New idea for board!!

[jackass]

Hey Jim is there any way for the members to ban another member from a thread?? For instance...we make a thread called What a beautiful day...everyone is talking about what a beautiful day it really is. Out of the blue..another...lets say...disruptive member comes along and just starts talking about how gay someone is or about how they had no idea what they were talking about in another thread. Can it be made that a % of members could ban that said person from the thread..if only temporary. I get really board reading posts that turn into flame fests. All the usual people...from both "sides"

[LiberalNation]

Yeah and when you do that you'll have people banning other people from threads if they're kicking their ass in debate or they just don't like their comments. Really bad idea.

[darin]

Yeah and when you do that you'll have people banning other people from threads if they're kicking their ass in debate or they just don't like their comments. Really bad idea.

There's a hack which allows mods to ban specific users from specific threads. I LOVED it. We should bring it back. :)

[jimnyc]

There's a hack which allows mods to ban specific users from specific threads. I LOVED it. We should bring it back. :)

Now I also agree this is a useful modification for the board. Rather than have to move or lock threads, you just remove the offending member from the one thread only. Unfortunately, this is viewed by many as censorship. I guess it all comes down to whether everyone agrees the particular member deserved to get removed or not. At some point though the members as a group must defer to staff, to be acting in the best interest of the board, and the enjoyment for all members.

I say we re-install when I get a chance, and find it. What's others thoughts?

[darin]

Now I also agree this is a useful modification for the board. Rather than have to move or lock threads, you just remove the offending member from the one thread only. Unfortunately, this is viewed by many as censorship. I guess it all comes down to whether everyone agrees the particular member deserved to get removed or not. At some point though the members as a group must defer to staff, to be acting in the best interest of the board, and the enjoyment for all members.

I say we re-install when I get a chance, and find it. What's others thoughts?

We re-install it. Censorship is GOOD when censoring-out troublemakers. :)

[Pale Rider]

Now I also agree this is a useful modification for the board. Rather than have to move or lock threads, you just remove the offending member from the one thread only. Unfortunately, this is viewed by many as censorship. I guess it all comes down to whether everyone agrees the particular member deserved to get removed or not. At some point though the members as a group must defer to staff, to be acting in the best interest of the board, and the enjoyment for all members.

I say we re-install when I get a chance, and find it. What's others thoughts?

I think if a person is bad enough to be locked out of a thread, then he/she is bad enough for a 24 hour ban. There shouldn't be a need for a thread lock out, just ban them.

[jackass]

Now I also agree this is a useful modification for the board. Rather than have to move or lock threads, you just remove the offending member from the one thread only. Unfortunately, this is viewed by many as censorship. I guess it all comes down to whether everyone agrees the particular member deserved to get removed or not. At some point though the members as a group must defer to staff, to be acting in the best interest of the board, and the enjoyment for all members.

I say we re-install when I get a chance, and find it. What's others thoughts?

Well if most of the people in that thread were to be for it...then how is that censorship?? Its like voting!

[Hagbard Celine]

I think if a person is bad enough to be locked out of a thread, then he/she is bad enough for a 24 hour ban. There shouldn't be a need for a thread lock out, just ban them.

I think letting posters vote on who gets to post on a thread could lead to less freedoms.

[Pale Rider]

I think letting posters vote on who gets to post on a thread could lead to less freedoms.

I agree...... :eek: .... was that my outside voice... :coffee:

[Mr. P]

Well if most of the people in that thread were to be for it...then how is that censorship?? Its like voting!

Yup, we need a thingy up in the right hand corner that is a vote to ban a member from the thread. So many votes gets rid of the offender. A vote from the members, not one MOD. Possible?

[manu1959]

Yup, we need a thingy up in the right hand corner that is a vote to ban a member from the thread. So many votes gets rid of the offender. A vote from the members, not one MOD. Possible?

this would be way too much fun.....

[jackass]

this would be way too much fun.....

Ok well lets not ruin it already. It would be nice just to have a thread with just the thread topic w/o the flaming.

[glockmail]

Yeah and when you do that you'll have people banning other people from threads if they're kicking their ass in debate or they just don't like their comments. Really bad idea. True. Gang rule could prevail.

[jackass]

True. Gang rule could prevail.

And whats wrong with that? Why a group of people have to deal with a member disrupting a thread?

