Suggestion: allow users to appeal bans

WhiteWashMan

Rozie wrote:

I don't want to get into the last part but I didn't ask to be a moderator(read the part where i mention privs). I said that if you had people to go into arguments and try to diffuse them so moderators wouldn't have to "remove" people it would be great. I was just asking the mods to take note of what I was doing and for some official recogntion of what I was doing if it actually turned out I was good at it.

youa re the most intolerant person i think i have come across in a long time, and i doubt very much if you would be welcomed by the vast majority of users here.

hey, listen, we all know who you are, we all recognise youre issues. is that enough for you?

oscarBravo

Rozie wrote:

I know most people hate me...

Oh, boo hoo. :mad:

seamus

Rozie wrote:

Don't ban so much.

I'm aware that there aren' a lot of bans set compared with some forums but the ones that are(I'm not just talking about the 2 or 3 I've gotten) are usually silly.

Intelligent moderators solve problems using their brains instead of their ban.

I think it would be good if moderators tried to diffuse a situation instead of just shouting threats and banning people. Actually gettng involved in the arguments in an unbiased manner and helping both sides to reach a resolution would be, well, the intelligent thing to do.

Of course, that might mean you need new moderators.

Isn't that what moderators were originally meant to do?

I know most people hate me but I can help solve arguments as much as I can add fuel to them. I'd love to give it a try and prove to people I can fix things as well as break them, and that I don't complain entirely without knowing some form of solution. I wouldn't need any privs or anything but I would like mods to take notice and make sure I don't entirely get swamped if I were to try this. I'm only ever angry if I'm personally involved. I don't have a lot of free time lately but I'd still be willing to give it if I think it could improve the boards.

I tried to split this one up, but I'll take it as a whole.

Wading in and trying to calm everything down, doesn't always work. Two things always fall down; People's willingness to co-operate, and a moderator's free time. Generally when an issue occurs, both are in short supply. In a disgreement between two long-standing posters, wading in and asking everyone to cool down works. Some guy with 2 posts to his name calls someone else a ****wit, and 9 times out of ten, he'll call me a ****wit if I warn him.

This isn't a debating club. Some people have no desire to get along with the community, and it's not possible to just ask them to leave and tell the doorman not to let them in anymore. If a member has no desire to function as a useful member of the community on a certain forum, then no amount of moderator intervention will solve anything. Ultimately, the moderator will have used up much of his/her already freely-given time, and will ban the poster anyway.

On the other hand, you'd have trouble justifying boards.ie's success if it was all one big get-along-gang. How can discussion thrive if everyone is saying the same thing?

Taking your post in UL as an example, some posts just present zero options to a moderator. Is there anything Nukem could have done to make you not post in that thread? If he had said simply "Rozie, I'd like to not see you post your pessimism in this thread again.", would you have said "Okie-dokie, mod has intervened intelligently and warned me off"? Or would you have taken the argument to the next level and complained about being allowed to express your opinion, and then insulted Nukem's ability to moderate?

People post what they think is right. If you try to ask them to stop, they're likely to take offence and feel oppressed.

amp

Mercury_Tilt wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Um... no. They're all chosen. Those that present themselves are in the minority.

Victor

amp wrote:

Um... no. They're all chosen. Those that present themselves are in the minority.

Thats what you think.

Amp, go to bed.

dahamsta

Well done Merc and WWM for proving my point better than I possibly could.

My old handle was dahamsta Merc, as you know. Banned by multiple mods over something silly, a single rant aimed at a complete moron and at least two utterly power-mad mods, with egos the size of a fawned-upon admin. And I had the cheek to complain about it? Isn't that awful? :rolleyes:

And no WWM, I don't need a dictionary to use the word "predictability" (yes little man, it's a real word). However, considering the fact that you're incapable of spelling it yourself after quoting it in your own post, you might want to consider one yourself.

GoneShootin

Ken Shabby wrote:

Well done Merc and WWM for proving my point better than I possibly could.

My old handle was dahamsta Merc, as you know. Banned by multiple mods over something silly, a single rant aimed at a complete moron and at least two utterly power-mad mods, with egos the size of a fawned-upon admin. And I had the cheek to complain about it? Isn't that awful? :rolleyes:

And no WWM, I don't need a dictionary to use the word "predictability" (yes little man, it's a real word). However, considering the fact that you're incapable of spelling it yourself after quoting it in your own post, you might want to consider one yourself.

Welcome back dahamsta. Boards.ie has lost it's caustic ways since your recent silence...

dahamsta

I aim to please.

