10000 ways to get banned (forum game)

[Ashikabi]

Originally Posted by MrFisty

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.

It works right now because ichi is a fair and just ruler. Totalitarianism is the best provided your ruler is premium

[ichitaka05]

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?

You make it sounds like I'm a monster destroying anything see in his way. lol

K, quick background on that rule. One time, one member got banned for legit reason. He was kinda like Tcoat and posted in a lot of area and gave good info/resources... but at the same time he was breaking the rule over and over, knowingly and willingly. Boss caught him, warned him AND perma banned him. When everyone found out he got banned, several members went berserk making thread EVERYWHERE annoying the crap out of EVERYONE. Boss didn't want to tell everyone why he got banned... IDK why he didn't. I still think that he should of, so won't make himself evil guy (which everyone who got banned from the forum thinks).

We had several members came back from been perma banned via email to the boss. He's not cold-blooded guy, but he's very strict.

I've temp/perma banned members. Several members have PM'ed me or mentioned me why he/she got banned. Most of the time, I answer... I can think 1 time I didn't due to legal reasons.

We mods and admin doesn't banned members "just cause", there's reason behind it and some cases are not meant to tell everyone. If you PM'ed me or asked me without making new threads or going crazy, I'll tell you.

Hope that answer your question?

ichi

[MrFisty]

Originally Posted by finch1750

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.

I do believe we have good mods. Well, I think ichi is a good mod. Because of the particularly threads I surf, I only really see him in action.

However, I don't like the "leave if you don't agree."

I'll agree to follow them, but I think I should be able to state and present why I might not agree with a rule itself.

It may be, though I do not expect it at all in this case, that it could result in some change if the sentiment was shared by many users.

As for the "to grab whatever to make it harder to argue," I think that's kind of lame reasoning. No, moderators shouldn't have to spend an hour defending a decision, but that doesn't mean we should just make rules so that we can have whatever ammo needed to cite someone so we can get rid of them. To be clear, I am not saying that has happened here at all. If it has, I wasn't here to see it.

[MrFisty]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

You make it sounds like I'm a monster destroying anything see in his way. lol

K, quick background on that rule. One time, one member got banned for legit reason. He was kinda like Tcoat and posted in a lot of area and gave good info/resources... but at the same time he was breaking the rule over and over, knowingly and willingly. Boss caught him, warned him AND perma banned him. When everyone found out he got banned, several members went berserk making thread EVERYWHERE annoying the crap out of EVERYONE. Boss didn't want to tell everyone why he got banned... IDK why he didn't. I still think that he should of, so won't make himself evil guy (which everyone who got banned from the forum thinks).

We had several members came back from been perma banned via email to the boss. He's not cold-blooded guy, but he's very strict.

I've temp/perma banned members. Several members have PM'ed me or mentioned me why he/she got banned. Most of the time, I answer... I can think 1 time I didn't due to legal reasons.

We mods and admin doesn't banned members "just cause", there's reason behind it and some cases are not meant to tell everyone. If you PM'ed me or asked me without making new threads or going crazy, I'll tell you.

Hope that answer your question?

ichi

Ichi, PLEASE don't think I'm saying this about you at all. I meant everything I said; I think you do your job well and you do what is required of you and even then some. I am not questioning any of your decisions, nor trying to put you in any negative light. This forum wouldn't be what it is without your efforts and I'm sure that all of us have (should have) appreciation for that.

I do appreciate you breaking it down, and it makes sense. However, I stand behind what I've said. I just wanted to express that seeing as it came up and had stuck out to me since day one. It is just my opinion that it might be better if worded less strongly.

[Ashikabi]

Originally Posted by MrFisty

I do believe we have good mods. Well, I think ichi is a good mod. Because of the particularly threads I surf, I only really see him in action.

However, I don't like the "leave if you don't agree."

I'll agree to follow them, but I think I should be able to state and present why I might not agree with a rule itself.

It may be, though I do not expect it at all in this case, that it could result in some change if the sentiment was shared by many users.

As for the "to grab whatever to make it harder to argue," I think that's kind of lame reasoning. No, moderators shouldn't have to spend an hour defending a decision, but that doesn't mean we should just make rules so that we can have whatever ammo needed to cite someone so we can get rid of them. To be clear, I am not saying that has happened here at all. If it has, I wasn't here to see it.

I don't think it's against the rules to question the rules just the mods decision. I think asking why isn't questioning the decision perse

[MrFisty]

Originally Posted by Ashikabi

I don't think it's against the rules to question the rules just the mods decision. I think asking why isn't questioning the decision perse

You are right about it being allowed to question the rules, and I was not saying that it wasn't. I was responding to what finch said about leaving if you didn't agree, as I took it to mean not agreeing with the rules.


Sorry for confusing everyone, and I hope I haven't offended anyone.

[MrFisty]

Originally Posted by 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

Yeah, this is possibly derailing. I'll leave it alone now, just wanted to express my sentiments about the rule itself. I may look into that.

Thanks for your input!

[Ashikabi]

Originally Posted by MrFisty

Yeah, this is possibly derailing. I'll leave it alone now, just wanted to express my sentiments about the rule itself. I may look into that.

Thanks for your input!

I don't think derailing a sheep thread can get you banned

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by MrFisty

I do believe we have good mods. Well, I think ichi is a good mod. Because of the particularly threads I surf, I only really see him in action.

However, I don't like the "leave if you don't agree."

I'll agree to follow them, but I think I should be able to state and present why I might not agree with a rule itself.

It may be, though I do not expect it at all in this case, that it could result in some change if the sentiment was shared by many users.

As for the "to grab whatever to make it harder to argue," I think that's kind of lame reasoning. No, moderators shouldn't have to spend an hour defending a decision, but that doesn't mean we should just make rules so that we can have whatever ammo needed to cite someone so we can get rid of them. To be clear, I am not saying that has happened here at all. If it has, I wasn't here to see it.

Sad truth is WE DO. Worse scenario is I had to spent over several days (iirc 4 days) explaining over and over and OVER

[MrFisty]

Originally Posted by Ashikabi

I don't think derailing a sheep thread can get you banned

[nyrip]

Originally Posted by Ashikabi

I don't think derailing a sheep thread can get you banned

I don't know. You could just become a......black sheep!
WAAAOOOOOOOHHHHHH!

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by MrFisty

You are right about it being allowed to question the rules, and I was not saying that it wasn't. I was responding to what finch said about leaving if you didn't agree, as I took it to mean not agreeing with the rules.


Sorry for confusing everyone, and I hope I haven't offended anyone.

Ban reason #?????
Confusing people.


Ahh shit I am doomed again then.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

Sad truth is WE DO. Worse scenario is I had to spent over several days (iirc 4 days) explaining over and over and OVER

And yet I still don't understand!

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

And yet I still don't understand!

I hate using this sentence, but if I have to, I'll use it

"Cuz I said so!"