Admin, mods plz give banned member 2nd chance, if they did all wrong stuff again banned again.
Peace
Printable View
Admin, mods plz give banned member 2nd chance, if they did all wrong stuff again banned again.
Peace
i do believe that people recieve many "second chance" warnings (in general) before they are banned.
and i give it 1hour before this is closed too.
I give it 20 minutes :lol: :lol:
yea lets let the peados unbanned lets let idiots like billy dean unbannedQuote:
Originally posted by bawa@Klite_user@1 May 2004 - 15:58
Admin, mods plz give banned member 2nd chance, if they did all wrong stuff again banned again.
Peace
BRILLIANT IDEA !!!
<_<
yea lets let the peados unbanned lets let idiots like billy dean unbannedQuote:
Originally posted by scribblec+1 May 2004 - 15:28--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (scribblec @ 1 May 2004 - 15:28)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-bawa@Klite_user@1 May 2004 - 15:58
Admin, mods plz give banned member 2nd chance, if they did all wrong stuff again banned again.
Peace
BRILLIANT IDEA !!!
<_< [/b][/quote]
Could be perhaps he's not talking about them?
BFH.
In some cases, bans have been very fair and warranted. I don't think anyone would disagree with me about someone like hypo?
In other cases, bans may be a rash decision, made on the spur of the moment. As I said in another post yesterday:
I think it's fair to say that that's what's happening. And in some cases, can you blame them? Be fair, if someone were to come into your home, slam you, your house, your family, throw garbage all over the floor, generally make a mess and disrupt the place, what would your first reaction be? To sit down and try to talk to the person? Or to kick them out?Quote:
We have reasons for doing things the way we do them. Why do we keep harping on using the PM system for resolving issues? Because when it's done publicly it kills the atmosphere of the board. No one wants to come on and see constant disputes. I don't personally care if someone questions an action, send me a PM, I'll be happy to investigate it. But lately it seems like some members are hell bent on publicly embarrassing the team. And that gets nowhere. It's human nature. By bringing it up as such, the only thing it accomplishes is putting people on their defenses. After that, you can pretty much forget getting anything you want out of them. The longer it goes on, the less tolerant people become, to the point where they finally just say, enough is enough, and start silencing people.
It makes it harder for those of us who are trying to find a resolution when other people are constantly trying to put the team on the defensive.
:wub: :beerchug:Quote:
Originally posted by NikkiD@1 May 2004 - 16:39
In some cases, bans have been very fair and warranted. I don't think anyone would disagree with me about someone like hypo?
In other cases, bans may be a rash decision, made on the spur of the moment. As I said in another post yesterday:
I think it's fair to say that that's what's happening. And in some cases, can you blame them? Be fair, if someone were to come into your home, slam you, your house, your family, throw garbage all over the floor, generally make a mess and disrupt the place, what would your first reaction be? To sit down and try to talk to the person? Or to kick them out?Quote:
We have reasons for doing things the way we do them. Why do we keep harping on using the PM system for resolving issues? Because when it's done publicly it kills the atmosphere of the board. No one wants to come on and see constant disputes. I don't personally care if someone questions an action, send me a PM, I'll be happy to investigate it. But lately it seems like some members are hell bent on publicly embarrassing the team. And that gets nowhere. It's human nature. By bringing it up as such, the only thing it accomplishes is putting people on their defenses. After that, you can pretty much forget getting anything you want out of them. The longer it goes on, the less tolerant people become, to the point where they finally just say, enough is enough, and start silencing people.
It makes it harder for those of us who are trying to find a resolution when other people are constantly trying to put the team on the defensive.
^^^^ What she said :D
Anti Spam Security
Why did I reach this page instead to see my posted message ?
Possible Reasons:
* You already posted your message (double post)
* You are using a script to post messages
* You hit the reload button but your message was already posted
If you think this is an error please contact our administrators and they will look into this problem. Please make sure to check the forum you posted to see if your message is not already there.
