power" to squelch the minority voice. Not that the minority voice is always or even frequently correct, but they still have the right to a voice. If its a matter of spam, use the report function and ignore the user. Easy as pie.
You've obviously not read the thread or at least haven't comprehended what I've written in this thread. I'm in agreement that "bans" should be limited.
