When should us mods ban a person
- Thread starter jvd
- Start date
Panajev2001a
Veteran
Why not pm the poster with clarifications about the post first ?
Then if the criminal refuses to make changes and it replies negatively to the moderator you delete the posts and give a temporary ban...
Then if the criminal refuses to make changes and it replies negatively to the moderator you delete the posts and give a temporary ban...
Banning is never a good solution to a personal/personality difference, IMO. You've got board rules for a reason. Breaking the rules is the only justification I can think of for banning someone. According to the registration agreement:
Whether a particular post is considered acceptable or not under those guidelines is highly subjective. There have been many hateful, slanderous, secually-oriented posts made here that I would say 99% of the users feels are completely acceptable. In that respect, I would think it's up to the community as a whole to determine whether something is acceptable or not. Therefore, I would propose ammending the third option to be somewhat like this:
When the mods get more than 10 diffrent people pming them to ban an offensive user, AND the offensive user has made two or more posts violating the (above quoted) registration agreement conditions.
Whether a particular post is considered acceptable or not under those guidelines is highly subjective. There have been many hateful, slanderous, secually-oriented posts made here that I would say 99% of the users feels are completely acceptable. In that respect, I would think it's up to the community as a whole to determine whether something is acceptable or not. Therefore, I would propose ammending the third option to be somewhat like this:
When the mods get more than 10 diffrent people pming them to ban an offensive user, AND the offensive user has made two or more posts violating the (above quoted) registration agreement conditions.
Other
Bannings should take place if a member refuses to take warnings serious. Not taking warnings serious can result in a degration of the comminities quality and make it less appealing to visitors/members. Warnings should take place when members fail to act their age or to the standard of this community. This is not a playground.
Bannings should take place if a member refuses to take warnings serious. Not taking warnings serious can result in a degration of the comminities quality and make it less appealing to visitors/members. Warnings should take place when members fail to act their age or to the standard of this community. This is not a playground.
Guess ignoring the annoying member is the best solution.
After all, what he or she says might actually be reality to him, although others think he's just trolling or being delusive.
Only by breaking the forum rules, should one be banned.
After all, what he or she says might actually be reality to him, although others think he's just trolling or being delusive.
Only by breaking the forum rules, should one be banned.
Crusher said:
Crusher, I agree with you 100% that under normal circumstances, bannings should only take place when the board rules are disobeyed. However, following exactly those rules, it is possible for a member to not only ruin thread after thread, but also contribute to the degration of the messageboard.
I guess you are right by saying that the community as a whole should determine what is acceptable and what should be tolerated. It should also be our task to determine if we want this place to rival the likes of TeamXbox or any PS2 fanboi heaven equivilant. The way things are going lately, much isn't missing anymore. It's everyone's choice - and personally, if this can only be delt with by taking meassures (i.e. banning responsible members), I'm all for it.
overclocked
Veteran
Is this about chap again(?) then no he should not be banned.
I think if a person are violating the rules then you warn the person and then bann, if a person is extremely annoying you should not altough "some" people are..
I think if a person are violating the rules then you warn the person and then bann, if a person is extremely annoying you should not altough "some" people are..
Well, I've not been registered long, so I don't know how much my opinion is worth, but here's my take.
Banning people because 10 members have asked you to is a big no-no. This isn't a popularity contest, it's a discussion forum. Besides, if you accept that there can be one idiot who deserves banning among the members, what's to say there aren't ten?
It's always going to come down to a judgement call. When you get the PMs then you can look at the poster's record, and then it's your call. You have rules of conduct, apply them.
Here are the rough guidelines I apply over at another forum:
1) Personal insults in place of reasoned debate over a prolonged period = ban.
2) Vehement restating of an opinion as fact = warning followed by ban.
3) Disagreeing repeatedly with popular opinion = either nothing or a warning if it's tending towards 1 or 2 above (which it normally does).
It's all very well to say that everyone should ignore the trolls, but by their very nature they're trying to make people pay attention and respond. Better to get them out rather than spend all your time running around and clearing up the mess.
Deepak: "Banning is never been a solution in a Democratic Society.."
This isn't a democratic society. It's a dictatorship. And a benevolent (and immortal) dictator is a far better thing than a democratically elected government in my opinion.
Banning people because 10 members have asked you to is a big no-no. This isn't a popularity contest, it's a discussion forum. Besides, if you accept that there can be one idiot who deserves banning among the members, what's to say there aren't ten?
It's always going to come down to a judgement call. When you get the PMs then you can look at the poster's record, and then it's your call. You have rules of conduct, apply them.
Here are the rough guidelines I apply over at another forum:
1) Personal insults in place of reasoned debate over a prolonged period = ban.
2) Vehement restating of an opinion as fact = warning followed by ban.
3) Disagreeing repeatedly with popular opinion = either nothing or a warning if it's tending towards 1 or 2 above (which it normally does).
It's all very well to say that everyone should ignore the trolls, but by their very nature they're trying to make people pay attention and respond. Better to get them out rather than spend all your time running around and clearing up the mess.
Deepak: "Banning is never been a solution in a Democratic Society.."
This isn't a democratic society. It's a dictatorship. And a benevolent (and immortal) dictator is a far better thing than a democratically elected government in my opinion.
My thoughts on banning someone may not be what others consider criteria for banning someone. While it doesn't directly matter what my thoughts on banning someone are I will still give my input. Banning someone is most likely the ultimate punishment for repeated offenses of board rules. It's as simple as that. If us mods were to get 10 people pming is to ban another member then that itself is a little unfair if we went ahead and banned that member. If the member is making the overall board a worse place then that would be criteria for banning.
Ultimately though, it is a judgement call us mods would have to make, and only when that call is made would we pass it on to the next higher person in charge.
Ultimately though, it is a judgement call us mods would have to make, and only when that call is made would we pass it on to the next higher person in charge.
Almasy said:When to ban? When a poster gets as bas as either chap or you, of course.
Ok, in greater detail, what I think has already been stated by others: when a poster breaks rules repeatedly or when a poster has an annoying behavior (sp?) that can be considered as "trolling".
then alot of people should get baned haha
Similar threads