The Administration
:angry:
I would vote for option 1 btw :D
I agree with most of this and the idea of using pm and so forth but I truly think mods should not be defensive of this behavior as it is expected and is also considered human nature. Lets not forget members consider this they're house as well and sometimes is the reason for their rage and the lack of civility...Quote:
Originally posted by NikkiD@1 May 2004 - 08:39
In other cases, bans may be a rash decision, made on the spur of the moment. As I said in another post yesterday:
I think it's fair to say that that's what's happening. And in some cases, can you blame them? Be fair, if someone were to come into your home, slam you, your house, your family, throw garbage all over the floor, generally make a mess and disrupt the place, what would your first reaction be? To sit down and try to talk to the person? Or to kick them out?Quote:
We have reasons for doing things the way we do them. Why do we keep harping on using the PM system for resolving issues? Because when it's done publicly it kills the atmosphere of the board. No one wants to come on and see constant disputes. I don't personally care if someone questions an action, send me a PM, I'll be happy to investigate it. But lately it seems like some members are hell bent on publicly embarrassing the team. And that gets nowhere. It's human nature. By bringing it up as such, the only thing it accomplishes is putting people on their defenses. After that, you can pretty much forget getting anything you want out of them. The longer it goes on, the less tolerant people become, to the point where they finally just say, enough is enough, and start silencing people.
I agree with you wholeheartedly Reality. Mods and admins are only human though, and when they get enough insults thrown at them, of course they begin to take it personally. Every new thread feels like a slap in the face, especially to those who are trying to resolve the issue. The problem is that once the defensive behaviour starts, negotiation stops. I've been guilty of it on occasion, I know all of us have. And once those in the position of power, in this case, the mods and admins, stop negotiating, civility is tossed out the window and the brick wall goes up. Not saying it's the right way to deal with it, just making the observation.
I can completely understand, people getting upset over what they feel is an injustice. I'm just saying that strong arm tactics and bullying get people nowhere, and that goes for both sides of the equation. Resolving an issue is always better than silencing it, silence only lasts so long before the riot breaks out again.
Well said Reality :)
The locking of threads and the wall of silence doesn't work to diffuse the situation either :P
btw I have just hit anti spam for the 5th time in about 20 minutes
Adster isnt banned anyway....he just went walkabout again.
Could be perhaps he's not talking about them?Quote:
Originally posted by Withcheese+1 May 2004 - 16:30--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Withcheese @ 1 May 2004 - 16:30)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Quote:
Originally posted by scribblec@1 May 2004 - 15:28
<!--QuoteBegin-bawa@Klite_user
Quote:
@1 May 2004 - 15:58
Admin, mods plz give banned member 2nd chance, if they did all wrong stuff again banned again.
Peace
yea lets let the peados unbanned lets let idiots like billy dean unbanned
BRILLIANT IDEA !!!
<_<
BFH. [/b][/quote]
hes generalising .Quote:
mods plz give banned member
arent the people i suggested banned too? so therefore he wants them unbanned aswell
BURN!!
I agree with most of this and the idea of using pm and so forth but I truly think mods should not be defensive of this behavior as it is expected and is also considered human nature. Lets not forget members consider this they're house as well and sometimes is the reason for their rage and the lack of civility... [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by REALITY+1 May 2004 - 08:45--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (REALITY @ 1 May 2004 - 08:45)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-NikkiD@1 May 2004 - 08:39
In other cases, bans may be a rash decision, made on the spur of the moment. As I said in another post yesterday:
I think it's fair to say that that's what's happening. And in some cases, can you blame them? Be fair, if someone were to come into your home, slam you, your house, your family, throw garbage all over the floor, generally make a mess and disrupt the place, what would your first reaction be? To sit down and try to talk to the person? Or to kick them out?Quote:
We have reasons for doing things the way we do them. Why do we keep harping on using the PM system for resolving issues? Because when it's done publicly it kills the atmosphere of the board. No one wants to come on and see constant disputes. I don't personally care if someone questions an action, send me a PM, I'll be happy to investigate it. But lately it seems like some members are hell bent on publicly embarrassing the team. And that gets nowhere. It's human nature. By bringing it up as such, the only thing it accomplishes is putting people on their defenses. After that, you can pretty much forget getting anything you want out of them. The longer it goes on, the less tolerant people become, to the point where they finally just say, enough is enough, and start silencing people.
i can't believe the fag said something right this time :P
no offence intended :P
People that were given straight bans without a warning or moderation are victims of the "heat of the moment".
