Should Mod's have to explain bans

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



{{QS}}
Should they have to give better explanations of why some-one is banned than "Sock" or "Provoking members knowingly"

Puzzle
Originally posted by {{QS}}
Should they have to give better explanations of why some-one is banned than "Sock" or "Provoking members knowingly"

No, it's usually public knowledge who they were a sock of (members usually guess it first) and if they were provoking members then it is on the open forums (PM's are usually a safe zone), just check their final posts and you will see the provoking.

T.M
Isn't the reason for the ban at the bottom of the persons profile?

Or has that stopped ?

§P0oONY
Originally posted by {{QS}}
Should they have to give better explanations of why some-one is banned than "Sock" or "Provoking members knowingly"

Shush Eclipso... You need no further explination.

Puzzle
Originally posted by T.M
Isn't the reason for the ban at the bottom of the persons profile?

Or has that stopped ?

What he means is that he thinks the mods need to say more than just "Sock" or "Bashing", etc. But no more information is needed, they were banned, move on.

Syren
laughing out loud

T.M
Originally posted by Puzzle
What he means is that he thinks the mods need to say more than just "Sock" or "Bashing", etc. But no more information is needed, they were banned, move on.

Ooh OK..

I agree with you though, no more info is needed than what is given all ready

WrathfulDwarf
Originally posted by {{QS}}
Should they have to give better explanations of why some-one is banned than "Sock" or "Provoking members knowingly"

What do you want to know?

§P0oONY

BackFire
Said it was a sock of someone else, actually.

Either way.

§P0oONY
Damn.....


You could have kept that to yourself BackFire.... Let me have my moment of glory... You damn mods and your "better explanations of why some-one is banned than "Sock" or "Provoking members knowingly""

BackFire
Yes..

I like the idea of writing an essay for every member that is banned. I can go into great detail about why his sock account was banned.

Schecter
Originally posted by Eclipso
I just trust the mods know what they are doing.


Originally posted by Eclipso

They are mods for a reason, they are qualified to be there and just because you see it as a mistake doesn't automatically mean it's true, it's arrogant to think that way.

Originally posted by Eclipso
the mods don't hand out bannings left and right they do it for a reason and I trust that it was for the right one.


Originally posted by Eclipso
So far the mods I've dealt with have been very patient with allot of things they could've banned people for and all the people they have banned while I have been here that I have seen deserved it. So you could say they have EARNED that trust from me. Sorry your pal got banned, I have nothing personal against him.

Originally posted by Eclipso
Well, my point is that I don't see what you hope to accomplish, the mods aren't going to reverse his ban or anything. I understand the need to vent, just at some point ya have to let it go.


laughing

§P0oONY
Originally posted by BackFire
Yes..

I like the idea of writing an essay for every member that is banned. I can go into great detail about why his sock account was banned.
Write enough and you never know... A publishing deal may head your way... The riveting stories of sock accounts could keep any reader thrilled for hours... It'll be a best selling book you will never put down.

.... *cough*

Schecter
naaaa, the butt rape book will sell far better. stick to the plan.

BackFire
can't I do both?

looks like i ****ed up though, turns out the guy wasn't a sock, instead had an issue much like you, PVS.

My bad.

§P0oONY
Hahahahaha... PVS got owned by the system.

Lord Melkor
Law enforcement needs transparency, even on online boards.

Schecter
yeah yeah, too bad for QS, nothing against him/her.
im just celebrating the delicious irony of eclipso hehehe

Syren
It has such a sweet taste droolio

Bardock42
I would appreciate more information in some cases.

Syren
Such as the information provided in PVS's profile yes

Schecter
Originally posted by Syren
Such as the information provided in PVS's profile yes

that will likely be a copy paste explanation in case anyone does what ive done intentionally or otherwise. i wouldnt expect them to have to write a damn essay for every ban....i mean....would you? ....for no money, even?

Spidervlad
I think yes, they should. Atleast a small explanation written down in maybe their sigs? It would also help alot for a "Banned" person to be allowed to log in for one more day for atleast explaining something or finding out why they are banned. I have also seen mods start to overabuse their powers. And some of them even act like their much more important people then normal users. And thats not true. They are people who keep the law here, but they preety much aren't more important.

Think of police officers and civilians. Police officers aren't any bit more important then the civilians. In our case, it's the members that make up the community so Mods should be just as respective and well-mannered to the normal members.

