YesNoOk
avatar

Warnings v2 (Read 2876854 times)

Started by Valodim, February 07, 2010, 09:40:57 pm
Re: Warnings v2
#1501  February 13, 2013, 11:44:24 pm
  • ******
  • If you’re gonna reach for a star...
  • reach for the lowest one you can.
    • USA
    • network.mugenguild.com/jmorphman
I don't think it's necessary to deliberate over the preliminary ban.  If we start running back to confer with everyone before we do every little thing, we'll never get anything done.
I mean for people like celest or hjk, not like that one guy who was spamming the forum with 1.1 beta links. The latter is much rarer and should be acted on immediately, but I don't see any harm in discussing a ban for people like hjk. But I guess it's not really that important.

i will take this moment to point out that yall still havent decided if hes getting permabanned or not, or if not, the lenght of his ban.
You should be less worried about arguing procedure and more worried about actually ACTING OUT and doing stuff, imo.
Most everyone had agreed on a permaban. In fact I thought we had already decided on that, hence the discussion. Don't get your panties in a twist. >.>

I do NOT think he deserves a permaban for spamming in the shit thread.
OK, how about his behavior over the last five years? Or maybe his registering of multiple alternate accounts in order to spam? Doesn't that warrant a permaban?

He has shown, time after time after time, that he will not improve. He'll continue doing the same shit over and over again. If we don't permaban him, he will come back, do the same shit again, then get banned again. And it will go on and on.

Mog

Re: Warnings v2
#1502  February 14, 2013, 12:13:38 am
  • avatar
  • *****
It is NOT just for what happened in the shit thread.  Stop trying to claim that it is.  It's the result of everything he's been doing for a very long time.  He constantly tries to start fights in every thread he posts in, he frequently posts unwarranted, unprovoked attacks on other users just to cause a reaction, and he has a history of making multiple fake accounts for the express purpose of trolling that stretches back literally for years.

Frankly I don't understand how he wasn't permabanned years ago.

 Unprovoked attacks and multiple fake accounts are acceptable reasons for a lengthy ban, I have a differing opinion about what you see as "starting fights" though.   And I will admit  I'm defensive about this ban because it didn't follow procedure....so I will stop claiming  it was because what happened in the shit thread. 

That doesnt mean I have to like it you understand.


Re: Warnings v2
#1503  February 14, 2013, 12:44:39 am
  • ******
  • 日本は素晴らしい国です。
then elucidate us on how he wasnt starting fights,  shouldnt be banned and what should get him banned.
dont be coy , if you are going to say something say it to the end.

We are not talking about someone that the staff never dealt with , this is hjk, the guy with over five accounts.

Mog

Re: Warnings v2
#1504  February 14, 2013, 12:57:44 am
  • avatar
  • *****
I just said that the unprovoked attacks and multiple accounts were valid reasons for a lengthy ban.  And I don't see his liking to debate a variety of things as picking fights. 
Re: Warnings v2
#1505  February 14, 2013, 01:00:24 am
  • ******
  • 日本は素晴らしい国です。
he is literally bringing up posts from months ago as proof that people are stupid and he manipulated them into admitting their stupidity.
Re: Warnings v2
#1506  February 14, 2013, 01:39:51 am
  • ******
  • This is going to be very entertaining.
    • USA
How about this, then:  You tell us.  Where do you draw the line, Miss B?  How many years of obnoxious trolling is too many?  How many bannings for repeatedly breaking pretty much every rule this forum has are needed before you'll raise the red flag?  How many 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 89th chances do you think someone like HJK should get before you're comfortable saying that it's not worth all of the trouble of waiting around and hoping he'll behave next time?

When, in your own opinion, is enough going to be enough?
Re: Warnings v2
#1507  February 14, 2013, 01:43:49 am
  • avatar
  • ******
    • Thailand
It is NOT just for what happened in the shit thread.  Stop trying to claim that it is.  It's the result of everything he's been doing for a very long time.  He constantly tries to start fights in every thread he posts in, he frequently posts unwarranted, unprovoked attacks on other users just to cause a reaction, and he has a history of making multiple fake accounts for the express purpose of trolling that stretches back literally for years.

Frankly I don't understand how he wasn't permabanned years ago.

 Unprovoked attacks and multiple fake accounts are acceptable reasons for a lengthy ban, I have a differing opinion about what you see as "starting fights" though.   And I will admit  I'm defensive about this ban because it didn't follow procedure....so I will stop claiming  it was because what happened in the shit thread. 