WhiteWashMan

Ken Shabby wrote:

I aim to please.

then do it.

but getting back to what youve said, which is nothing, what was your point.

you rambled something about proving points etc.
what points have been proven?

and little man?
wow, have you already resorted to the personal insults after just a couple of posts?

come on, you know better. if you have a point to say, say it and give your back up. otherwise you know i could sit here all day and pick holes in your non-arguments.

but lets try it for ourselves shall we kids?

hey ken, youve just proved what weve all been saying about people who get banned and come back ranting about how unfair everything is....

dahamsta

Is my point a bit too complimicated for you WWM?

Zaph0d

Victor wrote:

I propose a 25 euro administration fee for appealing bans, refundable if successful.

I agree that you would need a disincentive to taking spurious appeals. That's why I suggested an extended ban for lost appeals -it seemed like the easiest to implement. I also thought of halving someones's postcount. However both charging a fee and changing postcount are hard to manage or require development or admin rights to implement.

koneko

Zaph0d wrote:

That's why I suggested an extended ban for lost appeals -it seemed like the easiest to implement.

Like on penalty points? Ie you appeal and you lose, you get an extra point (or whatever it is) added on? That would be the most workable of the suggested options, I imagine.
Changing a postcount means little to some people, it's just a number. Charging people would be an administrative nightmare, and how would you force someone to pay? Extra ban time sounds like the most feasible.

Boston

Ken Shabby wrote:

Well done Merc and WWM for proving my point better than I possibly could.

My old handle was dahamsta Merc, as you know. Banned by multiple mods over something silly, a single rant aimed at a complete moron and at least two utterly power-mad mods, with egos the size of a fawned-upon admin. And I had the cheek to complain about it? Isn't that awful? :rolleyes:

And no WWM, I don't need a dictionary to use the word "predictability" (yes little man, it's a real word). However, considering the fact that you're incapable of spelling it yourself after quoting it in your own post, you might want to consider one yourself.

Imagine if i had had the cheek to complain that time you threatened me with physical violence? You took off your nappy and spread your ****e through out boards, and got a ban for your trouble. Lets not pretend you're the bigger man.

Zaph0d

Yes same idea as penalty points. If you accept your first punishment its is a plea bargain. If you go to court and lose, you pay double.

dahamsta

LiouVille wrote:

Imagine if i had had the cheek to complain that time you threatened me with physical violence?

Dunno what you're talking about fella, I've never seriously threatened anyone with violence in me life, and all google turns up is you thanking me for inviting you to a Cork Beers... If I told you in jest at some stage that I'd clock you one, I apologise for scaring you.

Lets not pretend you're the bigger man.

There's very little doubt that I am, in fact, the bigger man. Ask anyone that's met me.

Boston

Ken Shabby wrote:

Dunno what you're talking about fella, I've never seriously threatened anyone with violence in me life, and all google turns up is you thanking me for inviting you to a Cork Beers... If I told you in jest at some stage that I'd clock you one, I apologise for scaring you.

There's very little doubt that I am, in fact, the bigger man. Ask anyone that's met me.

meh, point stand, you've posted some pretty lame things.

GoneShootin

LiouVille wrote:

meh, point stand, you've posted some pretty lame things.

Oh the irony....

WhiteWashMan

Ken Shabby wrote:

Is my point a bit too complimicated for you WWM?

yes it is.

can you explain it again?

dahamsta

WhiteWashMan wrote:

can you explain it again?

No. Now go back to harassing the OP, to prove both our points for the nth time.

Boston

GoneShootin wrote:

Oh the irony....

hey, I've never threatened someone, and I've never been site banned.

GoneShootin

LiouVille wrote:

hey, I've never threatened someone, and I've never been site banned.

Perhaps if you read what I quoted you would see that I wasn't referencing threatening posts/site bannings.

catsmember

Originally Posted by LiouVille
Moriarty tells me he likes to "stick his rod in your ma" I don't really understand, but he said you would.

.

Boston

GoneShootin wrote:

Perhaps if you read what I quoted you would see that I wasn't referencing threatening posts/site bannings.

I know. How does that make my comment any less true.

catsmember: hey pistol, hows it going, don't shoot the messenger, I'm to pretty to die.

catsmember

LiouVille wrote:

.......... I'm to pretty to die.

Wouldnt know about that.....

But which one are you?

the one with the stupid fingerless gloves? the one with the attempt at a beard and the feminine fingers? or the gom in the middle with the 3 euro necklace?

hhmmmm

Boston

Actually on second thought meh. Reported. You come near me in real life I'll see you in court pal.

dahamsta

ROFL. Who is that masked man?

WhiteWashMan

Ken Shabby wrote:

No. Now go back to harassing the OP, to prove both our points for the nth time.

what is this point i keep proving?

must be the one about me always being right.

Beruthiel

catsmember
banned
B

Rozie

Ken Shabby wrote:

Very much llike this thread, sadly. Same old usernames, same old excuses, same old jokes. It's pathetic. The fact that these people are unable to perceive their own predictability makes it all the more pathetic. I'd provide some kind of award for the first person to break the mould, but what would be the point? They're incapable.