Oh yeah, and the "Eclipso Irony" is just hilarious.

Puzzle
Originally posted by Spidervlad
I think yes, they should. Atleast a small explanation written down in maybe their sigs? It would also help alot for a "Banned" person to be allowed to log in for one more day for atleast explaining something or finding out why they are banned. I have also seen mods start to overabuse their powers. And some of them even act like their much more important people then normal users. And thats not true. They are people who keep the law here, but they preety much aren't more important.

Think of police officers and civilians. Police officers aren't any bit more important then the civilians. In our case, it's the members that make up the community so Mods should be just as respective and well-mannered to the normal members.

Oh yeah, and the "Eclipso Irony" is just hilarious.

A small description is written in their profiles when they are banned. A member can always get someone to have a moderator e-mail them if they want to plead their case.

Spidervlad
First of all, some moderators don't have email addresses. Second of all, ALMOST ALL the moderators don't read their PM Messages because of the amount they get, and if they see an email address which comes to their email that is unfamiliar, i'm sure they will regard it as spam. We need to encourage Moderators to take all this seriously, and to regard every Banning, socking, or even warning case as top priority.

Puzzle
Originally posted by Spidervlad
First of all, some moderators don't have email addresses. Second of all, ALMOST ALL the moderators don't read their PM Messages because of the amount they get, and if they see an email address which comes to their email that is unfamiliar, i'm sure they will regard it as spam. We need to encourage Moderators to take all this seriously, and to regard every Banning, socking, or even warning case as top priority.

Actually I know almost every moderators e-mail address(es), every moderator I've ever PM'ed has read the message I sent them and either responded in kind or acknowledge the message in another way. I used to be a moderator...they don't receive as many PM's as you would think. If a member wants to email a mod then he/she can put as the title "This is So&So from KMC".

Syren
Gotta agree with Puzzle here, and most of the mods treat members with a decent amount of respect. What more do you want, really? At the end of the day, the mods are there for a specific purpose. They are in a position of authority and do have to means to assert that, would you rather we were all 'equal' and all hell broke loose?

Bardock42
Originally posted by Syren
would you rather we were all 'equal' and all hell broke loose?

Yes

Fire
People who are banned know why they are banned, they are the only people who need to know. There is a difference between transparency (which there is because the rules are public and people know why they are banned) and too much transparency (moderators their every actions being under the scrutiny of tens of members.) It could very well lead to a situation in which moderation would be almost impossible.

PS: In the end it's all up to Raz and as he said KMC ain't a democracy!

{{QS}}
I only brought this up due to new rules brought in on another board i go on.Moderator's were getting ban-happy and so it was made for a ban to take place it had to be discussed between 3 of the mods and a topic made explaining the ban.But after being banned i now know that the message at the bottom of a profile is also the message the banned member gets, and i don't think they need to be told why there banned.

P.S Sorry about not having anything in my profile regarding the issue with my old account.

Schecter
my issue is that they're so damn bound to protocol with regards to proxy/spoof i.p. sock trolls.
why does a sock troll actually have to admit they are a sock troll in order to be banned? they always follow the same patterns, always seem to instantly begrudge otf/gdf members which they had supposedly never even come across, and always is the case that everyone knows who they are. whats the worst thats going to happen? you might ban some idiot by accident? ok then, who will be served a lawsuit for such a mistake? thats right, nobody.

Puzzle
Originally posted by Schecter
my issue is that they're so damn bound to protocol with regards to proxy/spoof i.p. sock trolls.
why does a sock troll actually have to admit they are a sock troll in order to be banned? they always follow the same patterns, always seem to instantly begrudge otf/gdf members which they had supposedly never even come across, and always is the case that everyone knows who they are. whats the worst thats going to happen? you might ban some idiot by accident? ok then, who will be served a lawsuit for such a mistake? thats right, nobody.

Amen.

Islamic_Cleric
Originally posted by Schecter
my issue is that they're so damn bound to protocol with regards to proxy/spoof i.p. sock trolls.
why does a sock troll actually have to admit they are a sock troll in order to be banned?

I'm sure the global mods can ban anyone they want.

Originally posted by Schecter always seem to instantly begrudge otf/gdf members which they had supposedly never even come across,

fantasy, I suspect having read this it's more of a problem to those members.

Originally posted by Schecter
my issue is that they're so damn bound to protocol with regards to proxy/spoof i.p. sock trolls.


Yup thought so.

