Proposal: Ban Warnings

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by CounslerCoffee, Jan 20, 2004.

?

Ban Warnings: Good Idea, or Bad>

  1. Good Idea

    32 vote(s)
    68.1%
  2. Bad Idea

    15 vote(s)
    31.9%
  1. CounslerCoffee Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,997
    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?
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2004
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Xerxes asdfghjkl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,830
    You've got my vote.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. sweet Pentax Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    920
    IMO ,temporal ban doesn´t make much sense , unless it comes to a poster who doesn´t want to lose his 5000 posts !
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. EI_Sparks Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,716
    Yes. To ban someone permanently for a first offence is too nonlinear.
    Banning for a short period acts as an effective sanction.
     
  8. CounslerCoffee Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,997
    Both of my proposals were different proposals, maybe I need to clarify in my first post?

    Reread my first post.
     
  9. Porfiry Nomad Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,127
    Isn't this something that should be done on a case-by-case basis?
    Also, how would this be implemented?
     
  10. CounslerCoffee Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,997
    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.
     
  11. goofyfish Analog By Birth, Digital By Design Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,331
    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
     
  12. thefountainhed Fully Realized Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,076
    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?
     
  13. outlandish smoki'n....... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,033
    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!

     
  14. goofyfish Analog By Birth, Digital By Design Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,331
    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.
     
  15. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,133
    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.
     
  16. Xev Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,943
    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.
     
  17. Mephura Applesauce, bitch... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,065
    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.
     
  18. sweet Pentax Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    920
    Das ist ja quasi wie bei der Stasi

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. thefountainhed Fully Realized Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,076
    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.
     
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,370
    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.
     
  21. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,845
    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.
     
  22. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    wesmorris, because he's following me.
     
  23. CounslerCoffee Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,997
    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).
     

Share This Page