Those bans should be immediately revoked and those people placed on moderation.
I am hearing of people being banned without receiving a PM, that is not right.
They only found out when they tried to log in the next time :(Quote:
Originally posted by hobbes@1 May 2004 - 20:47
People that were given straight bans without a warning or moderation are victims of the "heat of the moment".
Those bans should be immediately revoked and those people placed on moderation.
I am hearing of people being banned without receiving a PM, that is not right.
No, it isn't.Quote:
Originally posted by hobbes@1 May 2004 - 14:47
I am hearing of people being banned without receiving a PM, that is not right.
So we gonna give a SECOND F* CHANCE TO THOSE GOOD PEOPLE OR NOT ??
I totally, unreservedly agree.Quote:
Originally posted by hobbes@1 May 2004 - 20:47
People that were given straight bans without a warning or moderation are victims of the "heat of the moment".
Those bans should be immediately revoked and those people placed on moderation.
I am hearing of people being banned without receiving a PM, that is not right.
It is similar to the ref who shows the red card as a reaction to the game, not the specific offence.
Moderation must be the first option for all but the most heinous offences. Not immediate ban.
yea lets let the peados unbanned lets let idiots like billy dean unbannedQuote:
Originally posted by scribblec+1 May 2004 - 11:28--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (scribblec @ 1 May 2004 - 11:28)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-bawa@Klite_user@1 May 2004 - 15:58
Admin, mods plz give banned member 2nd chance, if they did all wrong stuff again banned again.
Peace
BRILLIANT IDEA !!!
<_< [/b][/quote]
I just saw this.
Scribblec, it's totally and completely unnecessary to insult people who aren't here to defend themselves. It's comments such as this that turn decent discussion threads into useless flame wars. What exactly does making a comment such as this resolve?
If you have an issue with the stated appeal, it is possible to air your reservations about with being insulting.
As Withcheese said, I think the point here is more about the recent bannings that were handed down with no team discussion, or without any sort of warning to the member involved.
I just saw this topicQuote:
Originally posted by NikkiD@1 May 2004 - 20:36
Scribblec, it's totally and completely unnecessary to insult people who aren't here to defend themselves.
not long after finding a banned member
when looking at the banned members search for new aditions from the current topics
Are you actually saying that you mod's weren't consulted??Quote:
Originally posted by NikkiD@1 May 2004 - 20:36
I think the point here is more about the recent bannings that were handed down with no team discussion, or without any sort of warning to the member involved.
Why stay mod if that's the case?
edit:typing
ricky123 was banned for saying 'u all mother fuckers suck'.
i guess i would of thought moderation instead ;)
Are you actually saying that you mod's weren't consulted??Quote:
Originally posted by nostalgia+1 May 2004 - 15:50--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (nostalgia @ 1 May 2004 - 15:50)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-NikkiD@1 May 2004 - 20:36
I think the point here is more about the recent bannings that were handed down with no team discussion, or without any sort of warning to the member involved.
Why stay mod if that's the case?
edit:typing [/b][/quote]
Yes, I've said that a few times now I think. Implied might be the better word.
I'm still a mod here because I think it's possible for someone to make a rash decision in the heat of the moment and rethink that decision with a cooler head. Lots of people say/do things in anger or upset that they wouldn't normally say or do. That's one of the reasons we have an edit button. I know myself I've posted sarky replies to people that I later thought back on and regretted, and apologized for.
If I didn't feel that way, I would be fully supportive of the bans in question, as they were pretty much the same thing, no? Things done in anger which those members would normally not have done? The only difference is the person's position on the board. Admins are not infallable either.