Originally posted by Schecter
whats the worst thats going to happen? you might ban some idiot by accident?

Ever been theatened with a ban or banned? Did you agree with it, i'm sure many trolls agree with the ban and just enjoy coming on and playing. I'm sure it's not malicious because you don't see someone going on a hard proxy, pretty much untraceable (so i've heard wink) with an internet provider who keeps no records and posting anything really bad. I'm sure any adequate sock troll could do this. You also don't see them going to v bulletins site which i'm sure some belong to and have paid the vbulletin licence (only about one hundred and sixty pounds the warez versions are on torrent) when there was a fault in ebulletins security 3 years ago coming on and exploiting it.

Originally posted by Schecter
ok then, who will be served a lawsuit for such a mistake? thats right, nobody.

I don't see this happening either, I also don't see anyone on a large hub emailing their provider and complaining about the site and getting it blocked by that provider. In that area. If you are a paying subscriber you could do this under local laws for a variety of reasons. I think though that is unlikely. An easy way of doing it in the U.K is if you had posted your picture and someone reposted it after you were banned in a derogatory way you can do this anonymously if you can prove the image is you.
Most trolls just troll for threads like this! Where people say things like this

Originally posted by Schecter
my issue is that they're so damn bound to protocol with regards to proxy/spoof i.p. sock trolls.
Anywhoo, Peace be with you brother.

Schecter
^^^^
this is what i mean. its a joke that he still has this account. worrying about who's flaming who while this clown spams the forum is like spit-shining a car with 4 flat tires and a cracked engine block.

Starhawk
Originally posted by Schecter
my issue is that they're so damn bound to protocol with regards to proxy/spoof i.p. sock trolls.
why does a sock troll actually have to admit they are a sock troll in order to be banned? they always follow the same patterns, always seem to instantly begrudge otf/gdf members which they had supposedly never even come across, and always is the case that everyone knows who they are. whats the worst thats going to happen? you might ban some idiot by accident? ok then, who will be served a lawsuit for such a mistake? thats right, nobody.

So you basically want anyone you don't like banned? Eclipso was banned because he was trying to pester members. Having different political views is not the same thing. And the reason they don't ban people without proof is that sometimes people can get paranoid and start accusing everyone of being that person.

Schecter
Originally posted by Starhawk
So you basically want anyone you don't like banned? Eclipso was banned because he was trying to pester members. Having different political views is not the same thing. And the reason they don't ban people without proof is that sometimes people can get paranoid and start accusing everyone of being that person.

i thought we had an agreement. you stfu about eclipso and we'll pretend hes not you. anyway, that quote had nothing to do with you, so why dont you shut up now.

Vinny Valentine
Originally posted by Schecter
i thought we had an agreement. you stfu about eclipso and we'll pretend hes not you. anyway, that quote had nothing to do with you, so why dont you shut up now.

That quote is now profiled happy

Originally posted by Starhawk
So you basically want anyone you don't like banned? Eclipso was banned because he was trying to pester members. Having different political views is not the same thing. And the reason they don't ban people without proof is that sometimes people can get paranoid and start accusing everyone of being that person.

Come on man, give it up...

Starhawk
It's true, you can't ban everyone you don't like. And you can't go around accusing others without any proof. They did that in the 50's in the US during the Red Scare and allot of innocent people's lives were ruined.

Vinny Valentine
Originally posted by Starhawk
It's true, you can't ban everyone you don't like. And you can't go around accusing others without any proof. They did that in the 50's in the US during the Red Scare and allot of innocent people's lives were ruined.

You and Eclipso like alot of the same things.

How long you been friends?

Schecter
Originally posted by Starhawk
It's true, you can't ban everyone you don't like. And you can't go around accusing others without any proof. They did that in the 50's in the US during the Red Scare and allot of innocent people's lives were ruined.

profile this one. legendary horseshit.

btw, this site is private domain. you fail.

Starhawk
Originally posted by Schecter
profile this one. legendary horseshit.

btw, this site is private domain. you fail.

Was there a point hidden in that?

§P0oONY
Starhawk... There are plenty more forums on the internet.... Why not go on one of those? You will not be persecuted on them and it's not like you've been on here long enough to make friends or whatever anyway.

Starhawk

Vinny Valentine
Originally posted by Starhawk
Eclipso was banned because he was trying to pester members.

Originally posted by a Mod
Starhawk was banned because he was trying to pester members.

