Tim, getluv knows that he would have gotten a ban with his continued attack. I told him on PM yesterday that one more warning will result in a ban. He'll just do his time and after the week is over, everyone can just remain as they were

Tim, in Nebs and Roid's defense, they did ask for mod input on getluv's banning.

Thanks, Royd. Again, I appreciate you explaining the mod situation.

I think I've said enough.

With all the evidence I would probably ban dino in the end too, but I wouldn't do it for so long, for starters, and I would've made a public poll on the banning and presented the evidence. Again, we've got a good community here and I care as much about users opinions as I do mod opinions. Mods just happen to have the fancy buttons to make things happen, but that doesn't mean the rest of us shouldn't have a say in things that effect our community. If I were you in the same situation and I was just asked to vote in a poll, I would've voted to ban him for a couple days. Not a week, but a couple days.

Mainly, I would like warnings/bannings to be looked at more carefully and please take my suggestion seriously about opening up high profile bannings to user input. I think we can moderate ourselves a lot more around here.

Thanks,

Tim

Good to hear!!!! Thanks, Christian.

Tim

Mob mentality wanted Ladiesman and BKB to be banned but we didnt

One more thing Tim.

If it WERE put to a vote, then reputation will pretty much be the BIGGEST factor.

WTF is going on? Digest form, please.

I don't get why you've over-complicated this. Distracting topics such as how many warnings are to be given before a ban, and who decides the length and why don't cover up the most basic fact that getluv's been a real troublemaker on these forums, even more than usual in the last few weeks. If you notice, the people defending him are people he likes, and never makes fun of unless they're on joking terms. But practically everyone outside of this group he constantly shits on, in rude and profane fashion, and it creates a real disturbance in the community, especially when he's engaging 5-6 forum members a day in an argument/fight they didn't start or instigate.

Actually, I did, and it wasn't up to voting because I left promptly afterwards of my own volition. People still say nasty shit about it; opinions are very fickle online, I've noticed. I don't relish the position anyone is in right now, but in my own experience, there's been a bit of overmodding here, lately. Its also hard to understand the stress mods are under to find the balance between preventing and containing, so I don't necessarily put the blame on them either. I still am not exactly sure what teed this entire thing off, because when I was modding, I saw way worse.

Not that any of this can't be reconciled with a post-fast. Off to the cooler.

Eh, c'mon, the more beloved the poster is the more support he/she gets. Not from the admins/mods maybe (even though that happened before as well, I'd think) but from the rest of the posers too.

Being fair and equal is a nice ideal, but one that is not always been followed upon and that doesn't apply to this place only. That's how things work. Anywhere, not just here.

Comparing this situation to board wide sabotage is laughable...

Royd, you are doing a great job! :thumbsup:

And I agree almost 100% with Loyal.

You're proving my point. I simply stated that even well-liked people have it within themselves to act with ban-able conduct. There's no reason to expect that people wouldn't vote for someone to be banned, even if (s)he is well-liked, if they actually consider the conduct worthy of it. I guess I've just seen way worse than what getluv did here that squeeked by with less repercussions. On the whole, I'm okay with it. I think the mods and admin have an easier time on their own nerves when they take a bit of a hands-off approach. The board tends to clean itself up and self-monitor. Most of the major fighting we ever encountered here never ended because mods interceded, but rather ended when the parties involved decided to burry the hatchet on their own volition.

Well it may seem that a few comments get away more than others. A few occasions i because the Cooler forums generate dozens of threads each day and over 100 posts. Some of the comments could be buried underneath the rubble or the attacks could be tame like maybe stating "really?" "I dont think its true". Yes those get reported. When we tried to do the hands-off approach a few people said we arent doing enough as you can see when I was less triggerhappy a month ago. Im getting the handle of things right now

Anyhow back to the subject about getluv's banning. Its not because I banned him for the comments he posted to Chip yesterday but that would be like 4 warnings. If we dont take any actions after so many warnings, people here could just shrug off so many of them and disregard it like it was nothing

The man did the crime, let him do the time.
Everyone else should just stfu about it.

Does this mean the Fight Club is put on hold for a week?

If he wants and since hes in Michael's forum, he can ask Christian to edit his existing thread for him.

I admit I would never vote for you to be banned



As I said, I look forward to having getluv back but he probably had it coming. I'm surprised it did not happen earlier. I agree 100% with loyal. Hopefully some good will come out of this.

The whole point system and allowing people to know how many warnings you have before you are banned is kinda absurd. This is not the naughty corner. What's the point of it?If you are warned once about your conduct you should be smart enough to discontinues it. Why would knowledge of when your conduct will reach a banning be necessary? So you can know to sotp RIGHT before a banning? It should not get that far in the first place.

Rod,

To be perfectly honest im a little disappointed in the way that a lot of you guys on both sides of the fence have dealt with this whole situation. I think it's showed me a side of people here that I assumed they were above.

M.

I don't believe it to be absurd. If someone gets one warning and then one month later they do the same thing, they are banned. What about if someone gets one warning and then twelve months later they do the same thing again. Is twelve months a long enough "recovery" period? How does anyone know? There are tonnes of examples I can think of where banning procedure can go awry. It's all subjective.

I'm not suggesting we abolish the current system but I'm suggesting that people need to question more. Maybe there's a better alternative? There's absolutely nothing wrong in questioning the status quo and there's everything right in it in fact.

Tim

Who's asking for leniency in this thread? If anything, it's people who are NOT currently banned that are asking for leniency in case they may be banned in the future based on factors such as longevity, number of posts, popularity, etc.

I've been asking for clarity and thought.

Tim

If you're truly banning someone, they should not be allowed to interact with the forum in any way, in my opinion. This takes away from the "sting" of being incommunicado.

Tim