[Kathianne]

Now I also agree this is a useful modification for the board. Rather than have to move or lock threads, you just remove the offending member from the one thread only. Unfortunately, this is viewed by many as censorship. I guess it all comes down to whether everyone agrees the particular member deserved to get removed or not. At some point though the members as a group must defer to staff, to be acting in the best interest of the board, and the enjoyment for all members.

I say we re-install when I get a chance, and find it. What's others thoughts?

I thought it was a really good feature, avoided having to ban members even short term, quick way to warn about jumping the shark and letting them know derailment or bullying would not be sanctioned.

[Pale Rider]

And whats wrong with that? Why a group of people have to deal with a member disrupting a thread?

Sure, but who and what defines "disrupting?" A difference of opinion? Talk about censorship. I thought most everyone on this board were all about freedom of speach, and now you want a feature to silence someone?

I don't get it.

[glockmail]

And whats wrong with that? Why a group of people have to deal with a member disrupting a thread? It may be the group doing the disrupting.

[jackass]

Sure, but who and what defines "disrupting?" A difference of opinion? Talk about censorship. I thought most everyone on this board was all about freedom of speach, and now you want a feature to silence someone?

I don't get it.

What dont you get? I dont get trying to have civilized conversations and being taken over by members who cant seem to keep their converations in their own threads!
Why should I have to deal with people taking over threads that have no input except what a smart person they are? You know how they show it?? By saying fucking this and fucking that...and you are a fucking retard who cant post. Your a drunken asshole. Ya know what? It gets OLD!
I USED to think the playground was a good idea..but at this point we all might as well just start all our posts there because thats where they end up.

[jackass]

It may be the group doing the disrupting.

Its a possiblilty. So is an airplane crashing into your house. You gonna move now?

[Pale Rider]

It may be the group doing the disrupting.

Not to mention, it could very easily be abused by conspiracy through PM.

[Pale Rider]

What dont you get? I dont get trying to have civilized conversations and being taken over by members who cant seem to keep their converations in their own threads!
Why should I have to deal with people taking over threads that have no input except what a smart person they are? You know how they show it?? By saying fucking this and fucking that...and you are a fucking retard who cant post. Your a drunken asshole. Ya know what? It gets OLD!
I USED to think the playground was a good idea..but at this point we all might as well just start all our posts there because thats where they end up.

That's where mods need to step in.

[glockmail]

Its a possiblilty. So is an airplane crashing into your house. You gonna move now?
Now now. Lets be civilzed, shall we?

[Pale Rider]

Now now. Lets be civilzed, shall we?

Yeah... we don't wanna have to LOCK YOU OUT OF THE THREAD... :uhoh:

[glockmail]

Yeah... we don't wanna have to LOCK YOU OUT OF THE THREAD... :uhoh:
Oh, the humanity! :laugh2:

[Mr. P]

Good points folks.. The group could 'gang-up' then a mod could step in.

[Pale Rider]

Good points folks.. The group could 'gang-up' then a mod could step in.

If the thread has deteriorated into a flame fest, then a mod should have stepped in already.

After all, that is their job here.

[Kathianne]

A mod should have stepped in already.

I repped JA, thought the idea has merit, but I'll agree with dmp, truth is it's better for some to be locked out of a thread, because they are either off topic or bullying their point. For the board's good, they are not banned, even short term, but they are put on notice of what is not allowed.

[Pale Rider]

I repped JA, thought the idea has merit, but I'll agree with dmp, truth is it's better for some to be locked out of a thread, because they are either off topic or bullying their point. For the board's good, they are not banned, even short term, but they are put on notice of what is not allowed.

I think the most important thing to take into consideration is the fact that it could very easily be abused. All it would take is for a number of like minded people arguing a point to PM each other, gang up, and lock someone out of a thread, "for no good reason," but to simply silence the voice of the opposition.

I know darn well they'd do it.

[Mr. P]

If the thread has deteriorated into a flame fest, then a mod should have stepped in already.

After all, that is their job here.
Yaaaaa true.. seen it happen lately? :laugh2:

[jackass]

Now now. Lets be civilzed, shall we?

I wasnt trying to not be civilized just saying...there is a chance in everything. Does that mean we should not try anything new?

Why should we have to rely on the Mods for everything? Are we not adults here. Can no one be trusted to have some shred of self control? Cant a group of adults be able to govern themselves?

[glockmail]

I wasnt trying to not be civilized just saying...there is a chance in everything. Does that mean we should not try anything new?

