10000 ways to get banned (forum game)

[JD001]

Originally Posted by Ashikabi

RIP thread

For making me LOL!!!

[Ashikabi]

Originally Posted by JD001

For making me LOL!!!

:p

[Ashikabi]

I saw thread by Mr sheep earlier about goaway1 getting banned maybe... that thread is deleted too so it may be really quiet for a month

[Yoda]

This just made my day.

[finch1750]

asking why a member wasn't banned

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by Ashikabi

I saw thread by Mr sheep earlier about goaway1 getting banned maybe... that thread is deleted too so it may be really quiet for a month

I'll note it here (I usually note about these things in Random Thought threads).

Both broke forum rules and wanted to keep pushing, so they'll be quiet for 1 wk. I was close to banning them for 1 month... but giving them a soft spank. Next time will be 1~6 month or worse perma banned.

/end

Originally Posted by finch1750

asking why a member wasn't banned

That is technically against forum rule. But I usually, answer it in Random Thought Thread (instead of making actual thread bout it)

[finch1750]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

I'll note it here (I usually note about these things in Random Thought threads).

Both broke forum rules and wanted to keep pushing, so they'll be quiet for 1 wk. I was close to banning them for 1 month... but giving them a soft spank. Next time will be 1~6 month or worse perma banned.

/end



That is technically against forum rule. But I usually, answer it in Random Thought Thread (instead of making actual thread bout it)

Reason #whatever to get you banned

Liking the hard spanking ichi gave you a little too much

[Yoda]

Banned for breaking forum rules and pushing your luck. Ichitaka05 for President! You are a fair mod after all.

[MrFisty]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

(responding to suggested rule of "asking why someone wasn't banned)
That is technically against forum rule. But I usually, answer it in Random Thought Thread (instead of making actual thread bout it)

I want to start by saying I am making no attempt to discuss any specific ban, but the rule itself, and I guess the "1000 ways to get banned" thread is a good enough place to mention it. Also, again, I am not trying to question any of Ichi's decisions. He has a job to do, and that is to enforce the rules as they are, and, from what I can tell, he does that the best he can with as much respect and courtesy as he can. I do not expect nor want what I'm saying to be taken as trying to get ichi to overturn anything or even pass my feelings about this along to anyone higher up.

About that second bit, the rule ( I know you know ichi) reads:

"15) BANNED MEMBERS are not open to discussion. Bans are always undertaken with justification and are not open to public discussion. Any threads/posts discussing bans will be removed."


Now, I abide by this rule because I want to be on the forum, and I read the rules like a good member before I posted, but this one did not sit well with me.

Personally, I think it's over-reaching. I can understand not wanting people demanding bans be overturned or asking for people to be banned, I totally get that, but this rule, as written, technically prohibits any discussion of bans. So, we cannot ask if someone was banned, nor can we ask why. The first, I feel, is harmless. The second more easily lends itself to argumentative discussions, and that I can understand not wanting, but that's the slippery-slope fallacy, and I think that we should be made aware of why a person was banned if we want to know about a specific incident. Not the particular happenings, such as "he said this, she did that" but rather a simple rule citation.


Any body else feel similarly?

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by MrFisty

I want to start by saying I am making no attempt to discuss any specific ban, but the rule itself, and I guess the "1000 ways to get banned" thread is a good enough place to mention it. Also, again, I am not trying to question any of Ichi's decisions. He has a job to do, and that is to enforce the rules as they are, and, from what I can tell, he does that the best he can with as much respect and courtesy as he can. I do not expect nor want what I'm saying to be taken as trying to get ichi to overturn anything or even pass my feelings about this along to anyone higher up.

About that second bit, the rule ( I know you know ichi) reads:

"15) BANNED MEMBERS are not open to discussion. Bans are always undertaken with justification and are not open to public discussion. Any threads/posts discussing bans will be removed."


Now, I abide by this rule because I want to be on the forum, and I read the rules like a good member before I posted, but this one did not sit well with me.