§P0oONY
Originally posted by Starhawk
Because I choose to?
Why though? There is no logic to it, you shouldn't yet feel any kind of attachment to the forums.... Unless of course you were here under another alias.

BackFire
I'm not sure what more people want us to say when we ban someone.

Is "Sock" not enough?

Is "Harrassing other members" or "Trolling" not enough?

If you want more information you can look up their most recent posts and see the reason for yourself.

Keep in mind we aren't paid to do this, we do this for free during our spare time. From checking the recycle bin and all the worthless reports that usually find their way there, to dealing with people complaining through PM, to people spamming threads with porn or advertisements, to people who are angry making sock accounts over and over again, we don't have time to write a novel on why each person is banned or warned, it's just not reasonable.

Starhawk

Schecter
Originally posted by BackFire

Keep in mind we aren't paid to do this

but there is something you're getting paid for, so start earning *unzips fly*

§P0oONY
Originally posted by Starhawk
I don't need to justify to you why I choose to be on these forums.
No, you don't... But not doing so just confirms what I already believe to be true, that you are indeed a sock.

Starhawk

Schecter
and thank god this isnt a legal system doped

§P0oONY
Originally posted by Starhawk
So your method is guilt by your suspicion? Thank god the legal system doesn't work that way.
No, that would require you to show up on my radar... You're simply far too insignificant to that. You will fade away, like many members before you. Either through a banning or because you will get fed up of forever being hailed as Eclipso.

Starhawk

§P0oONY
Originally posted by Starhawk
I don't mind you guys thinking that even though it's not true. Although one has to wonder about what kind of lives you have if that is all you sit around thinking about.
Well, I believe one obviously wonders about it enough to come up with the conclusion that we sit around thinking about it. I believe you have probably wondered enough about it to put yourself in the same category.

BackFire
Originally posted by Schecter
but there is something you're getting paid for, so start earning *unzips fly*

Why have you never paid me?

Starhawk

Schecter
Originally posted by BackFire
Why have you never paid me?

hey, all those pinapples cost money

§P0oONY

Spidervlad
Originally posted by BackFire
I'm not sure what more people want us to say when we ban someone.

Is "Sock" not enough?

Is "Harrassing other members" or "Trolling" not enough?

If you want more information you can look up their most recent posts and see the reason for yourself.

Keep in mind we aren't paid to do this, we do this for free during our spare time. From checking the recycle bin and all the worthless reports that usually find their way there, to dealing with people complaining through PM, to people spamming threads with porn or advertisements, to people who are angry making sock accounts over and over again, we don't have time to write a novel on why each person is banned or warned, it's just not reasonable.

Maybe then Moderators should be people who would like to do all of that without getting paid. If someone doesn't have time for those things and has too much going on in his/her prifate life then they shouldn't be moderators.

Schecter
Originally posted by Spidervlad
Maybe then Moderators should be people who would like to do all of that without getting paid. If someone doesn't have time for those things and has too much going on in his/her prifate life then they shouldn't be moderators.

because they wont type an essay with full descriptions for every banning they shouldnt be moderators. great. so whats next, you wanna call for a vote of no confidence?

Starhawk
Originally posted by Schecter
so whats next, you wanna call for a vote of no confidence?

NO, the last 2 times that happened. Canada ended up with Stephen Harper and The Republic ended up with Emperor Palpatine. Bad idea!

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by BackFire
Keep in mind we aren't paid to do this, we do this for free during our spare time. From checking the recycle bin and all the worthless reports that usually find their way there, to dealing with people complaining through PM, to people spamming threads with porn or advertisements, to people who are angry making sock accounts over and over again, we don't have time to write a novel on why each person is banned or warned, it's just not reasonable.

Precisely what Spidervlad said, really, you shouldn't take the job if you can't do it to a painstakingly fair and accurate level. I don't buy the whole "You don't know how hard our job is." bs. If you can't do it properly, don't do it at all. It seems like Homer Simpson logic is in effect; If you can't do it, you just do it really half-assed.

I'm not saying there aren't mods who follow the rules, but most mods are just regular members, but for some reason, have the ability to ban. There are mods who do the exact same things as ordinary members, yet because they ARE mods, have the ability to wield their power irresponsibly, and you know this better than most, Backfire, because we've spoke about it. The funny thing is, bias aside, you do a better job than most, you're just a good example of the hypocricy of sensitivity here.