Why should we have to rely on the Mods for everything? Are we not adults here. Can no one be trusted to have some shred of self control? Cant a group of adults be able to govern themselves?

I've ben outspoken and taken unpopular positions often, and invariabily the same thing occurs- with much more frequency than a plane hitting my house! :laugh2:

[Pale Rider]

Why should we have to rely on the Mods for everything? Are we not adults here. Can no one be trusted to have some shred of self control? Cant a group of adults be able to govern themselves?

It's the mods job. If they don't want to do it, then they shouldn't be a mod.

I think you're far too trusting JA. My answer to your questions would be no, no, and no.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

I think if a person is bad enough to be locked out of a thread, then he/she is bad enough for a 24 hour ban. There shouldn't be a need for a thread lock out, just ban them.

Move the pissing contest to the Steel Cage at the point where it became a shitfest and continue on from there in the 24 hours the offending member is banned. Anything else is nothing more than mob rule.


Yeah and when you do that you'll have people banning other people from threads if they're kicking their ass in debate or they just don't like their comments. Really bad idea.

Exactly.

Never thought I would see the day that I would agree with you, Rider. First time for everything, I guess.

[lily]

I've got to mark this day on the calendar, I think this may be the first time I've agreed with Pale Rider. I don't know about anyone else, but my scroll bar works just fine.

[loosecannon]

I've got to mark this day on the calendar, I think this may be the first time I've agreed with Pale Rider. I don't know about anyone else, but my scroll bar works just fine.


I have agreed with PR before. Mark me down.

This is an invitation for abuse. I mean if you did employ it, you would pretty much have to shut down the PM system to keep people from going mob rule cuz they don't like other posters, positions or getting ass burns.

That said, there is a report post button. And the board could choose to manage threads differently if some habitually offtopic shithead like Loosecannon derails threads routinely.

[MtnBiker]

And the board could choose to manage threads differently if some habitually offtopic shithead like Loosecannon derails threads routinely.

For crying out loud, stay on topic!

[MtnBiker]

Having members vote on banning another member would be a nightmare. :eek:

Sorry Jackass, it just wouldn't work.

[Pale Rider]

Wow.... so many liberals agreeing with me.... did I do something wrong? :laugh2:

[shattered]

Are we not adults here. Can no one be trusted to have some shred of self control? Cant a group of adults be able to govern themselves?

:eek: :eek: :eek:

[Mr. P]

Try it for one day. Hey, after all we live in a democracy, right? At least that's what the left says, lets try it out.

It would at least be a good demonstration of a system of government that doesn't work well. :salute:

[jimnyc]

A lot of this discussion is for nothing, as the modification I would install would only allow staff to ban someone from a thread. Although the idea of members policing the threads themselves sounds good, that's a definite recipe for disaster. Too many ways to abuse the system.

I was looking for feedback on the known modification, whether members feel it's useful to have to sometimes remove someone from a thread, or if that too was crossing the line of free speech.

Like stated by others, it's a good tool to save a thread AND prevent a possible banning.

[KitchenKitten99]

i guess it isn't a bad idea. I will support any change Jim makes to the board regarding 'banning'.

[shattered]

I think if a thread gets bad enough to have a member banned from it, it's bad enough to move to the Steel Cage.

A single individual can't totally derail a thread - it takes at *least* two people...unless you're going to try and say that person is arguing with himself?

[darin]

I think if a thread gets bad enough to have a member banned from it, it's bad enough to move to the Steel Cage.

A single individual can't totally derail a thread - it takes at *least* two people...unless you're going to try and say that person is arguing with himself?

The purpose of banning a user from a thread isn't to fix a deteriorating thread - it's to remove from an otherwise-GOOD conversation those individuals who simply wish to cause trouble. :)

[shattered]

The purpose of banning a user from a thread isn't to fix a deteriorating thread - it's to remove from an otherwise-GOOD conversation those individuals who simply wish to cause trouble. :)

Ok, but it still takes two.. Someone has to respond to the first member in order for there to be a "disturbance"..

*shrug* I think you're getting in to that whole censoring thing.. Maybe not too bad at first, but it usually escalates..

[shattered]

Since this seems like as good a place as any to address this, since it's about "board changes"... I also don't think staff should be hidden while online.. I think they should be visible, and accessible to all members at all times for any reason whatsoever, since they're here to set the tone for the board; not hide, and possibly pretend they're not around..

