"They're the rules champ" :)

[sherrife]

Exactly, he was clearly improving and making a concerted effort.

What about a new option, a sort of internal-suspension, where you can only post 5 times a day or something like that?

I'm just throwing up suggestions here, as i think banning/excluding people is a pretty primitive way of punishing them and probably isn't going to lead to much improvement in his behaviour (see schools and suspension/expulsion).

[The Prototype]

For all of you saying it's a dictatorship, i agree completely. I also do think it's a relatively benevolent one in this case; the mods do a good job IMO

What I'm suggesting is a change of the rules. Now, if anyone can think of reasons why not, i would be interested to hear them, but for god's sake stop citing the rules as the reason we can't change the rules!

Oh and Joel, a) nah it wasn't directed at you or anyone b) i haven't had any experience running a board and c) i wouldn't want to (except as part of the democratic process i'm talking about) as i don't believe in that sort of power structure.

Why change the rules that have been in place since day one? Surely people can follow a set amount of rules on a forum? If you are warned you say to yourself "If I want to stay I better wake up my act." if you cannot do that after repeated warnings, you are gone.

[The Prototype]

Exactly, he was clearly improving and making a concerted effort.

What about a new option, a sort of internal-suspension, where you can only post 5 times a day or something like that?

I'm just throwing up suggestions here, as i think banning/excluding people is a pretty primitive way of punishing them and probably isn't going to lead to much improvement in his behaviour (see schools and suspension/expulsion).

Most bannings are only when someone is really incapable of following the rules and keeps baiting people, DTM cannot contain his swearing which is what got him pinged again. He was asked not to swear in chat repeatedly and towards the end of the game he kept swearing was booted came back and cracked the shits.

Most people in the room can attest to his behaviour during the final moments of the Dogs/Pies game.

[sherrife]

If we never changed the rules then we would still be living as peasants under the rule of Governor Phillip Smith.

[Dale61]

There is one board, in particular, that I regularly visit that has three levels of suspension.

1/. No New Threads (NNT) - removes the ability of the member to start new threads, but still has the ability to reply to threads already in discussion.

2/. No new posts - gives the member read access only.

3/. Good bye - permanent and total ban if a member continues to breach the rules, and only comes into effect after 1/. and 2/. have not changed their posting habits. No ability whatsoever to even access the board.

This system does work, and works extremely well.

[The Prototype]

The World has changed but the rules have been altered to fit in with the new way of life, on a forum though it grows and adds new rules to the same rules, DTM has had his fair amount of chances and is only suspended yet again. Now look at him over at Bigfooty he has been suspended there alot for violating their rules.

Now if he wants to swear he can goto a different forum where they are more mature age orientated at Nicks it's more of a family feel where people from the ages of 13 and up can some and express their opinions, and really if you cannot get your point across without swearing on a message and in life, then you have some problems.

[Dale61]

Exactly, he was clearly improving and making a concerted effort.

What about a new option, a sort of internal-suspension, where you can only post 5 times a day or something like that?

I'm just throwing up suggestions here, as i think banning/excluding people is a pretty primitive way of punishing them and probably isn't going to lead to much improvement in his behaviour (see schools and suspension/expulsion).

Most bannings are only when someone is really incapable of following the rules and keeps baiting people, DTM cannot contain his swearing which is what got him pinged again. He was asked not to swear in chat repeatedly and towards the end of the game he kept swearing was booted came back and cracked the shits.

Most people in the room can attest to his behaviour during the final moments of the Dogs/Pies game.

To add to that, it just wasn't the Dogs/Pies game that he's been guilty of swearing, but then again, on occasions, he hasn't been the only one. In all honesty, as the chat room is readily accessible to the general public, any and all instances of swearing should see that user booted immediately, and banned from the room for the remainder of the game.

[The Prototype]

There is one board, in particular, that I regularly visit that has three levels of suspension.

1/. No New Threads (NNT) - removes the ability of the member to start new threads, but still has the ability to reply to threads already in discussion.

