Seems like a solution in search of a problem. Like, my god, someone saw a 6ix post? Takes two seconds to mute the new account.
1 Like
Yeah, thatâs another issue. No one can seek to evade my mute/ignore list because no one knows who is on it. Because I donât announce Iâm ignoring someone, which is toxic behavior that should be discouraged. Let alone the even more toxic behavior of cajoling others to ignore a poster.
5 Likes
I just think the onus should be on the self-banner to get their account un-banned.
(Or just not self-ban in the first place)
2 Likes
I vote we just eliminate self-bans. They are stupid and pointless. But if weâre going to have them, they should be an actual ban or what is the point. If someone changes there mind, let them PM a mod and get their original account back - itâs a pretty minimal burden to do so.
8 Likes
This is the common ground. The pro and con arguments to banning gimmicks of temp-banned posters are basically:
âTemp bans are stupid, but they are bans so we should treat them that way.â
vs
âTemp bans are stupid, so we shouldnât treat them like real bans.â
The point is, theyâre stupid.
4 Likes
Canât PM if youâre banned so either way your solution involves registering a second account. Churchill requested a silencing instead of a ban and still went and created a gimmick to post 3 days later so⌠
1 Like
Right, but why? Itâs a pretty minimal burden to just let the gimmick read and post. Itâs a non-issue either way, why do we need to make a dumb rule about this dumb thing?
1 Like
We all should be honest with ourselves and recognise thereâs often a compulsion to post here especially when feelings are running high, and that presents many people with problems they can do without in their lives, and that self-bans help them deal with that.
One of the worst types of post you see here is the âWhy donât you just log off and go and do xyz instead?â, assuming some kind of emotional superiority, when itâs unrealistic to expect someone in the middle of a heated argument to do that.
1 Like
Johnny
This is a terrible analogy. Also can you name a single online forum without bans?
1 Like
Yeah. If bans are being used solely to make the forum better then quite evidently that policy is a catastrophic failure because bans have increased and people are no less angry.
4 Likes
Are we even talking about me here?
4 Likes
Probably not, probably was talking about Churchill now that I think about it.
Or Johnny? He selfbanned recently.
Regardless, itâs totally super sweet and sick that people canât even be forthright enough to specify who theyâre talking about.
Well yeah, and thatâs what is so confusing to Team Ban when I/we/they talk about posters who should be banned: itâs not advocating bans, itâs pointing out that almost everybody would be banned if the ârulesâ were adhered to.
Also, how do you feel about these ârulesâ being alluded to when you did much to try to codify some rules and it didnât take?
4 Likes
seems relevant:
7 Likes
There was a thread where we could ask how many people had us on ignore, and for me it was like 4 if I remember.
I mean, can talk about how everybody loved me until like two weeks ago? And how theyâve essentially invented whole-cloth how Iâve been insulting and abusive and broke all The Rules, when in reality itâs just because I came out on the wrong side?
The answer is, obv, no, we canât talk about it. But it doesnât hurt to ask!
3 Likes
Serious request, could you please just get the subforum up and running so that you can prove your approach is better?
3 Likes
This doesnât seem particularly helpful. Iâm not saying you should be banned, but you probably should be.
3 Likes
The amount of condescension and snark that you consistently post with doesnât help matters in the least.
2 Likes
It is objectively very helpful to prod JT to proceed with a solution that he requested and the community agreed to.
Will not say you should be banned because there is only love and positivity coming from me, brother.
1 Like