That doesnt mean I have to like it you understand.




Why are you ignoring my posts? What is wrong with you? You can't take it when someone tells you how you are simply not necessary, but you have no problem telling other people when they aren't? You think you're not capable of improvement because you are already the best human being possible? Please tell me.

All you do is this. This right here. What's happening now is all you do. Make us argue about something that shouldn't even be a question. This is the only thing you contribute. You are not "keeping us on our toes," you are being obnoxious and annoying.
Re: Warnings v2
#1508  February 14, 2013, 02:04:13 am
  • *****
  • ロッキングガール
  • 「目指すはクールでロックなアイドル!」
    • twitter.com/c001357
I thought our new system would be that we ban for a short time and discuss long term bans first, with no long term bans outside of extreme cases. That way sounds like a good system to me. HJK's ban is set for 388 days from now, that's a bit long to be considered a 'preliminary ban'. The problem with something like this is I don't feel like he should be banned permanently, but I know when he comes back it won't take long for him to go back to stuff like this. In fact that was his whole gimmick last time he was banned. Plus there was all those attempts at ban evasion. I wouldn't object to a permanent ban for him.

Even after what I said about preliminary bans, if he isn't gonna be gone for good the time you have set coincidentally seems reasonable for his offenses. Getting a consensus beforehand still seems like a better idea though. I'm mixed on that too because I do trust yall to make good judgment calls. Maybe there's a compromise in here somewhere.

right, the discussion was whether immediately banning was out of procedure (which it was agreed to be), but i am not seeing a compromise since he is gonna be gone for good (which most agreed to)

Mog

Re: Warnings v2
#1509  February 14, 2013, 02:11:15 am
  • avatar
  • *****
How about this, then:  You tell us.  Where do you draw the line, Miss B?  How many years of obnoxious trolling is too many?  How many bannings for repeatedly breaking pretty much every rule this forum has are needed before you'll raise the red flag?  How many 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 89th chances do you think someone like HJK should get before you're comfortable saying that it's not worth all of the trouble of waiting around and hoping he'll behave next time?

When, in your own opinion, is enough going to be enough?


I said twice now, this makes 3 times  that the unprovoked attacks and multiple accounts were valid reasons for a lengthy ban.  I'm not arguing against the ban.  I was arguing against the way it was carried out and that seems to be settled now. 



Re: Warnings v2
#1510  February 14, 2013, 04:05:33 am
  • ******
  • Legendary XIII
  • I am the eye of the storm to come!
    • New Zealand
    • network.mugenguild.com/cyanide/
I'm going to bring mine back up again.

3 days is the slap on the wrist. 99% of people can come straight back after this. Unless the offence is incredibly serious any of us should be happy enough to do this without an argument.
What are our other "defined lengths" I don't like applying ad hoc bans of random lengths for similar offences, it's inconsistent and stupid. Lets come up with some time limits for regular bans that actually have a defined length.

Any permanent ban must be discussed during those 3 days. If we can't agree on permanent it becomes one of the other ban options. 1 week, fortnight, month, 3 months, whatever. If we look at a year ban we're basically saying permanent so that's pretty pointless.

So for your input. What warrants more than 3 days. What warrants the longest as yet undefined time anyone should be banned as consequences for their actions.


In M.U.G.E.N there is no magic button

They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance.

Mog

Re: Warnings v2
#1511  February 14, 2013, 04:17:39 am
  • avatar
  • *****
I've been thinking about this since you brought it up.  Are you saying if we decide posting  (whatever) is worth a 1 month ban, then any of us should automatically give that person a 1 month ban?
Re: Warnings v2
#1512  February 14, 2013, 04:21:51 am
  • *****
  • ロッキングガール
  • 「目指すはクールでロックなアイドル!」
    • twitter.com/c001357
it means 3 days is the default ban length, with any extension necessary to be discussed here
Re: Warnings v2
#1513  February 14, 2013, 04:25:37 am
  • ******
  • If you’re gonna reach for a star...
  • reach for the lowest one you can.
    • USA
    • network.mugenguild.com/jmorphman
So for your input. What warrants more than 3 days.
IMO, basically, what you posted, but 6 month bans also being for not only warez and stuff but really disruptive posting and/or repeat offenders of that kind of posting.

