Ok, We need to get an offically rule for banning:

I say three warnings then a community vote.

So if some breaks a rule (we need to work out the rules)

The mod says This is against the rules. Then links the rules, and asked the person to re-read them

If someone breaks the rules agian

The says 'This is the second time you;ve broken the rules if you break them one more time you will get banned. Link to the rules, asked the person to re-read them

If someone Breaks the rules agian:

This is the third time you have broken the rules. You are now up for public banning.


Then they make a thread saying

This person broke the rules on ocasion x,y and z.

The community votes to ban him.


I think it's important that the community votes to get someone banned. That way if a Mod gave someone a warning for something that wasn't really agianst the rules, the community could pick the mod up on it. It would keep the mods in check. I think we have to keep our ways as close to the old board.

Looks like it's the way to go, Rinso. I second it. Any other suggestions, though, anyone?

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

I think it's a good system that makes a lot of sense, and what Rinso outlined was very clear. I say use that as our banning policy, but as Roman said, suggestions are welcome.

"Because purple spiders are napping on the moon, that's why!"

:: returns from camping ::

Yes. That seems to be the way to go.

Just need to work ouy exactly what the rules are

Why are pirates called pirates?

Agreed, Doors. In fact, I think it's time to start on said rules.

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

Do we consider the severity of the rules transgression, or are all rules created equal?

I think severity should be considered.

identity fraud is worse than starting a casting thread.

when we're revisiting the "rules", we need to decide which ones are CLEARLY bannable offenses.

someone like jaunty never did much that would specificly rate a warning, he was just continually a low grade pest. his first post would have rated a warning, and he DID break rules after that, just to be clear. however, we got sick of the lowgrade stuff, which only made the initial crimes worse.

anyway, until I can dig through our email conversations about this, I won't have much else to add.

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

Ah. How do we react to casting threads?

As long as they are confined to one (official) thread I don't see an issue.

My suggestion: People posting a castingthread should have their thread locked and moved to the DD, given an explanation/justification and be directed to the "Official casting call thread" and the Rules thread.
Minor offense, but "strike one" nonetheless.

However: There's some now in the different books threads, and they are basically badly constructed polls with a very UK centered, limited choice. Nothing we can do though, because there's no rules prohibiting it...

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

The problem at the moment is what Tephlon pointed out, we haven't got a set of 'rules' yet. Most of us know how to behave but it looks like we're getting newbies and it's not prudent to point them to the faq thread on the HC site.

As important as the manner faq are the offical threads. If we make them sticky it'll be easier for newbies to do 'right'.

That which does not kill me has committed a serious mistake.

our current rules are the same as our rules from the harper collins site until those rules are updated and changed.

Casting threads are NOT a good thing, but we can ignore them because they're a minor thing. we will have an official casting thread eventually. when we do, we can consider closing the other ones.

if a post is started on a casting thread, we point the people involved to the existing casting thread. locking wouldn't be necessary unless they kept using it

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

[quote:ea73515303="Rincewind"]That way if a Mod gave someone a warning for something that wasn't really agianst the rules, the community could pick the mod up on it. It would keep the mods in check.
[/quote:ea73515303]

Just to be clear (I've only just started to catch up with "The Temple" topics so sorry if this was established in another thread) does this mean that the three warnings a person is given can only come from a moderator? Or do other peoples comments count as an "official warning"?

I don't suppose it matters as if a member points out that someone has broken the rules a mod would probably back that up with an "official" warning anyway, I just wanted to check.

Once the person has broken the rules three times, and the vote is taking place, there needs to be a time limit on the voting. We don't need a vote going on for a week about whether or not to ban someone, when in the meantime he's posting crap all over the board.

edit: To add:


[quote:e97108e557="McLaren"]
Just to be clear (I've only just started to catch up with "The Temple" topics so sorry if this was established in another thread) does this mean that the three warnings a person is given can only come from a moderator? Or do other peoples comments count as an "official warning"?

I don't suppose it matters as if a member points out that someone has broken the rules a mod would probably back that up with an "official" warning anyway, I just wanted to check.[/quote:e97108e557]

I was thinking about this earlier. Now that we have official moderators, I think it's important that a moderator states the rule to the offender at least once. So that we don't have to deal with someone replying, "Who are you to tell me what to do?" which is what happened frequently on HC.

Cat Clash

[quote:2f003e7d49="Marcia"]Once the person has broken the rules three times, and the vote is taking place, there needs to be a time limit on the voting. We don't need a vote going on for a week about whether or not to ban someone, when in the meantime he's posting crap all over the board.
[/quote:2f003e7d49]

Maybe the moderator could ban that person assuming the vote appears to be going that way on the grounds that people seem to be saying they should be banned and they're causing more trouble, then un-ban them if there's a swing in the vote for some reason (which is unlikely)?

Although I agree that a time limit or a necessary number of votes for a ban should be decided.

[quote:0f12036a41="Marcia"]Once the person has broken the rules three times, and the vote is taking place, there needs to be a time limit on the voting. We don't need a vote going on for a week about whether or not to ban someone, when in the meantime he's posting crap all over the board.

edit: To add:


[quote:0f12036a41="McLaren"]
Just to be clear (I've only just started to catch up with "The Temple" topics so sorry if this was established in another thread) does this mean that the three warnings a person is given can only come from a moderator? Or do other peoples comments count as an "official warning"?

I don't suppose it matters as if a member points out that someone has broken the rules a mod would probably back that up with an "official" warning anyway, I just wanted to check.[/quote:0f12036a41]

I was thinking about this earlier. Now that we have official moderators, I think it's important that a moderator states the rule to the offender at least once. So that we don't have to deal with someone replying, "Who are you to tell me what to do?" which is what happened frequently on HC.[/quote:0f12036a41]

I'd say devil karma or a temporary ban.
Regarding devil karma: Mods should set their threshold to -1 in order to see if anyone with devil karma is posting crap.

Warnings should be official, done by a mod. That doesn't mean a member can't warn anyone, but like McLaren said, the mod is the one that slaps the wrist.

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

I'd like to say that anyone could say you've broke the rules...otherwise I think we have a 'oh...wait til Doors sees this atittude' it depends on how clear the rules are.

If the rules are clear and someone clearly brakes them, Any member can say according to rule 1 you've done X.

There should be no 'who the hell or you to tell me off' becuase it should be clear by the rules (agian, this depends on how clear are rules are).

I think there should be a time limit on a post, I'd say 48 hours, but i'm not sure if thats long enough for people who don't check the board. Maybe it could be longer and the person has a tempory ban while the voting takes place.


I think there should be a difference between majour and minor rule breaking. Hopfully a lot of the stuff that anoys us won't happen becuase we have stickys and stuff.