@ GHOST 1337 - I wasn't aware of that one. And yes, that's pretty much what's been said about the others.
Yes, I've said that a few times now I think. Implied might be the better word.Quote:
Originally posted by NikkiD+1 May 2004 - 21:08--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (NikkiD @ 1 May 2004 - 21:08)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Quote:
Originally posted by nostalgia@1 May 2004 - 15:50
<!--QuoteBegin-NikkiD
Quote:
@1 May 2004 - 20:36
I think the point here is more about the recent bannings that were handed down with no team discussion, or without any sort of warning to the member involved.
Are you actually saying that you mod's weren't consulted??
Why stay mod if that's the case?
edit:typing
I'm still a mod here because I think it's possible for someone to make a rash decision in the heat of the moment and rethink that decision with a cooler head. Lots of people say/do things in anger or upset that they wouldn't normally say or do. That's one of the reasons we have an edit button. I know myself I've posted sarky replies to people that I later thought back on and regretted, and apologized for.
If I didn't feel that way, I would be fully supportive of the bans in question, as they were pretty much the same thing, no? Things done in anger which those members would normally not have done? The only difference is the person's position on the board. Admins are not infallable either. [/b][/quote]
Yet again, the young lady speaks for me too :wub:
Yet again, the young lady speaks for me too :wub: [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by Rat Faced+1 May 2004 - 21:12--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rat Faced @ 1 May 2004 - 21:12)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Quote:
Originally posted by NikkiD@1 May 2004 - 21:08
Quote:
Originally posted by nostalgia@1 May 2004 - 15:50
<!--QuoteBegin-NikkiD
Quote:
Quote:
@1 May 2004 - 20:36
I think the point here is more about the recent bannings that were handed down with no team discussion, or without any sort of warning to the member involved.
Are you actually saying that you mod's weren't consulted??
Why stay mod if that's the case?
edit:typing
Yes, I've said that a few times now I think. Implied might be the better word.
I'm still a mod here because I think it's possible for someone to make a rash decision in the heat of the moment and rethink that decision with a cooler head. Lots of people say/do things in anger or upset that they wouldn't normally say or do. That's one of the reasons we have an edit button. I know myself I've posted sarky replies to people that I later thought back on and regretted, and apologized for.
If I didn't feel that way, I would be fully supportive of the bans in question, as they were pretty much the same thing, no? Things done in anger which those members would normally not have done? The only difference is the person's position on the board. Admins are not infallable either.
since you all agree, then y not say somehting to the admin(s) who are doing these 'un called for' bans? :o ;) :frusty:
Well said NikkiD all along! :beerchug:
So whats the next step?
I guess hearing that discussions in the team are going regarding the spur of the moment decisions & about giving the second chance to the few banned members, might be a little reassuring. :)
-
I.am
Several of us have been.
RF - get your hand out of my butt! I'm not really your puppet!! :lol: :wub:
@I.am - I feel like a politician. :lol: The discussion is ongoing amongst the team members, has been for a couple of days, we're waiting for everyone to comment on it as some haven't seen it yet.
you have been? well there obviously not listening. so the bottom line is, they dont really give a fuck what you have to say?Quote:
Originally posted by NikkiD@1 May 2004 - 21:17
Several of us have been.
Well, why don't you guys have a meeting and come to some decisions. I think any more open discussion by the Mods might make other Mods feel picked on.
Send out the cyber smoke signals and have a pow-wow.
you have been? well there obviously not listening. so the bottom line is, they dont really give a fuck what you have to say? [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by GHOST 1337+1 May 2004 - 16:19--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (GHOST 1337 @ 1 May 2004 - 16:19)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-NikkiD@1 May 2004 - 21:17
Several of us have been.
No, I didn't say that at all. The discussion has been going on for a couple of days, mostly today, but not everyone has had a chance to comment or have a say yet. Rash decisions are made on the spur of the moment - it's better to take the time and discuss it.
