Some questions

1) I suspect we'll have to coventry someone eventually.
Will this happen in the same way (Adding names to the list) or with an anonymous vote? (I prefer keeping it out in the open... If only to remind others)

2)Also, what are the consequences for putting someone in coventry? (For the one sent there... Blocking, Banning, Moderator supervision?)

3) As for people we sent to coventry on the old boards but have nevertheless followed us here. Do we keep ignoring them?

Or, better put, do the coventry rules apply here as they did on the old board?
Or, as we now have the tools, do we Block or Ban?

Feel free to add your thoughts.

_Light moves faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak._

Since this is a fresh start for the community I think we could give a fresh start to everybody, if people are troublemakers it is within our power now to deal with them. If they just got caught in the crossfire at the other place they might have a chance at redemption.

I would say that if you did sign Coventry against a poster you would be well within your rights to ignore them until such time as you could stomach replying to them or they went away.

It may be a good thing that we establish all procedures early on, but I vote to give peace a chance.

() ()
( ' ,') "don't eat green potatoes"
(> >) Last words of Mrs. Bertha Sperling
@( )_ )_

Tricky. On the one hand, this is a different board with differeny systems, which makes me think coventry should not apply. On the other hand, it's the same community and the same people who we kept giving chances to before - we haven't had a memory wipe when we moved, and how they behaved is still how they behaved.

I'd like a response from the gods for this.

Mrs G
The Garner who cares.

I don't know whether there will be need for a coventry tactic on here or not. I require more information on what alternatives there are first.

However, anyone I sent to Coventry previously, will not elicit any response from me. We sent them to Coventry for a reason, and that is that they are a lost cause, they've had enough chances and messed them all up. I see no reason why they would change just because we've all moved.

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

Well, regarding the Coventry tactic, we should indeed consider the alternatives.

Banning is one, but we must have a clear definition for those who deserve to be banned. In some cases, it might be too drastic, but I dunno. As far as spammers and identified trolls go, I believe that banning is the way to go. For the rest I'm a bit unsure.

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

Our coventry was our verison of banning them, we didn't have the power to ban them before but now we do.

I'm with grace here. For someone to be placed in conventry on the HC board they had to anoy us pretty bad, and ignore multiple warnings and requests to change. Basically, they had to make it clear that they where either unable or unwilling to fit in here.They've already had countless chances.

Juanty is a perfect example, I'm sure he thinks he wants to fit in. But his avatar here is one that was asked to be removed at the old board. It shows that He is either unwilling or unable to think about his actions in a responsible manner. He didn't think 'oh, on the other board this avatar pissed people off, maybe I shouldn't use it this time'. He doesn't think. I see nothing good to out way the bad.

[quote:242de9e142="Rincewind"]Our coventry was our verison of banning them, we didn't have the power to ban them before but now we do.[/quote:242de9e142]
Yes.

This is the salient point. Thank you, Rinso.

Mrs G
The Garner who cares.

[quote:890d7feadc="Buzzfloyd"][quote:890d7feadc="Rincewind"]Our coventry was our verison of banning them, we didn't have the power to ban them before but now we do.[/quote:890d7feadc]
Yes.

This is the salient point. Thank you, Rinso.[/quote:890d7feadc]

I second that.

On the other hand, I'm inclined to consider something Mal mentioned once. A sort of silent ban, as it were. They can log on and post, but only they actually see their new posts. If it can be done in a way that won't bumb topics, I'm all for it. On the other hand, if they use a single IP, it's better to block that IP for good.

Which brings my next question. What are we banning, a particular account or a particular computer? For all intents and purposes, banning an IP is far more effective, as new Emails and accounts can be made with relative ease. On the other hand, if a library or school computer is used on a regular basis, some unnecessary fallout can happen. Granted, it's extremely unlikely, but still possible.

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

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.

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

I'm glad someone brought this up; it's kind of what I was thinking about when I started the intitial moderators thread, I'd been thinking about it all night after seeing JA show up and behaving in exactly the same manner as before.

I agree with Garner's thought on the above thread conscering this subject, including banning the people that have left us because they could no longer get along with us.

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

I think if we're planning to ban people, we should get a procedure for banning.

I suggest a coventry-style vote/petition. If we get a majority, they get banned.

If we do a poll, we should make it a condition that you post which way you voted for the vote to count. I guess this makes the poll more redundant, but it'll give us a quicker way of assessing the 'score'

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

[quote:9f8b8970fb="Roman_K"]On the other hand, I'm inclined to consider something Mal mentioned once. A sort of silent ban, as it were. They can log on and post, but only they actually see their new posts. If it can be done in a way that won't bumb topics, I'm all for it. On the other hand, if they use a single IP, it's better to block that IP for good.[/quote:9f8b8970fb]
I don't really see how the effect of this is any different from just banning someone. Why is one preferable to the other?

Also, what does 'bumb' mean?

[quote:9f8b8970fb]Which brings my next question. What are we banning, a particular account or a particular computer? For all intents and purposes, banning an IP is far more effective, as new Emails and accounts can be made with relative ease. On the other hand, if a library or school computer is used on a regular basis, some unnecessary fallout can happen. Granted, it's extremely unlikely, but still possible.[/quote:9f8b8970fb]

Emails should not have taken a capital here. :p I think the point about school and library computers is important.

Mrs G
The Garner who cares.

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."

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.

Mrs G
The Garner who cares.

I think if we're going to do it by petition we may as well do it the same way, out in the open, so the banee (is that a word?) can see the WE as individuals don't want to speak to them. We could also have a banlist to refer to in future, perhaps someone might want to start that off with a list from the other boards? Hopefully we wont need it that much though.

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