When Someone is Banned

~~[MERIT]~~ · 06-30-2011, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by right-track

I'm not just talking about Urban, or The Virgin.
How many people here have him on ignore?
I'm not talking about a perma ban either.
I've banned countless members over the years, some of which are still here and are great contributors.

There's a bigger picture than the here and now, oojay.
Take this thread...it should have been closed ages ago. In my opinion, all it does is lengthen the drama.
Christ, when a member gets banned these days the fallout in here continues for the duration and the returning member feels like his ban was unfair due to the amount of support they get irrespective of whether, or not they actually deserved it.
Which they always do btw!

I'm just arguing the principle of the matter, as neither one of us have a dog in this fight. But if we justify kicking out one member just to pacify the masses, what's to stop people from ganging up on someone when they get pissy and campaigning for their removal? I just don't want a vicious cycle to start just so we can kiss a few people's backsides and pacify our own egos.

richie1 · 06-30-2011, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loose_lips_sink_ships

check his profile page, he posted a message stating that he was leaving.

Thanks, loose lips. I didn't realize he had done that. I just hadn't seen him around in a while so looked up his most recent posts.

GuitarBizarre · 06-30-2011, 07:51 PM

The issue here isn't the virgin, he's bad, everyone wants him gone, he's clearcut.

The issue is the grey area regards popular opinion dictating policy, and I think things there are hazy.

On the one hand, it could lead to groupthink, mods banning any members who piss off enough people, but thats unlikely because most people aren't douchey enough to gang up like that.

The other problem could be influential members demanding bans on basis of seniority and contribution, and that would also be bad. I know for a fact that some would argue this already happens. Only today, I was told by someone who shall remain nameless, that "Paloma is effectively a mod". The person then went on to say that he thinks Paloma basically has the power to get people she doesn't like banned because she's pally with the mods.

Personally, I doubt thats the case, but its a can of worms.

Now, making up rules on the situation will only limit the GOOD things the rules allow, which is getting rid of nuisances who deliberately skirt the rules to piss people off. The rules need to be flexible to get rid of those wankers.

What we do perhaps need though, is assurance from the mods that nobody will ever be subject to these powerful, flexible rules, until absolutely necessary.

Paedantic Basterd · 06-30-2011, 07:53 PM

I think it is clear at this point, that if we are going to ban members of the community for the very act of being a negative disruption, it will be the absolute last resort.

**Scarlett O'Hara** · 06-30-2011, 08:03 PM

Right complaining is over. Drama is over. Thread closed. PM any moderator for any issues on bans.

06-30-2011, 08:03 PM	#745 (permalink)
Scarlett O'Hara Make it so Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 6,181	Right complaining is over. Drama is over. Thread closed. PM any moderator for any issues on bans. __________________ "Elph is truly an enfant terrible of the forum, bless and curse him" - Marie, Queen of Thots

06-30-2011, 07:53 PM	#744 (permalink)
Paedantic Basterd Music Addict Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 5,184	I think it is clear at this point, that if we are going to ban members of the community for the very act of being a negative disruption, it will be the absolute last resort.