@NikkiD, :lol: but I like the words of a politician better than the one's closing the threads :lol:
Yup! More open discussions will bring more defensive & offensive comments rather than rational talk :)
But I hope all the recent banned members are brought up in the discussion eg: haxor...
And if few mods dont show up in a week, then majority rules :D
/me outta here...
Have a good day peeps!
-
I.am
At the end of the day all this commotion has come to pass because Error was insulted by Haxor and by Cely therefore he banned them.
That is quite plain to see now. :ph34r:
My appologies to Hobbes, Danb and NikkiD
I have deleted one post from each of you replying to Rookie.
Rookie came into the board and saw all this crap and posted the usual position, to which you all responded with a reply...
Rookie had no idea what was going on and removed his thread and I removed his post for him, making those responses (which were relevant to the post) irrelevant to the thread, and confusing the thread still more...
Erm... did that make sence? :blink:
Yup, thanks RF, I was gonna ask. :lol:
lol, I was wondering if I imagined that. I missed it because I read this one first. It made sence and thanks for the explanation. :lol:Quote:
Originally posted by Rat Faced@1 May 2004 - 22:16
My appologies to Hobbes, Danb and NikkiD
I have deleted one post from each of you replying to Rookie.
Rookie came into the board and saw all this crap and posted the usual position, to which you all responded with a reply...
Rookie had no idea what was going on and removed his thread and I removed his post for him, making those responses (which were relevant to the post) irrelevant to the thread, and confusing the thread still more...
Erm... did that make sence? :blink:
lol, I was wondering if I imagined that. I missed it because I read this one first. It made sence and thanks for the explanation. :lol: [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by Chevy+1 May 2004 - 23:20--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Chevy @ 1 May 2004 - 23:20)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced@1 May 2004 - 22:16
My appologies to Hobbes, Danb and NikkiD
I have deleted one post from each of you replying to Rookie.
Rookie came into the board and saw all this crap and posted the usual position, to which you all responded with a reply...
Rookie had no idea what was going on and removed his thread and I removed his post for him, making those responses (which were relevant to the post) irrelevant to the thread, and confusing the thread still more...
Erm... did that make sence? :blink:
I thought I had been banned or something :lol:
see?
I wasted my time with them damn PMs :P
:rolleyes:
Actually I had posted a fairly comprehensive reply in rookie's thread.Quote:
Originally posted by Rat Faced@1 May 2004 - 23:16
My appologies to Hobbes, Danb and NikkiD
I have deleted one post from each of you replying to Rookie.
Rookie came into the board and saw all this crap and posted the usual position, to which you all responded with a reply...
Rookie had no idea what was going on and removed his thread and I removed his post for him, making those responses (which were relevant to the post) irrelevant to the thread, and confusing the thread still more...
Erm... did that make sence? :blink:
I am seriously not pleased that it has been deleted. I would happily copy it here but since it has been deleted that is not an option to me.
Actually I had posted a fairly comprehensive reply in rookie's thread.Quote:
Originally posted by J'Pol+1 May 2004 - 22:26--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J'Pol @ 1 May 2004 - 22:26)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced@1 May 2004 - 23:16
My appologies to Hobbes, Danb and NikkiD
I have deleted one post from each of you replying to Rookie.
Rookie came into the board and saw all this crap and posted the usual position, to which you all responded with a reply...
Rookie had no idea what was going on and removed his thread and I removed his post for him, making those responses (which were relevant to the post) irrelevant to the thread, and confusing the thread still more...
Erm... did that make sence? :blink:
I am seriously not pleased that it has been deleted. I would happily copy it here but since it has been deleted that is not an option to me. [/b][/quote]
Well JP, it wouldnt be fair on him.
He was quite correct in his assessment of the usual position and our usual procedures, however he has been away for a week and knew nothing of the last few days.
Obviously, as has been made plain...the last few days are not the usual position... I therefore advised him remove his thread and post until he had come upto date with that.
He may post later, when he knows whats happened... it will then be a fair post by him and people can either be with him or against him on the facts, and not what he assumed was the case.