Mog

Re: Warnings v2
#1514  February 14, 2013, 04:32:26 am
  • avatar
  • *****
^ Shouldnt we also be taking into consideration length of time between repeat offences? 
Re: Warnings v2
#1515  February 14, 2013, 04:32:37 am
  • *****
  • ロッキングガール
  • 「目指すはクールでロックなアイドル!」
    • twitter.com/c001357
my problem with that method is that its a little too inflexible for me; you've already mentioned otherwise but the way it comes across its either 3 days or permanent
the ban lengths may seem arbitrary but generally theyre based on the mods' judgement calls for what requires appropriate action- you can assign lengths to offenses, but then it too becomes just as arbitrary: what are the exceptions, if any? does a users action in other sites, does the popular opinion here influence decisions? and so on.



     Posted: February 14, 2013, 04:34:03 am
i do support the short ban thing, by the way
Re: Warnings v2
#1516  February 14, 2013, 04:37:45 am
  • ******
  • If you’re gonna reach for a star...
  • reach for the lowest one you can.
    • USA
    • network.mugenguild.com/jmorphman
^ Shouldnt we also be taking into consideration length of time between repeat offences?
I figure a good rule of thumb would be double the length of the previous ban, or if that exceeds 6 months, then just go with 6 months. If someone has already been banned for 6 months previously, then it'll be a permaban.

my problem with that method is that its a little too inflexible for me; you've already mentioned otherwise but the way it comes across its either 3 days or permanent
Well, it is pretty inflexible, but I think it would make sense as a general guide or something.
Re: Warnings v2
#1517  February 14, 2013, 04:42:40 am
  • ******
  • Legendary XIII
  • I am the eye of the storm to come!
    • New Zealand
    • network.mugenguild.com/cyanide/
It's more what ban lengths do we do for certain events if the 3 day slap has no effect. Ie

I post porn. You ban me for it. I return and post porn again. How long am i banned for on this second offence?
I shit post. You ban me for it. I return and continue to shitpost, how long am i banned for
I follow a user round insulting them without engaging in the forum. You ban me for it, i return and repeat, how long am i banned for.

Please note that the repeat may occur any time between day after return and a year down the track. If there is a period of time between first and second offence will the ban length change or stay the same. Obviously repeat offences of the same sort after multiple bans warrant the permaban discussion OR we just continuously ban them for a defined period of time until they stop (although we know this is pointless)

I want to set down where we stand on these lengths so we don't actually need to discuss this stuff as it is honestly a bit of a waste of time. Permabans certainly, regular known first/second offences, no, we should be able to do these without discussing. It shouldn't be 3 days first random period second because that is not consistent when the offences are the same.

I suggested earlier that we have 3 days, 1 week, 1 month, 6 months (this would be the longest expiring ban, beyond this you may as well permanent them) I then ask for opinions on these, whether they should change and what to, and what offences warrant them. We have the rules, lets marry some shit up and decide, it'll make our job simpler.


In M.U.G.E.N there is no magic button

They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance.
Re: Warnings v2
#1518  February 14, 2013, 04:50:28 am
  • ******
  • This is going to be very entertaining.
    • USA
I'm still not sure.  It's really hard to pin down exact numbers here, because every case is going to be different.  Is it a user's first offense, or have they been in trouble for the same thing before?  Are they breaking the rules because they honestly don't know any better like celest, or because they're intentionally trying to start trouble like HJK?  There's a million little things that should be considered.  It's too big of a gray area to be able to definitively say "doing X will always get you Y."

I think the best way to go about it would be to use the three day ban to look at each instance as its own case, rather than trying to look up the appropriate bullet point on a list.
Re: Warnings v2
#1519  February 14, 2013, 04:55:04 am
  • ******
  • Legendary XIII
  • I am the eye of the storm to come!
    • New Zealand
    • network.mugenguild.com/cyanide/
But there is no reason to treat it like that. If it is a users first offence it's 3 days. We've established that. Why must bans be some obscure number of days based on anything else? If it's 3 days and they repeat the same offence, it's a week. If it's 3 days and they do a different offence, 3 days. If it's 3 days and then they repeat it 3 months down the track is it still a week or another 3 days or an increase to a fortnight. I don't like applying abitrary lengths to this stuff.


In M.U.G.E.N there is no magic button

They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance.
Re: Warnings v2
#1520  February 14, 2013, 08:44:48 am
  • avatar
  • ******
    • Thailand
It's really shitty that Missbhaven is just ignoring my posts as if I'm "trolling" her or insulting her or as if she's too good. Address my posts and stop weaseling out by replying to every other post besides mine.