Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[cowofdoom78963]

Firm? yes. Frustrated? yes. Openly hostile? no.

Well I have seen him get pretty mad at some people. He was showing some genuine rage against that one guy...

I forget his name but he was pretty well known.

[Cthulhu]

Anger and hostility are not the same thing.

[LegoLord]

Indeed.  For instance, I'm mildly angry that someone has lately been making vague statements for his arguments and on top of that argues with nearly everything (literally).  This makes me angry wherever - school, internet, party, you name it.  I am not, in contrast, making unprovoked (or poorly justified) scathing attacks on this person.

[qwertyuiopas]

Spoiler: crazy barely thought through, made up as I typed, scheme that might possibly be a better-than-nothing process for allowing some banned users to return.

Read at your own risk (click to show/hide)

You know what would WORK?


As a FIRST STEP, requiring a 5 thousand word essay, with requirements that heavily link it to the user and what they did wrong so that cheating it is very hard if not impossible, and that would be posted on a semi-public section where sufficiently highly ranked users who are interested may read them and cast their vote on if the person is worthy of returning. The author would be cencored to reduce bias.
If 80% of the voters, after at least 2 weeks and 30 votes, say they should be given a second chance, they get a short interview with a REAL moderator to convince them that they have changed their ways.
If THAT passes, they may make a personal (PM-based) apology to Toady and/or Threetoe and may be given a chance to prove that they really have learned from their mistake.
During the next month, any offense at all will reban them, and after that, they will be punished more severely than other users, at least for a year...

[Cthulhu]

I have a better idea.  It's a little controversial, and would really shake things up though.

Spoiler: Read at own risk (click to show/hide)

If they're banned, they're banned.  That's it.  They had fair warning, and refused to heed it.  It's too late to patch things up.

[Jreengus]

I have a better idea.  It's a little controversial, and would really shake things up though.

Spoiler: Read at own risk (click to show/hide)

If they're banned, they're banned.  That's it.  They had fair warning, and refused to heed it.  It's too late to patch things up.

Since we apparently turned into a democracy I second this motion.

[sonerohi]

I have a better idea.  It's a little controversial, and would really shake things up though.

Spoiler: Read at own risk (click to show/hide)

If they're banned, they're banned.  That's it.  They had fair warning, and refused to heed it.  It's too late to patch things up.

Hear hear! I also agree with not turning this into another AABT.

[Rooster]

I'm sorry but I really don't know (think that I know) what a AABT is...

Or maybe it's something so simple that I will go "why didn't I think of that?"

[ChairmanPoo]

Spoiler: crazy barely thought through, made up as I typed, scheme that might possibly be a better-than-nothing process for allowing some banned users to return.

Read at your own risk (click to show/hide)

You know what would WORK?


As a FIRST STEP, requiring a 5 thousand word essay, with requirements that heavily link it to the user and what they did wrong so that cheating it is very hard if not impossible, and that would be posted on a semi-public section where sufficiently highly ranked users who are interested may read them and cast their vote on if the person is worthy of returning. The author would be cencored to reduce bias.
If 80% of the voters, after at least 2 weeks and 30 votes, say they should be given a second chance, they get a short interview with a REAL moderator to convince them that they have changed their ways.
If THAT passes, they may make a personal (PM-based) apology to Toady and/or Threetoe and may be given a chance to prove that they really have learned from their mistake.
During the next month, any offense at all will reban them, and after that, they will be punished more severely than other users, at least for a year...

...you would do all that to get a stupid ban repealed? Have you no pride at all?

[sonerohi]

AABT - Armok Acts Bitchy Thread. Used to be a cool dood, more and more lately he's been very much so not cool and rather off.

[Tack]

Well, to throw my opinion into the mix.

1. A person who bans a person speaking negatively about banning is a Tyrant. Toady, nor Threetoe, are tyrants. cod, by saying you "fear you've dug your grave", you're pretty much just insulting the admins.

2. I think that a popular person who was banned is, actually, better justified than an un-banning. This is bay12. The happyfriendly community. I mean, if a person here was popular, it would generally mean that they had something which endeared themselves to a majority of people here. I.e. Not An Asshole. Or, if they were an asshole, they were funny and laid-back about it. Ergo, Popular People - are Popular for a Reason.
To be cruel, who here wants Broose back? I don't.

3. querty. A person's intelligence does not make them more, or less, liable to enter... wait. yes it does.
Nevermind.

If I think of more stuff, I'll probably put it up here.

And Drama is Drama, footkerchief. As long as I'm not organising a riot, and this thread hasn't petered out into inexistence, or trolling, I see no reason to lock it.

Speaking of trolling. No getting up the AABT. And No AB.

[Aqizzar]

2. I think that a popular person who was banned is, actually, better justified than an un-banning. This is bay12. The happyfriendly community. I mean, if a person here was popular, it would generally mean that they had something which endeared themselves to a majority of people here. I.e. Not An Asshole. Or, if they were an asshole, they were funny and laid-back about it. Ergo, Popular People - are Popular for a Reason.
To be cruel, who here wants Broose back? I don't.

It's good to hear you make this point, because it bears clarifying.  All this babbling about popularity versus rules misses the most important aspect of those rules.  The only real rules Toady One and Three Toe enforce is "don't be a jerk, don't make people mad, don't do stuff that would get us in trouble with the law".  In other words, there can be no conflict between popularity and the rules, because by definition, if you get banned, its because a significant number of people were mad at you.

[sonerohi]

Unless they break the law and get banned, despite doing it in such a way that we all find it f***ing awesome.

[Aqizzar]

If that ever actually happens, rest assured that I will speak up.

But it's just hypothetical at this point.

[cowofdoom78963]

1. A person who bans a person speaking negatively about banning is a Tyrant. Toady, nor Threetoe, are tyrants. cod, by saying you "fear you've dug your grave", you're pretty much just insulting the admins.

If anything you can call my fear ignorant, but calling it an insult is just twisting my words.