On that note, I think the mods do need to realise, as do some of the members, that they are just normal people. To suggest "We're mods, so we don't make things personal." is quite ridiculous, as we've all seen it, and before someone suggests I'm referring to me, I'm not. Not singularly anyway.

Point summarised: If mods stuck exactly to the rules, and the breaking point was exactly the same for everyone, they wouldn't need to explain themselves, because it would be simple. If you troll, you get banned. If you flame (Because insults are how they're interpreted a lot of the time.), you get banned. If you blatantly sock, you get banned.

The reason people ask for explanations is because there are way too many reasons, outside of rulebreaking, that cause mods to make bans.

-AC

Schecter
your point is that mods should have just and non hypocritical cause to ban. i agree with that point 100%.

however it seems the point being argued is whether a mod should have to fill out an essay every time someone gets banned, like cops filling out a report. that i dont agree with.

Ushgarak
Ah, that's horsecrap, AC. Ask for those kind of requirements and you would simply get zero moderators. You should be grateful for the work we do, not demanding more of it. You get this place free of charge for your entertainment and we work damn hard to keep it going. Telling us we should not take the job if we don't want to fill in reports on every banned member is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.

I'll remind you what the 'some reason' is (because your statement seems to imply it is almost random). Because Raz, the owner of this place, who pays the money for it, has vested that authority in us. This isn't a democracy, it is a private area provided for your benefit. Its private owner has total power to run things as he likes. So that is the absolute bottom line- the 'some reason' is the absolute best reason you can get, in this place.

It was only for your immediate convenience that the notes explaining bans- which were fairly much an internal reference system for ourselves- were made available for all posters to see. There is no damn way that, having released that info for you, is that then going to be made an excuse for us to have to fill out a load more info.

You are simply going to have to deal with the fact that moderators are not robots, they are Human beings. We use our discretion, and the system is all the better for that.

This request is entirely unreasonable. We're sticking with what we have. If you are desperate foir more info on a case, you can ask a mod, but it is entirely up to them whether to respond or not.

BackFire
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Precisely what Spidervlad said, really, you shouldn't take the job if you can't do it to a painstakingly fair and accurate level. I don't buy the whole "You don't know how hard our job is." bs. If you can't do it properly, don't do it at all. It seems like Homer Simpson logic is in effect; If you can't do it, you just do it really half-assed.

I'm not saying there aren't mods who follow the rules, but most mods are just regular members, but for some reason, have the ability to ban. There are mods who do the exact same things as ordinary members, yet because they ARE mods, have the ability to wield their power irresponsibly, and you know this better than most, Backfire, because we've spoke about it. The funny thing is, bias aside, you do a better job than most, you're just a good example of the hypocricy of sensitivity here.

On that note, I think the mods do need to realise, as do some of the members, that they are just normal people. To suggest "We're mods, so we don't make things personal." is quite ridiculous, as we've all seen it, and before someone suggests I'm referring to me, I'm not. Not singularly anyway.

Point summarised: If mods stuck exactly to the rules, and the breaking point was exactly the same for everyone, they wouldn't need to explain themselves, because it would be simple. If you troll, you get banned. If you flame (Because insults are how they're interpreted a lot of the time.), you get banned. If you blatantly sock, you get banned.

The reason people ask for explanations is because there are way too many reasons, outside of rulebreaking, that cause mods to make bans.

-AC

Yeah, every mod should be fair and accurate and do the requirements of the "job". That's absolutely true. The point is that the requirement of the job shouldn't include writing long winded explanations for every single ban that occurs. Usually one word is enough -- "Troll" "Flaming" "Socking" or whatever, going into greater detail would just be redundant in most cases.

It's usually very clear why someone was banned, sometimes it's not, I know. In that case a simple PM to a mod should do enough, we're aware that some bannings aren't as cut and dry as others, and some questions may arise from members who don't understand why the ban occured, in that case, I don't think any of us would have a problem with giving a more detailed explanation to those who ask politely.

Originally posted by Spidervlad
Maybe then Moderators should be people who would like to do all of that without getting paid. If someone doesn't have time for those things and has too much going on in his/her prifate life then they shouldn't be moderators.

All the moderators ARE people who would like to do all of that without getting paid. Hence why we do it. What we shouldn't be expected nor forced to do is waste needless time writing unnecessarily long and detailed reports on why someone was banned for socking or trolling. We have more important things to deal with usually.

