OTGBionicArm wrote:
@Latest Legend, that dude wasn't autistic. Either a troll, or just highly delusional. We still have one of those remaining on the site.
********'s a pretty good fertilizer
play with a duo bot lane get flack for not ganking. Heaven forbid I step on a ward because they don't know what Vision control is and I step on a ward every time I try.
In some cases having the icons too show you're an offender is a layer of transparency and in some cases it's good. However I have seen it used against a lot of people on forum threads as well and in some cases some people would message me to remove it for them because they would catch a lot of down votes or flak for even having the mark on their name. It's a tough call for sure if whether or not it's good to have that transparency showing someone has broken rules or not.
I think it's sort of like that, yea. But would it only stay while they're banned or would it persist after they're back? More importantly, would it indicate what the user got banned for? Because IMO it's kinda pointless if it ends up being a "Look, this person got banned! See, we do give bans!" without kinda saying what they were banned for.
Example: Say Sirnik does magically get reinstated to the forum, which I doubt will happen. Will he have an unremovable badge saying something along the lines of, "Temp banned in the past for (fill in the blank)" until the end of time? Probably not, because that would require dev work and also probably isn't super pressing of a matter, but also a solution.
I dunno, maybe I'm just adding stupid to an idea here. :V
Example: Say Sirnik does magically get reinstated to the forum, which I doubt will happen. Will he have an unremovable badge saying something along the lines of, "Temp banned in the past for (fill in the blank)" until the end of time? Probably not, because that would require dev work and also probably isn't super pressing of a matter, but also a solution.
I dunno, maybe I'm just adding stupid to an idea here. :V
True love is found only in yourself.
If we're going to have the "this guy has been bad on forums" badge the admins may as well perma-ban those people. In the end, the result would be the same. They either leave or make an alt account. Even if someone "reforms", the badge would be a hindrance more than an incentive.
On the other hand, thread-specific bans, maybe restrictions to access/post in some sections for a given amount of time could be useful (i.e. can't vote/comment on guides, can't post in "serious" threads), but that would need a good stratification of the forums, or at least a way to differentiate the threads so that toxic members can only enter after some spec has been accomplished (having to wait for 10 people to post; not being able to necro threads; whatever else that was thought by someone that knows about this stuff).
On the other hand, thread-specific bans, maybe restrictions to access/post in some sections for a given amount of time could be useful (i.e. can't vote/comment on guides, can't post in "serious" threads), but that would need a good stratification of the forums, or at least a way to differentiate the threads so that toxic members can only enter after some spec has been accomplished (having to wait for 10 people to post; not being able to necro threads; whatever else that was thought by someone that knows about this stuff).
Fair enough.
But, we have actually banned people from threads. It's not an elegant way to ban, we literally just say "stop posting here" and then that's basically it. As to physically stop them from posting in threads, not something we can do exactly.
But, we have actually banned people from threads. It's not an elegant way to ban, we literally just say "stop posting here" and then that's basically it. As to physically stop them from posting in threads, not something we can do exactly.
Thank you to jhoijhoi for the sig, and all the dividers in the guide.
You need to log in before commenting.
Working more with thread-specific bans is a good idea, though I'm not sure when that should've been applied in this case. The example you mention is clear-cut in the sense that BBG's posts were obviously non-constructive (detracting from the serious discussion going on), but - for example - he has also started discussions because of his mindset before in the QQ thread while posting exactly what the thread is made for, a QQ post. Obviously, that doesn't mean he is automatically innocent (especially if it's not the first time it happens), but it makes the situation more complicated than the example which you mention. Again, the question of who is at fault for the situation escalating plays a big part in determining the measures that need to be taken in those instances.
We haven't actually used this measure before or after the BBG case as far as I know (it just seemed to make sense), and I agree adding it as a possible measure we can take (after the first warning, and obviously before going over to temporary bans) is a good idea. Thanks for the feedback.
@ FalseoGod
Is the main purpose of this to show others that we take action, or is it also supposed to "motivate" (not sure whether this is the right word to use here) the user to clean up their act? I'm not sure I'm entirely convinced it does the latter well, but it's an interesting suggestion. I'll discuss it with PsiGuard and Mowen to see what their stance on that idea is.