Creating forum rules and listing bannable offenses - Page 2

Ronnie Rowlands · #21 November 23, 2006, 10:01 AM

You may think so Ben, but, for all you know, there could be a big axe hanging above your head, and one day, out of the blue, down it will come

Ben Dawson · #22 November 23, 2006, 10:02 AM

huh?????????

Ross Hendrie · #23 November 23, 2006, 11:49 AM

Personal attacks should be decided case by case, as it may have been provoked.

Really I think we have enough mods and admins to settle everything case by case, looking for reasons to ban people is a bit immature.

Danny Stewart · #24 November 23, 2006, 2:11 PM

Originally Posted by Ross Hendrie

Personal attacks should be decided case by case, as it may have been provoked.

Personal attacks are never warranted and I simply won't allow them, no matter the provocation. If someone provoked it, they're the ones that deserve to be banned.

Originally Posted by Ross Hendrie

Really I think we have enough mods and admins to settle everything case by case, looking for reasons to ban people is a bit immature.

No, it's not. We need penalties in place to say that specific things are completely off limits, no matter the case. We can be very specific about what will result in a ban, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't have them in place at all.

Jez · #25 November 23, 2006, 4:05 PM

• Abuse of members via the PM system. - Depending on the severity and amount of abuse recieved from 5 - 25 days.
(Remember to keep copies of all abuse recieved. I expect Danny can access your PMs anyway but this is just to make sure everybody involved in the banning process can see the evidence. If Danny can look at your PMs, create an "ABUSE" folder so that he knows where to look.

)

Of course, please bear in mind that this is the internet and sarcasm is hard to make out in text. Don't get all hot and bothered on the first "case" as it might just be a sarcastic jab. I can often see the difference between sarcasm and actual abuse. If you're seriously unsure, PM me the message and I'll let you know my thoughts and deal with it as required.

• As far as I'm concerned, the only time when swearing (what ever that is) is inappropriate is when the entire post is simply swearing (what ever that is

). I'd say two days per post is ample enough. Chances are, that sort of person will go away anyway.

• Trolling is funny to read. Keep it for the warning-based system.

• "Explicit" content (not words) should be an immediate ban if the rules clearly state that it's not acceptable. Again, the borderline stuff will have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. I, personally, have some difficulty in seeing the humour in a certain few topics and won't hesitate to act on such posts.

For the clearly stated stuff, 5 - 30 days should be adequate (repeated postings should equal a permanent ban)

Maybe more later if I can think of any...

Danny Stewart · #26 November 23, 2006, 6:07 PM

Very helpful, Jez. I appreciate it.

Recurring Villain · #27 November 23, 2006, 8:22 PM

I think there should be guidelines for the mods instead of specific things that people can be banned for. Rules, of course, will be there for people to see, but the mods and such will decide from case to case what the outcome should be.

I don't think you'd appoint any mods that didn't have any common sense or reason.

Danny Stewart · #28 November 23, 2006, 8:34 PM

I agree with that.

Ross Hendrie · #29 November 24, 2006, 12:16 PM

Guys, get real with the banning times. I was once banned for 2 days from Max's RPG and I was pulling my hair out, we need to be a bit less excessive.

Danny Stewart · #30 November 24, 2006, 12:27 PM

We assume that this is for people who don't care. Regular folks will have a lesser sentence.

Jez · #31 November 25, 2006, 6:42 AM

Well, in my opinion, regular folks should know a lot better and in which case, deserve the full time if they do something wrong on purpose. Even more so, perhaps.

Ross Hendrie · #32 November 25, 2006, 8:38 AM

Absolutely not. An absurd idea.

Danny Stewart · #33 November 25, 2006, 11:01 AM

That's actually not an absurd idea -- regulars should know better what's appropriate and inappropriate around here. But I'm still inclined to give regulars a (slightly) reduced sentence.

Jez · #34 November 25, 2006, 2:42 PM

Indeed. Would you punish the Private for shooting civillians less than you would punish the NCO or officer for ordering him to shoot them? No, you wouldn't. The Private would be disbanded and jailed. The NCO/Officer would be disbanded and jailed for at least an equal amount of time, if not longer due to the fact that as the senior party - they should know better.