And as I said above, on the cases that do warrant a longer explanation, you are welcome to PM a mod and ask politely why someone was banned or warned.

Schecter
Originally posted by Ushgarak
You should be grateful for the work we do

i personally appreciate any and all assistance you can and always have readily given, but you seem to imply there that you're dragging a cross for us. moderating is not that difficult. i agree that it shouldnt be, im on your side there as you have no material incentive to do it, but for the most part its not difficult and you enjoy doing it, as many would. so you do get a degree of reward.

Spidervlad
Right, how long does it take you to preety much just write 4 sentences and quote what the person you banned said, if you ban him for trolling and so on? 7 minutes maximum. Really, it's not that hard. Your acting like everyone is FORCING you to moderate and do your job. If you simply don't have those 7 minutes, then you should not be a moderator.

I have seen several forums which are even smaller than KMC, where Moderators have to fill out a FORM when banning a person. We're just asking you to write down 5 sentences and if the banned person was trolling or flaming, just quote it.

Most forums have a special "Black List" thread where all the names of banned people are written down with the reason why.

Schecter
would you like fries with that sir? dur

Puzzle
Originally posted by Spidervlad
Right, how long does it take you to preety much just write 4 sentences and quote what the person you banned said, if you ban him for trolling and so on? 7 minutes maximum. Really, it's not that hard. Your acting like everyone is FORCING you to moderate and do your job. If you simply don't have those 7 minutes, then you should not be a moderator.

I have seen several forums which are even smaller than KMC, where Moderators have to fill out a FORM when banning a person. We're just asking you to write down 5 sentences and if the banned person was trolling or flaming, just quote it.

Most forums have a special "Black List" thread where all the names of banned people are written down with the reason why.

Honestly, why do you need to know what the person said that got them banned? How is it really anyone's business besides the member and the moderating team? Remember there was a time not so long ago when we didn't have that portion of our profiles which state why the person was banned. Almost always it is painfully obvious what the person did that got them banned.

We used to have a moderator run Banned Member thread...dunno what happened to it.

BackFire
Originally posted by Spidervlad
Right, how long does it take you to preety much just write 4 sentences and quote what the person you banned said, if you ban him for trolling and so on? 7 minutes maximum. Really, it's not that hard. Your acting like everyone is FORCING you to moderate and do your job. If you simply don't have those 7 minutes, then you should not be a moderator.

I'm not sure how you are possibly misunderstaning what I'm saying to such a massive degree. I'm not acting like anyone is forcing me to do anything, or where you came up with the 7 minute thing. I dunno, I could see it easily taking 8 minutes. Especially since most of the time there simply isn't 4 sentances worth of needed information to post, trying to think of four sentances when someone was simply "Socking" would be pretty difficult. Like being back in High School, when the teachers said "This needs to be 7 pages" but I'd write it and said everything that needed to be said in 5, so I had to add 2 pages of filler.

All I'm saying is we have enough actually necessary things to do without adding a completely unnecessary thing that would take up a good deal of our time.

And it has nothing to do with me not having those 7 minutes, it's a matter of those 7 minutes being spent doing something more productive and useful then spending them describing what most would already usually know.

And you're forgetting that sometimes we ban more than 1 person at once. Sometimes we ban several all at once, hence during these situations the amount of time wasted describing the reason for each of them would amount to quite a bit.

Originally posted by Spidervlad
I have seen several forums which are even smaller than KMC, where Moderators have to fill out a FORM when banning a person. We're just asking you to write down 5 sentences and if the banned person was trolling or flaming, just quote it.

I thought it was 4 sentances. Now it's 5? This is alarming, the number of sentances you want keeps growing. Four was difficult enough, when the word "Sock" or "Troll" is plenty explanation for most bannings. But now 5...jesus. And it doesn't matter what other forums do. What matters is that we don't do it like that, why? Because it's a waste of time.

Originally posted by Spidervlad
Most forums have a special "Black List" thread where all the names of banned people are written down with the reason why.

Oh okay.

Really though, as I said, if you want more information about a specific banned member, you are free to ask a moderator. Chances are they won't have a problem giving you that information.

Really though, most of the time I don't see the need to just inherently have to write 4 or 5 sentances for every ban regardless of whether it's actually necessary. Hence, why it will never ever happen.

