I agree with that Rinso. If we had banned or been able to ban people from the old board for the last few years we may have lost some people we now call friends.

Back to stay!

okay, so, if someone does a Juggy, they can be immediately banned. other people MIGHT be up for a banning if they get three strikes...

this is NOT "clear" rules.

what we need to do is simpliy it further and say simply "after someone has been repeatedly warned for violating board rules or alienating the community, they may be subject to banning or having their IP blocked."

as for begging forgiveness after three strikes...

why not beg after one?

the thing is, someone like plaid wouldn't have been up for banning after three strikes, because she was coherent and at least listened to what we said. someone like jaunty never listened at all, and someone like steve or juggy was only there to try and get my goat.

well,

YOU CAN'T HAVE MR BILLY ANYMORE!

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

If juggy turns up, he can be insantly banned becuase he has been banned before.

Re forgiveness.

After some gets a strike, they should be re-directed too the rules. Therefore they shouldn’t really be making ‘mistakes’ anymore. Because they should be up to date on the rules.
But, I’d still like to leave us some room to judge it on a case by case.
I think adding the ‘after 3 strikes you *can* as aposed to *will* be up for public voting’ means we’re not constricted to putting people up for banning if we don’t want too.

Say, for example someone gets 3 strikes over a period or a year or two, but all the other times their fine? Do we still put them up for Banning? Have they really done anything that wrong? They’ll probably survive the ban, but will be forced to lurk or a week. Which I’m not sure I’d like.

Also, is there a definite answer to weather or not we’re able to block people from posting but not given a full ban?

Also, Voting, how is it going to work? Is it going to be open or blind? If it’s blind how can we stop vote altering by trolls?

Garner has some good things to say about this. So maybe he’ll post later?

What other potential problems can you guys see?

Garner has nothing but snot and phlegm at the moment, and has deleted the email with all the clever things to say.

still, garner has never let that sort of thing stop him:

Saying we MIGHT ban you if you act like a cock means that we MIGHT actually do something about it and we might not. "We might give you three strikes, we might give you a million"

now, Im not going to single anybody out from our current crowd, and I'm not going to cite any examples from our past, but let's just leave it at a given that there are ALWAYS people who say "lets give them one more chance" after we've already given them plenty.

I think we need to look at things on a case by case basis regardless of the rules. If we say rude language is bad and can get you banned, doors and I are gone immediately, and a lot of other regulars. Now, i think the fact that I've been here for ages and doors has been around long enough to learn a few people's names should count for something there. Likewise, i simply don't think that profanity on its own is worth banning or really even warning someone.

if they call people wankers or assholes, that's an unprovoked attack. if they just say "shit" once in a while, they is - to me - not an issue worth considering.

I think that we shouldn't let people post when they're up for a banning vote. if they have anything to say in their defense, they should be able to say it before the voting starts, when they get their warnings.

i think that there's nothing wrong with having a procedure for appeals, perhaps a subforum or a special thread within The Temple. if someone gets banned while Rinso's on vacation and he had an awful lot to say in favor of not banning the person, he should be allowed to say his peace. If it's sufficient to reverse the banning, we unban and probably send an apology.

moderator oversight is not a bad thing.

as for voting...

i think we should make it a custom to say that you voted. i think saying how you voted is optional and always needs to be. there might be some issues where we don't want to do a private vote, and for those we can just add our names like a petition, as in the old days.

what i'd suggest at this point is that we all vote on an issue and once the voting is closed THEN we say that we voted. if we want to say how, we can do that too. that's the only way to preserve anonymity and ward against fraud, as i see it. my reason for this is that if we say we voted as we vote, it becomes easy enough to figure out how each person voted. if we are going to say how we voted, then all the damn poll does is just give us a visual aid to go along with it.

now, if 19 people vote yes and only one person votes no, i think that person who voted no should come forward - of their own accord - to explain their point of view. maybe they know something the rest of us dont.

...

i think that's the main stuff. rinso, if there's anything we'd discussed via email that you think needs to be brought up, go ahead and say it man.

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

[quote:605df1581e="Garner"]I think we need to look at things on a case by case basis regardless of the rules. If we say rude language is bad and can get you banned, doors and I are gone immediately, and a lot of other regulars. Now, i think the fact that I've been here for ages and doors has been around long enough to learn a few people's names should count for something there. Likewise, i simply don't think that profanity on its own is worth banning or really even warning someone.

if they call people wankers or assholes, that's an unprovoked attack. if they just say "shit" once in a while, they is - to me - not an issue worth considering.[/quote:605df1581e]
You're talking about the distinction between swearing and swearing [i:605df1581e]at[/i:605df1581e] someone. This is just the same stuff I've gone over a lot recently about insults.

I am in full agreement with Garner's post.

Mrs G
The Garner who cares.

i am indeed talking about the difference between swearing and swearing at someone.

sneezing as well. sneezing, just as sneezing, is not wrong or bad. sneezing on someone, however... that's bannable behavior. i think it counts as three strikes and a vote all rolled into one, but she should definately give ourselves six to eight weeks to think about it first.

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