A lot of things don't get quite as "heated" if people know they're being "watched", and know that the staff members are logged in..

[darin]

Ok, but it still takes two.. Someone has to respond to the first member in order for there to be a "disturbance"..

*shrug* I think you're getting in to that whole censoring thing.. Maybe not too bad at first, but it usually escalates..

Unfortunately, it doesn't always take two. Often - I'd say at least HALF the time, it's ONE person being an ass, and ruining a thread, or directing a thread towards ruin.

[glockmail]

Having members vote on banning another member would be a nightmare. :eek:

Sorry Jackass, it just wouldn't work.


Who are you calling jackass?

Oh, sorry, you're calling Jackass jackass. :laugh2:

[shattered]

Unfortunately, it doesn't always take two. Often - I'd say at least HALF the time, it's ONE person being an ass, and ruining a thread, or directing a thread towards ruin.

If that particular member is being ignored by everyone else in the thread, and they talk "right over the top" of him/her, that person usually gets bored and goes away.. This is why I say it always takes at least 2...

What criteria would you use for "being an ass", given everyones posting styles are different, and I know of at least 4 peoples who are "over the top", but that's "normal" for them...?

[jimnyc]

Since this seems like as good a place as any to address this, since it's about "board changes"... I also don't think staff should be hidden while online.. I think they should be visible, and accessible to all members at all times for any reason whatsoever, since they're here to set the tone for the board; not hide, and possibly pretend they're not around..

A lot of things don't get quite as "heated" if people know they're being "watched", and know that the staff members are logged in..

I'll go with the heated thing, and even change my options myself. Can't hurt to see if that helps.

[darin]

If that particular member is being ignored by everyone else in the thread, and they talk "right over the top" of him/her, that person usually gets bored and goes away.. This is why I say it always takes at least 2...

What criteria would you use for "being an ass", given everyones posting styles are different, and I know of at least 4 peoples who are "over the top", but that's "normal" for them...?

You know when people enter a thread and only serve to derail the thread. You see it all the time. You don't need me to provide specific examples.

[shattered]

You know when people enter a thread and only serve to derail the thread. You see it all the time. You don't need me to provide specific examples.

No, I don't need you to cite examples. But I also know they get bored and go away eventually, if people stop addressing them..or don't start..

Twas just my opinion on the matter, given the type of board this is supposed to be, and has been to date - you guys will do what's best in your opinion anyway..

[darin]

No, I don't need you to cite examples. But I also know they get bored and go away eventually, if people stop addressing them..or don't start..

Twas just my opinion on the matter, given the type of board this is supposed to be, and has been to date - you guys will do what's best in your opinion anyway..

It's very helpful to motivate them to 'go-away' by banning them from specific threads where they are only there to stir up feces. :)

[shattered]

It's very helpful to motivate them to 'go-away' by banning them from specific threads where they are only there to stir up feces. :)

It'll be interesting to see how that criteria is defined...

[Mr. P]

It'll be interesting to see how that criteria is defined...

This is easily solved IMO..say 5 members report a bad post or poster in a thread, then a Mod can remove the poster IF they see the need. I agree with what you're saying shattered, I don't like one person here making that decision. I've seen too much personality in many bannings in the past.

[darin]

It'll be interesting to see how that criteria is defined...

It's easy. Moderators use their judgment. :)

[Hagbard Celine]

It's easy. Moderators use their judgment. :)

*Bermp*

[Mr. P]

*Bermp*

Wuz that mean in English?

[Hagbard Celine]

Wuz that mean in English?

It's a sound expressing unbelief and inconfidence in the judgement abilities of the mods. You know, *Bermp*

[Mr. P]

It's a sound expressing unbelief and inconfidence in the judgement abilities of the mods. You know, *Bermp*

Oh..ok, thanks.

[darin]

It's a sound expressing unbelief and inconfidence [sic] in the judgement [sic] abilities of the mods. You know, *Bermp*

Funny - a number of us feel the same about you. :)

[MtnBiker]

Unfortunately, it doesn't always take two. Often - I'd say at least HALF the time, it's ONE person being an ass, and ruining a thread, or directing a thread towards ruin.

Yup, here is a sample;

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=50517&postcount=4

[Pale Rider]

I think this "ban one person from a thread" stuff sounds a whole lot like "hate crimes". When there's already methods and tools available to deal with unrulely members in place, why is there a need for more? What ever happened to a mod telling someone to cool it? And isn't there a 24 hour ban if they don't?