Schecter
Originally posted by BackFire
I'm not sure how you are possibly misunderstaning what I'm saying to such a massive degree. I'm not acting like anyone is forcing me to do anything, or where you came up with the 7 minute thing. I dunno, I could see it easily taking 8 minutes. Especially since most of the time there simply isn't 4 sentances worth of needed information to post, trying to think of four sentances when someone was simply "Socking" would be pretty difficult. Like being back in High School, when the teachers said "This needs to be 7 pages" but I'd write it and said everything that needed to be said in 5, so I had to add 2 pages of filler.

All I'm saying is we have enough actually necessary things to do without adding a completely unnecessary thing that would take up a good deal of our time.

And it has nothing to do with me not having those 7 minutes, it's a matter of those 7 minutes being spent doing something more productive and useful then spending them describing what most would already usually know.

And you're forgetting that sometimes we ban more than 1 person at once. Sometimes we ban several all at once, hence during these situations the amount of time wasted describing the reason for each of them would amount to quite a bit.



I thought it was 4 sentances. Now it's 5? This is alarming, the number of sentances you want keeps growing. Four was difficult enough, when the word "Sock" or "Troll" is plenty explanation for most bannings. But now 5...jesus. And it doesn't matter what other forums do. What matters is that we don't do it like that, why? Because it's a waste of time.



Oh okay.

Really though, as I said, if you want more information about a specific banned member, you are free to ask a moderator. Chances are they won't have a problem giving you that information.

Really though, most of the time I don't see the need to just inherently have to write 4 or 5 sentances for every ban regardless of whether it's actually necessary. Hence, why it will never ever happen.

touch me

BackFire
Open wide, here comes the train.

Thorinn
Originally posted by BackFire
Open wide, here comes the train.

Choo choo.

Syren
roll eyes (sarcastic)

So that's a no then.

Thorinn
A link to the place where the banning occurred, is more than sufficient, MOD's do not need to explain themselves, Raz trusts their judgment.

And that should be enough for everyone else.

Barker
Whoa, serious Thorinn.


Head the the bomb shelters, people. We're going to have the Apocalypse on our hands soon. 13

Schecter
Originally posted by Thorinn
A link to the place where the banning occurred, is more than sufficient, MOD's do not need to explain themselves, Raz trusts their judgment.

And that should be enough for everyone else.

would you like a breath mint?

Spidervlad
Gosh, fricking idiot.

Darth Extecute
Originally posted by Spidervlad
Gosh, fricking idiot.

Because he wishes not to waste his time on words that is in no need to be spoken? no expression

Troll, Flame, Sock is often enough. I am sure that if there is more into the ban than Troll, Flame or Sock, the Moderator that deals with the issue will let everyone know it.

If you do not know what Troll, Flame or Sock means, then that's a different issue. If you DO know it, I see no trouble in getting it as a reason for a ban.

Bardock42
Originally posted by BackFire
I'm not sure what more people want us to say when we ban someone.

Is "Sock" not enough?

Is "Harrassing other members" or "Trolling" not enough?

If you want more information you can look up their most recent posts and see the reason for yourself.

Keep in mind we aren't paid to do this, we do this for free during our spare time. From checking the recycle bin and all the worthless reports that usually find their way there, to dealing with people complaining through PM, to people spamming threads with porn or advertisements, to people who are angry making sock accounts over and over again, we don't have time to write a novel on why each person is banned or warned, it's just not reasonable.

Well, of course you don't have to do it. It is more that some members might appreciate more information, in case of socks maybe their most famous incarnation.....I doubt it is that hard really, you could probably just copy-paste "Sock of Whirly" in 50% of the cases.

Or maybe in the more controversial issues you could lay down some of your points...as I said you don't have to, but I suppose it would be appreciated by a lot of members that take interest in this site.

Starhawk
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, of course you don't have to do it. It is more that some members might appreciate more information, in case of socks maybe their most famous incarnation.....I doubt it is that hard really, you could probably just copy-paste "Sock of Whirly" in 50% of the cases.

Or maybe in the more controversial issues you could lay down some of your points...as I said you don't have to, but I suppose it would be appreciated by a lot of members that take interest in this site.

Guys, they've said no many times now, how many does it take?

Schecter
i think with each banning the mods should have to submit to a body cavity search.

Syren
Originally posted by Starhawk
Guys, they've said no many times now, how many does it take?

Stop talking to people here as if you're just an innocent member.

WrathfulDwarf
You guys like it?

Bardock42
Originally posted by Starhawk
Guys, they've said no many times now, how many does it take?

Idiotic.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
You guys like it?