Personally, I think it's over-reaching. I can understand not wanting people demanding bans be overturned or asking for people to be banned, I totally get that, but this rule, as written, technically prohibits any discussion of bans. So, we cannot ask if someone was banned, nor can we ask why. The first, I feel, is harmless. The second more easily lends itself to argumentative discussions, and that I can understand not wanting, but that's the slippery-slope fallacy, and I think that we should be made aware of why a person was banned if we want to know about a specific incident. Not the particular happenings, such as "he said this, she did that" but rather a simple rule citation.


Any body else feel similarly?

The wording is a bit strong but the reality is that we discuss bans all the time. I think the rule is simply to give an out if somebody goes overboard.


The rules also say no personal attacks. That means that everybody (including me at one point) that went after MikeBRZ should be banned (and he would have been as well since he did the same thing).


The rules say no going off topic or derailing in a thread. Shit we are all doomed!


Point being the "Rules" are there to be used in extreme cases and nobody is worried about the minor stuff including talking about banned. Just don't rally the troops and grab torches and pitchforks and all is cool.


Anyway this is a forum and therefore not a democracy so there doesn't even need to be a "rule" to get banned. If a Mod or Admin doesn't like the font you use or the pic in your avatar they can ban you and you can't do shit about it.

[finch1750]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

The wording is a bit strong but the reality is that we discuss bans all the time. I think the rule is simply to give an out if somebody goes overboard.


The rules also say no personal attacks. That means that everybody (including me at one point) that went after MikeBRZ should be banned (and he would have been as well since he did the same thing).


The rules say no going off topic or derailing in a thread. Shit we are all doomed!


Point being the "Rules" are there to be used in extreme cases and nobody is worried about the minor stuff including talking about banned. Just don't rally the troops and grab torches and pitchforks and all is cool.


Anyway this is a forum and therefore not a democracy so there doesn't even need to be a "rule" to get banned. If a Mod or Admin doesn't like the font you use or the pic in your avatar they can ban you and you can't do shit about it.

Pretty much. Broad rules to grab whatever make it harder for people to argue. But we agree to it all when we joined and can leave if we don't agree. It works since we have good mods imo.

[MrFisty]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

The wording is a bit strong but the reality is that we discuss bans all the time. I think the rule is simply to give an out if somebody goes overboard.


The rules also say no personal attacks. That means that everybody (including me at one point) that went after MikeBRZ should be banned (and he would have been as well since he did the same thing).


The rules say no going off topic or derailing in a thread. Shit we are all doomed!


Point being the "Rules" are there to be used in extreme cases and nobody is worried about the minor stuff including talking about banned. Just don't rally the troops and grab torches and pitchforks and all is cool.


Anyway this is a forum and therefore not a democracy so there doesn't even need to be a "rule" to get banned. If a Mod or Admin doesn't like the font you use or the pic in your avatar they can ban you and you can't do shit about it.

You're right about this not being a democracy, and someone owns and pays for this, but in that respect, with our web traffic, we are customers and so this is why I bring this up. (because you want to know what your customers are thinking).

The rules are designed to give a person a reasonable idea of what it takes to get banned. Personally, I see them as speed limits; I can do "x" to whatever point described here before I get banned, until informed otherwise.

On the rule about personal attacks, I think that should be a little better too, because I think you should be able to say something when you believe its accurate provided it doesn't cross some particular lines, but that would take quite a bit of detail, and is a discussion for another day.

Having such strongly worded rules that get interpreted loosely(that isn't the right word...) ( to try and be nice or to give some case-by-case judgement) carry the problem of being able to be banned very quickly for something you might not have believed to be a problem in real practice.

I think it should be that ban's are not open for debate. That is, we should not be able to argue for or against a ban, merely ask if, who, and for what rule infraction. I wouldn't mind being able to know what precisely for, ie the action or word, but in many cases that would include displaying insults, racist comments, etc, and so I don't include that.

[fumanchu1]

I am the world record !!!!

[finch1750]

Next reason to get banned: Continuing this discussion lmao

If you really want to discuss this I say take it to the site announcement/discussion forum