[quote:65a82c76bd="Ba"]And he's pretty sure Roman meant "bump."[/quote:65a82c76bd]
I think so too, but I'm exacting my Scorpionic revenge.

Mrs G
The Garner who cares.

I should also add a couple of options to answer a couple of the original thought:

When someone is banned we can:

1. Delete their account, which removes everything they ever posted - good for mindless spammers and probably something that should be done anyway without the need for too much discussion.

2. Make their account innactive, so all their posts are still on the boards but they can't posts any more after we ban them.

Dragon's Kingdom - Stop typing "alot" when you mean "a lot"! - Disappointed

[quote:53216f4639="Buzzfloyd"]Cross-posted with Ben. Largely, I agree. However, there is a point to be made about majorities. At the moment, our membership is almost entirely active. However, that may not always be the case; think of the member list on the old board!

Rather than constantly trying to assess the active membership, I think we should set a number of members that must be met on a coventry list to warrant banning, and occasionally review that number.[/quote:53216f4639]

Actually I meant to include a bit about "Whatever a majority may be", must've forgot. I blame Kenny for distracting me whilst escaping from Dolphin Lundgren.

I think a set number would be good. I'd say we have between 30-50 active posters at any given time. So 20-30 might be a good amount.

(Playing blind Pictionary, me drawing)
Ella: Is it a giraffe?
Me (stops drawing): No
Ella: Star Trek?
Me: Yes!

Say 25?

And Mal, I like those options. I say option 1 for spammers and option 2 for troublemakers.

Mrs G
The Garner who cares.

[quote:a0f8c224f7="Ba"]Ba thinks Roman is amused by the idea of the trolls posting and not realizing no one else can see them. And he's pretty sure Roman meant "bump."[/quote:a0f8c224f7]

What Ba said. That, and it keeps said trolls occupied.

Anticipate charity by preventing poverty. - Rabbi Moshe ben-Maimon

[quote:2cbe617eea="Electric_Man"]Could you not just look through their posts and see if the IP is consistent or not? Then we'll know whether blocking an IP is worth it or not.[/quote:2cbe617eea]We could try this if they keep coming back, the only trouble with this is that the ip address can sometimes be a whole bank of computers, say at a library - so we'd ban anyone from posting from that particular library or college room or whatever.

Having said that I have caught people out before on Majonic's Dreams because of their ip address, once it turned out someone's little brother was logging on and saying stupid stuff about his older sister - I asked her if she was the same person because of having the same ip address and she found out what had been happening and he came on and apologised, never to be seen again - so IPs can be useful sometimes.

Dragon's Kingdom - Stop typing "alot" when you mean "a lot"! - Disappointed

Lemme say up front, I've probably missed some relevant posts. I'm trying to catch up on a lot of stuff, and am coming down with a cold at the same time.

Re: Tamyra's suggestion of a fresh start: Absolutely not. There will be no debate on this subject. We are not a new community, we are the same community with a new website.

If someone was coventried in the past and shows up here, unless the very first thing they say is "I'm deeply sorry and hope to prove my worth", I'd say instantly ban them. even if they DO post something like that, they should never be given more than one final chance.

As for banning in the future, I'd say that we need to be flexible on the "majority" of posters simply due to not having consistent member numbers. an anonymous vote should not be used for "coventry", since that is a personal pledge and petition. it has to be done openly. on these boards, we don't need to 'coventry', and can ban outright. for that to happen, some sort of majority is needed.

I don't think that moderators should carry any more weight than "regular" members, but i do think that people who've been part of the community long enough to be considered 'regulars' ought to have more say than someone who showed up two days before a vote.

this needs further discussion and consideration, but I'd like to agree that if someone's here to spam us with paypal schemes, we can delete the account outright. if they show up with a discworld ebay auction or whatnot, we ought to give them a warning.

and of course, if they've been here for a while and we know they're not JUST trying to advertise something, i genuinely think that advertising someting relevant to the boards is not an unforgivable sin.

beyond the worst of the spammers, i dont think deletion is necessary. our community history is important. we carry a lot of it with us (words in the heart, as it were), and don't need to have a physical (as it were) copy of them, but we shouldn't delete them casually.

BOTTOM LINE: banning is the new coventry. for a ban to be in place, we need some sort of majority agreement AFTER sufficient warnings and corrective criticism have been attempted.

sorry if i'm just repeating stuff everyone's already said

"If I wanted to read Wuthering Heights, I'd shoot my self."

Okay, so shall we unban Jaunty then seeing as he wants to give it another go; I mean he'll probably just screw things up again but if we tell him to read our rules first, I don't know?

Dragon's Kingdom - Stop typing "alot" when you mean "a lot"! - Disappointed

no, Jaunty screwed up on the new boards already.

I meant for people like Tony or Silmaril... but, honestly, my PERSONAL opinion is to leave em on block. I don't genuinely think they're that petty, that they might try to screw up our voting or anything (hell, I doubt they even care about us, except that I know silmaril was lurking a few days ago) but I know I certainly am petty enough not to give them the chance.

If everybody else feels that Jaunty should have a final chance, then I guess we can give him one. As you say, he'll just screw it up, but we DO have to have "FINAL" chances.

once one reaches the end of cake, there should be no more cake. that's what the END means.

"If I wanted to read Wuthering Heights, I'd shoot my self."