Ah, I only checked posts by jmakin and his last one said he’d likely ask for a perm but you’re correct jmakin_the_wise requested his account be banned.
Therefore I permanently banned @jmakin.
12 Likes
The 4 week ban for smrk4 seems excessively long and unprecedented to me.
2 Likes
4 weeks seems bananas crazy excessive to me.
Pretty much what chad said.
Also. To expand on approach.
I intend to be more hands on in managing conflict and discussion. People are going to get a lot of opportunity to modify how they act.
If it comes to bans after that, its not intended as a punishment. If youve shown you can’t post constructively in this forum, then im going to take steps to stop you posting here.
1 Like
This is what I tried first, too. It didn’t work. Best of luck!
2 Likes
I don’t know about unprecedented, but it is far too long. I understand the banning in general, mostly because Rugby said it was coming and smrk didn’t try to change his tack at all, but aside from that, I wouldn’t have had him banned at all. And like I said, and he essentially confirmed, getting banned is a victory for him.
5 Likes
Ive reduced it to two weeks.
You might be right. Shrug
5 Likes
Knocking it down to about 1 to 3 days feels right. But I don’t want to be accused of picking at your carcass, so forget I mentioned it.
1 Like
Ban was appropriate, and in any event, who the fuck cares, it’s.a temp-ban. He has to read from a new account for a few weeks… oooh. I never understood why people got all upset over temp-bans. Too much pride.
1 Like
OK
1 Like
A person might almost begin to suspect that temp-bans simply don’t accomplish the goal they’re billed as achieving. But that’s another day’s tale most likely.
2 Likes
I maintain that the ultimate issue the the lack of a final authority that people have to begrudgingly accept even when they disagree. I thought that community votes would serve that purpose, but that hasn’t borne out. People have never wanted it to be either the mods or admins. So we’re left with anyone thinking of themselves as the final authority to whom the mods must answer, no matter how many disagree with them.
1 Like
Fwiw. Ive no issue with people weighing in here, and ive adjusted the ban based on feedback.
Its any ongoing back and forth im trying to avoid.
Y’all state a position, ill respond. Then we will agree or agree to disagree.
4 Likes
People seem to respect decisions that have passed through the RFC process. Unfortunately it’s like pulling teeth to get people to actually put their grievances up for a vote instead of yelling at the mods to do something.
Well, that’s the rub. People would rather perpetually assert their own righteousness rather than have it scrutinized by and subject to an open community discussion and vote. And, of course, most of the community doesn’t want to be bothered with every squabble. There’s also no “put up or shut up” mechanism.
1 Like
Some people want temp bans as a short-term respite from what they consider to be bad posting that they don’t want to read without much expectation of a change in long-term behavior.
Those people tend to stay pretty quiet whenever anyone’s extolling the virtues of temp-bans.
Will take your word on this, but if the goal was to modify behavior so the exiled poster would suck less at posting, the ban approach was not likely to be successful. The reason is that, from a behavior analytics perspective, it does not direct the person in HOW they should behave even if the ban is accompanied by an explanation of what was wrong (and instead builds anger and resentment). Banning is akin to trying to teach someone to drive by only using the word “no.” It would be like, “don’t do that,” “no that’s wrong too,” “stop that,” etc. You need to acknowledge instead when someone is doing something correct and build from there (“you’re looking ahead like you should and keeping a good distance between you and the car ahead, but let’s still slow down a little…”).
From this perspective, the approach we should consider taking is one of access and privilege to post/participate in certain parts of the forum and acknowledgement for positive contributions (what this looks like could make for interesting discussion - undertitles, colored sn’s, take a turn as a mod?). As we operate now, anyone who signs on gets access to everything, but maybe limiting where someone can go until it’s been demonstrated they can get along with the other players (and maybe even recognizing when they’re wrong about something) before they have access to other parts of the board should be considered.
I know this probably reads a bit fanciful, and may be beyond the ability of the forum software, but think it would be a drastic improvement over the ban system which isn’t working.
And would, respectfully, suggest that this is a horrible idea (unless it was @beetlejuice ofc). It’s not who manages the problems that come up, but the system in place that allows for these issues to develop in the first place.
6 Likes
They think you did a great job making sure no horse pr0n turns up in the Pets Of Unstuck thread. I’d have to agree as I’ve never seen any there. That’s why the “should MrWookie be immediately removed like srsly right this second life and death the final countdown omg” thread went the way it did, and it was explained like that numerous times at the very beginning. They wanted you to handle the horse pr0n, not own the fucking forum and Dear Leader, I mean, come on already with this shit.
8 Likes