Because permabans apparently freak out a good chunk of otherwise good posters who contribute to the community. I’m trying to find a balance that keeps bad posters from gunking up the forum, but doesn’t run off a bunch of good posters. If we have to put up with some annoyance every six months, that seems like a reasonable price to pay.
And who knows, maybe the banned poster will actually shape up. It’s not like jal or victoar (yes I know he wasn’t perma-ed - just using him as an example) always made bad posts. Just some of the time. Victor’s holier-than-thou shtick was annoying. But I appreciated his posts in other threads. Same as jal.
If someone like goreo agrees to this structure, then storms off anyway, I won’t suggest changes to the structure. I’ve always thought that long bans were preferable to permas.
sabo is the only poster who I ever felt had an ulterior motive that was dangerous to the site. He’s the only poster I supported a perma for. But from what I’ve seen he’s been pretty mild since reinstated. But maybe I’m not in the right threads. Or maybe he’s just got another captains thread where he’s working behind the scenes to get these guys all riled up to burn down the forum. I dunno.
It is to some people (who think he should never be banned) and he would not reach a 67% threshold to do that.
But seriously, I am curious what you feel like the answer to my question is based on limited observation of it? How many times do you think churchill has been banned by how many mods?
Or you could just say how many you think it should be before enough is enough and it’s a permaban, or a series of 6 month bans, or whatever.
I did do an RFC on containment but never got around to wording a specific proposal.
I would have been happy giving Churchill a COVID containment thread, banning him from the main COVID thread, and banning the people he argues with the most from his containment thread.
I think churchill has been terrible. I also think he gets under certain mods’ skins more than he should. I am fine with banning him for six months if after six months he just returns and does the same thing. Eventually he’ll get tired of it, and if he doesn’t, it’s still not that much work.
You’re not addressing the part of my post about not running off good posters at all. You only seem to care about punishing churchill. I categorically do not think this forum will be a better place if only the anti-captains stick around. I think it will get boring very fast. I want other perspectives. I want posters who believe forum wars are stupid and just want people to act like adults. And yes sometimes I include the anti-captains in not acting like adults.
I would be fine with this. It’s an improvement, at least. I swear I’m not trying to play gotcha and hold it over your head. You post here regularly, try to ignore the drama, and know who the problem posters are. I’m curious if you are over/under/accurately estimating the degree of the problem and that’s why I’m asking, as a barometer for what the perception of the situation is for regs trying to avoid it.
I’m not sure what specifically I’m not addressing. I’m all for keeping everyone here who’s not causing problems or bigoted or whatever.
So do I! I wish people could drop old shit and let it be, but some people won’t.
Well my assumption is that this is something the bulk of the forum agrees to, hence the proposal to see if it passes a vote. If the forum agrees to six month bans, then freaks out when a deserved one happens (which is often for the two posters in question here), I’ll support what the forum agreed to regardless of whether some freak out and leave.
Am I the only one who remembers JT and Micro try to tell us repeatedly that a stack of questionable temp-bans of a poster would eventually be used to argue in favor of a perma?
Says you … others will disagree … and others agree of course. My threshold for what is a “vicious attack on someones family” is very different to yours I suspect.