2/. No new posts - gives the member read access only.

3/. Good bye - permanent and total ban if a member continues to breach the rules, and only comes into effect after 1/. and 2/. have not changed their posting habits. No ability whatsoever to even access the board.

This system does work, and works extremely well.

That is the same format that Bigfooty uses as well, they have a "yellow card" that prevents the starting of new threads, and then there is the red card that disallows you from posting but you can view the boards. But the red card can be confusing because it also acts as the permanent ban as well.

[The Prototype]

To add to that, it just wasn't the Dogs/Pies game that he's been guilty of swearing, but then again, on occasions, he hasn't been the only one. In all honesty, as the chat room is readily accessible to the general public, any and all instances of swearing should see that user booted immediately, and banned from the room for the remainder of the game.

I remember back in about 2003 after the Hawks game me and tobes got into a rather verbal altercation in there, and I said something that I didn't think was a swear word and I was unable to reply to anything in the room for a few moments.

Me and tobes actaully started getting along after that it was my first time in chat and well we lost and it was a difficult day for all and well we didn't share the same opinion on something.

[Dale61]

The board I referred to doesn't use a card system. Rather, they alter the avatars of those members to suit their level of suspension. When this happens, the member also loses the ability to change their profile, so are stuck with the mod altered avatar until the suspension has been served.

That, to me, is a better deterrent than just a pissy little yellow square that most people overlook anyway.

[The Prototype]

The board I referred to doesn't use a card system. Rather, they alter the avatars of those members to suit their level of suspension. When this happens, the member also loses the ability to change their profile, so are stuck with the mod altered avatar until the suspension has been served.

That, to me, is a better deterrent than just a pissy little yellow square that most people overlook anyway.

Sounds like a good way of doing things, sometimes I guess it depends on the software they use and how much knowledge they know of how to install it all.

[Joel]

There are some fine suggestions in here.

[stui magpie]

Exactly, he was clearly improving and making a concerted effort.

What about a new option, a sort of internal-suspension, where you can only post 5 times a day or something like that?

I'm just throwing up suggestions here, as i think banning/excluding people is a pretty primitive way of punishing them and probably isn't going to lead to much improvement in his behaviour (see schools and suspension/expulsion).

As far as suggestions go as to why the Poll thing would not work, my thoughts are management by popular committee is time consuming and cumbersome. Using this situation as an example, DTM made a post that was swiftly edited by a Mod. I'm assuming you're comfortable with that action. The decision to suspend was also made by a Mod. How would you're proposed poll work in that situation? Would you propose to allow someone who has (allegedly) repeatedly broken the rules to continue to post while the poll runs on what (if any) penalty the poster should suffer or would you agree that if the Mod thinks a red card is warranted, they impose that and then run a Poll on what penalty is appropriate?

And as far as banning excluding people being a primitive way of punishing, I don't actualy think it's about punishment. Attendance here is voluntary. There is an expected code of behaviour as there is in any public place. If you breach the rules, you are removed. The purpose isn't to punish the offender as such but to maintain the behavioural status of the place.

To use an example, if you choose to go to a pub with friends, the publican has an expected set of behaviour in that place, enforced by bouncers. If you misbehave, the bouncers may give you a warning. If you continue to misbehave, the bouncers will kick you out. If you get kicked out more than once, you may not be allowed back in. ( I'm tipping the publican won't be calling for a poll of drinkers either ) Whether you learn anything from that or instead just go to another pub and repeat the pattern of behaviour is not the publican's problem. He doesn't particularly care whether you feel contrite or agreived, you didn't behave the way you were told, you can't come back. End of story.

[The Prototype]

Some have taken their bannings rather badly, and have many little aliases hiding out there...and have made many that have been banned as well.

[stui magpie]

Some have taken their bannings rather badly, and have many little aliases hiding out there...and have made many that have been banned as well.

I supose there's two types. Those who just don't get it and think the world should change to suit them and those who are just deliberate malicious shit stirrers with a personal agenda to cause trouble.