Excellent....very excellent.

Syren
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
You guys like it?

clapping

Now put that at the bottom of Starhawk's profile and we're all happy wink

Schecter
how come nobody took my suggestion into consideration? sad

Starhawk
Originally posted by Syren
Stop talking to people here as if you're just an innocent member.

I am though, you cannot blame me for what someone else did.

Schecter
mods, can you please please PLEASE reconsider his apparent second chance?

or better idea: keep him here under the stipulation that he must never again pretend to not be eclipso.

Starhawk
I am not pretending though.

Röland
Originally posted by Starhawk
I am not pretending though.

Did he just own himself there?

Starhawk
No I meant I am not pretending anything as I am not Eclipso.

Vinny Valentine
It's funny... It's just like what Eclipso was saying, but with names vice-versed.

Starhawk
Because you accused him of being me when he wasn't.

Vinny Valentine
Originally posted by Starhawk
Because you accused him of being me when he wasn't.

How'd you know I did that? You had no internet, and haven't been in contact with Eclipso as you stated before.

Röland
*cough*

31

Starhawk
Originally posted by Vinny Valentine
How'd you know I did that? You had no internet, and haven't been in contact with Eclipso as you stated before.

I never stated that I had no contact with him, he lives next door to me. I see him everyday. And I can read over threads you know.

Vinny Valentine
Originally posted by Starhawk
I never stated that I had no contact with him, he lives next door to me. I see him everyday. And I can read over threads you know.

According to Eclipso, he stopped talking to you after what you did to me, and haven't talked sense kicking you off his internet.


Explain how you know things from when you weren't here.

Starhawk
Originally posted by Vinny Valentine
According to Eclipso, he stopped talking to you after what you did to me, and haven't talked sense kicking you off his internet.


Explain how you know things from when you weren't here.

No we talked when you got him banned the first time as you well know and again when he was banned permanently.

Vinny Valentine
Originally posted by Starhawk
No we talked when you got him banned the first time as you well know and again when he was banned permanently.

You smell that?

Smells like bullshit, but what do I know?

Syren
I agree erm

Islamic_Cleric
Originally posted by BackFire


Is "Harrassing other members" or "Trolling" not enough?



It's never enough for some shifty

Originally posted by Schecter
^^^^
this is what i mean. its a joke that he still has this account. worrying about who's flaming who while this clown spams the forum is like spit-shining a car with 4 flat tires and a cracked engine block.

dur

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, of course you don't have to do it. It is more that some members might appreciate more information, in case of socks maybe their most famous incarnation.....I doubt it is that hard really, you could probably just copy-paste "Sock of Whirly" in 50% of the cases.


But Why? confused

Originally posted by Schecter
great. so whats next, you wanna call for a vote of no confidence?

hmmmm

Originally posted by Schecter
how come nobody took my suggestion into consideration? sad

wink

Originally posted by Syren
I agree

Schecter
derp.


whirly, i'd like to dress you up as a clown and throw bricks at you

Schecter
its really a silly and counterproductive policy to have to wait for a
sock to literally confess to being a sock for you to ban it.

Originally posted by Islamic_Cleric
Name: shifty Wh..., Evi..., Sir_W...., By_Cr...., Fla....,

Starhawk
Originally posted by Schecter
its really a silly and counterproductive policy to have to wait for a
sock to literally confess to being a sock for you to ban it.

So basically you want to be able to accuse anyone you want without proof and have them banned? Then everyone would start accusing people simply because they don't like them.

Vinny Valentine
Originally posted by Starhawk
So basically you want to be able to accuse anyone you want without proof and have them banned? Then everyone would start accusing people simply because they don't like them.

banned

Schecter
Originally posted by Starhawk
So basically you want to be able to accuse anyone you want without proof and have them banned? Then everyone would start accusing people simply because they don't like them.
nobody asked you Yapclipso

Syren
Originally posted by Starhawk
So basically you want to be able to accuse anyone you want without proof and have them banned? Then everyone would start accusing people simply because they don't like them.

No, stupid. If you read what Schecter wrote properly you might just come across a link taking you to the original post that he quoted, where, lo and behold, Whirly (a renowned socker) basically admitted who he was.

Stupid.

Stella Artois
What?

Rogue Jedi
Yes, they should explain. Wait, they do explain.

Robtard
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Yes, they should explain. Wait, they do explain.

Four years late to the party, jackass.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.