Can someone look at the member list for this site to see who isn't with us any more, I've made AuntyJangle, Silmaril and Tonyblack inactive so they can't sneak on and vote on stuff (not saying the last two would of course, just that they shouldn't be able to); is there anyone else that shouldn't be allowed to vote who's a member here from before?

Also, are we going to make a proper banlist of people incuding the people we've sent to coventry, if we are can someone do that too sometime?

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

Just added Cat...

Am I right to add Jaunty whatsit by the way?

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

Ba thinks so. Jaunty was given plenty of chances on the old board.

I agree.

Mrs G
The Garner who cares.

What would be the criteria/ are the criteria for being made inactive - besides coventry (aka, a disturbance to the community?) Declaring you're not a part of the community anymore? That would fit to all. A possible abuse of the old account? That would, as Mal pointed out, not describe every one of them.
Just asking, because if I'm not sure, I can hardly say anything...

"Hoher Sinn liegt oft im kindischen Spiel." (Friedrich Schiller)

Whilst I don't disagree with the decisions in theory, I think we're setting a dangerous precedent by banning these people straight off without having a vote first.

Bannings should be a community decision.

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

I thought we were talking about people we'd already banned as a community decision, apart from those who publicly stated they no longer want anything to do with us?

Are you saying we should start again?

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

Silmaril and Tony... I guess as they have said that they don't want to be part of the community then maybe that's them asking to be banned, although I'm not really sure about that.

We had a coventry petition on JA that yielded 13 signatures. If we are going to use the criteria of 25 votes for a banning, then really we need a poll for his banning.

I think we need a community decision on bannings, and I feel that we need to start as we mean to go on

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

Could you make a suggestion for what our policy should be, Ben?

Mrs G
The Garner who cares.

Largely what I said in the 'Coventry' thread below, although it's a bit garbled so I'll try and make it a bit clearer here.

a) Persistent problem poster is identified
b) Poll is started about banning. All people who vote should make a post saying that they have voted to ensure that the problem poster hasn't just made lots of new accounts to vote against. Alternatively... is it possible to have a poll with one option? The other of course being not to vote at all.
c) Once the threshold number is reached (you suggested 25 earlier, I think the Roll Call thread might play a role in determining what the number should be), the poster is banned.

Any comments?

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

I've got a crap addition to the plan.
I think the number of people needed to ban someone should be lower (say 15). I think if that amount of the population (which is about a 3rd?) have a problem with someone, and no one wants to defend him, the that should be enough. If some people vote against a banning (say 5) then the number should rise(to say 25).

I'm quote hungover and thinking hurts. So sorry if I make no sense.

That might just be crazy enough to work!

Seriously, I think that's a good idea.

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

[quote:52cdf9b056="Electric_Man"]Silmaril and Tony... I guess as they have said that they don't want to be part of the community then maybe that's them asking to be banned, although I'm not really sure about that.

We had a coventry petition on JA that yielded 13 signatures. If we are going to use the criteria of 25 votes for a banning, then really we need a poll for his banning.

I think we need a community decision on bannings, and I feel that we need to start as we mean to go on[/quote:52cdf9b056]Well shall we unban these people then or what?

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

I've said more on this elsewhere, mostly in email which I don't have immediately available, but just a quick chime in:

I agree that if no one's stuck up for someone then we shouldn't need the same majority to justify a ban.

I think a coventry is also equivalent to a ban, but as I've said elsewhere I'd be willing to revisit the thought if someone was genuinely going to apologize and try to improve. If they've been coventried, they shouldn't ever get a "Second" chance though.

As for people like Tony and Silmaril... they did a lot of wrong by me personally, and to some degree the community as a whole. I'm therefore not going to even attempt to hide the fact that this is a very biased opinion...

If someone's publicly "Left" boardania, then they've left. I don't think this is something that should be taken lightly. I say we ban them right then and there on the spot. If they decide they were rash and screwed up, they need to make up for it and apologize. actually, now that I think about it... maybe a one week cooling off period? Look at Pretty Butterfly... she overreacted and declared she was leaving, then came back and, when put to the point, apologized for it and it was all water under the bridge after that.

To use Silmaril as an example, if she came back and said "look, I'm sorry I behaved the way I did. I'm sorry I said I'd address anything I left unfinished and then went and told Buzzfloyd I couldn't care less about answering Rinso's posts... I based a lot of bad behavior on emotional feelings and had the gall to deny it. I was naughty. Please forgive me.", I'd say we could look at giving her a last chance. if she screwed up or tried to Tonyland the place, then I'd say she should go out.

The thing is, to refer to something swreader said in her parting shot, there are times when an abject apology is REQUIRED before you can ever hope to start making amends for your behavior.

So, I have no problem with banning tony, cat, silmaril, etc. I wouldn't want to ban Leather Monkey, he appears to have left us for the stamps forum before the Tonyland exodus, but he never specificly said he was leaving. I wouldn't want to ban Chris Jordan or Pepster, because they didn't quit the community, they quit the old boards. There's a difference.

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

I think we should ban people who specifically said they left our community because they didn't like it, and haven't changed their mind since their last post on Harper Collins.

Cat Clash