Thank you guys. If the moderators would act a bit more more mature I'd love to reason with them on a more mature level.

Seamus wrote:

Wading in and trying to calm everything down, doesn't always work.

You never even try. It's not just something to do, it's an aquired skill. There are people that, but since you only pick people that agree with your methods, you will never find them.

Two things always fall down; People's willingness to co-operate, and a moderator's free time.

A) "Abrasive" people are willing to co-operate 90% of the time if you show them respect for once, and thus only the real hardcore trolls will end up getting banned.

Pick moderators with more free time. Other boards manage, why not here?

Excuses, if you ask me.

Generally when an issue occurs, both are in short supply. In a disgreement between two long-standing posters, wading in and asking everyone to cool down works. Some guy with 2 posts to his name calls someone else a ****wit, and 9 times out of ten, he'll call me a ****wit if I warn him.

Well, first of all you should have reasoned before warning. Second of all, those aren't even the people that get banned most of the time. I have a lot of posts and have contributed to just as much intelligent discussion as arguments I've participated in. Around 50% of the people I see saying they're banned seem to be people like me.

This isn't a debating club.

Forums are for debates. Discussions will happen. End of.

Some people have no desire to get along with the community, and it's not possible to just ask them to leave and tell the doorman not to let them in anymore.

Some people, not all. People like me shouldn't have to suffer for the hardcore trolls.

If a member has no desire to function as a useful member of the community on a certain forum, then no amount of moderator intervention will solve anything.

This is all theoretical of course and you've never tried. I managed a forum comprised mainly of people banned from other boards in a community, and I handled it quite well. Only one member ever needed to be banned(should have done it sooner) and another kept registerring alt accounts, so I locked him into a female account for a few weeks and that was the end of that. If a moderator can't adapt and use intelligent punishments before banning, they shouldn't be a moderator, in my opinion. Which does of course mean 90% of the internet, but 90% of the internet sucks.

Ultimately, the moderator will have used up much of his/her already freely-given time, and will ban the poster anyway.

Again, you've never tried. The thing is you don't want to give up your free time for people you don't like, so you're pulling reasons out AFTER you've formed an opinion rather than forming it based on them. I don't buy it.

People who care find time. Simple as that.

On the other hand, you'd have trouble justifying boards.ie's success if it was all one big get-along-gang. How can discussion thrive if everyone is saying the same thing?

For example, everyone on the UL forum was agreeing, I was the only one who disagred on anything major. As much as people think it was my fault it's still not nice the way that went. Similiarly, I and some othes got suspened from the fashion forum for arguing against popular opinion that all fat people are lazy. I see a lot of this happening. It's very frustrating fighting an unpopular opinion and moderators don't understand this. Attack the root, the cause, not the poor person suffering from people coming down like a ton of bricks on them.

Taking your post in UL as an example, some posts just present zero options to a moderator.

Like what?

Is there anything Nukem could have done to make you not post in that thread?

A) A lock, Reasoning with me, C) Attempting to diffuse the arugment. Regardless of what crap you'll spout on how acting civilised never works, he never even tried.

If he had said simply "Rozie, I'd like to not see you post your pessimism in this thread again.", would you have said "Okie-dokie, mod has intervened intelligently and warned me off"?

No, he'd have to give a good reason. I don't think you get the idea that when the idea of "moderator" was concieved online, it was meant to be for smart people. Moderating is a skill. You don't just pick people because you like the cut of their job, which is most certainly what is happening here.

Or would you have taken the argument to the next level and complained about being allowed to express your opinion, and then insulted Nukem's ability to moderate?

Yeah, if he didn't give a good reason, and didn't attempt to reason with other people, of course. Why should he pick on me, exactly? He should try to reason with everyone. Telling one person to shut up only makes them feel picked on and causes them to react. With that in mind, do you see why I react the way I do?

Ken, ignore WWM, he's a troll. Trolls only get banned if they disagree with moderators, I guarantee you that.

Mods, WWM really is a smoking gun for you. He seems to do nothing but troll in these topics, but since he does it "for" you, he never gets touched. At least sort this out(and keep mods like Nukem in line) if you want the few people who disagree with you(which will only grow in number) to respect the way you do things.

aidan_walsh

Rozie wrote:

If the moderators would act a bit more more mature I'd love to reason with them on a more mature level.

You mean mature as in "I was banned from a forum, I'll throw a J'accuse hissy fit until they let me back in", and "my rant on said banning was closed after I ignored all the advice I recieved and insulted and spoke down to everyone who tried to offer an opinion (a word I'm very fond of as long as its my own), so I started it again"?