If people start getting locked out of threads, they're be crying and wailing like you haven't heard yet. So what then? Listen to the crying and wailing? Get rid of the thread ban? Ban the member?

[glockmail]

It's a sound expressing unbelief and inconfidence in the judgement abilities of the mods. You know, *Bermp*
Sounds like a fart with some solids passed by mistake.

[MtnBiker]

Unfortunately, it doesn't always take two. Often - I'd say at least HALF the time, it's ONE person being an ass, and ruining a thread, or directing a thread towards ruin.

Yup, here is a sample;

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=50517&postcount=4

and another

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=50593&postcount=7

[Hagbard Celine]

Yup, here is a sample;

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=50517&postcount=4

and another
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=50593&postcount=7

Hey I got positively repped for that post. By the way, your second link doesn't work. Pretty lame.

[jackass]

This is easily solved IMO..say 5 members report a bad post or poster in a thread, then a Mod can remove the poster IF they see the need. I agree with what you're saying shattered, I don't like one person here making that decision. I've seen too much personality in many bannings in the past.

That why I thought a member banning would be a good idea. It would take more than one person.

[Hagbard Celine]

Sounds like a fart with some solids passed by mistake.

I guess you'd be the expert right? :fart:

[glockmail]

I guess you'd be the expert right? :fart:
Good comeback! :laugh2: But I wasn't the one who made the noise. :poke:

[lily]

Originally Posted by dmp
It's easy. Moderators use their judgment.



*Bermp*


Couldn't have said it better myself!

[loosecannon]

Couldn't have said it better myself!

me either.

What threads around here are so sacred as to warrant this measure?

Between bannings, warnings, steel cage and ignoring offensive posters what is the need?

I wish threads here were such pristine sanctuaries of deep thought and cerebral communion as to deserve this kind of protection.

[lily]

me either.

What threads around here are so sacred as to warrant this measure?




Got me hanging. I don't know what more people want, they have an ignore feature and a scroll bar. Must be that nanny state that they've gotten so used to in the past 6 years.

[glockmail]

Got me hanging. I don't know what more people want, they have an ignore feature and a scroll bar. Must be that nanny state that they've gotten so used to in the past 6 years. So you're going to support a Reagan conservative in '08? :poke:

[Pale Rider]

Got me hanging. I don't know what more people want, they have an ignore feature and a scroll bar. Must be that nanny state that they've gotten so used to in the past 6 years.

You mean like "it takes a village?" That's not a conservative trait sweetheart... that's your liberal philosolphy, handed down by your God hitlery.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Got me hanging. I don't know what more people want, they have an ignore feature and a scroll bar. Must be that nanny state that they've gotten so used to in the past 6 years.

You mean like "it takes a village?" That's not a conservative trait sweetheart... that's your liberal philosolphy, handed down by your God hitlery.

Whoa! Same team here. This banning members from a thread is a bad idea and all we are explaining is that there are many ways to get past a member if they are truly disrupting a thread. MtnBiker's attempt to make an example of Hagbard just doesn't cut it.

[jackass]

me either.

What threads around here are so sacred as to warrant this measure?

Between bannings, warnings, steel cage and ignoring offensive posters what is the need?

I wish threads here were such pristine sanctuaries of deep thought and cerebral communion as to deserve this kind of protection.

There arent any threads here that are sacred. There are threads here that dont need to be interupted by the usual classless people that just like to stir the pot. They are the same people who come into a thread that has nothing to do with past offenses and some into that thread and bring up those past "injustices".


Got me hanging. I don't know what more people want, they have an ignore feature and a scroll bar. Must be that nanny state that they've gotten so used to in the past 6 years.

I would like to have SOME threads that dont have to be moved to the Steel Cage because of said classless people.

[loosecannon]

what about banning folks who habitually start threads just to accomidate personal attacks.

there are five threads begun specifically to engage in personal attacks against MOI.

And altho the attention is flattering, it seems like just one would have done the trick.

Who would you ban from those? The thread parent or somebody who took the bait?

[Abbey Marie]

me either.

What threads around here are so sacred as to warrant this measure?

Between bannings, warnings, steel cage and ignoring offensive posters what is the need?

I wish threads here were such pristine sanctuaries of deep thought and cerebral communion as to deserve this kind of protection.

You finally made me laugh! :laugh2:

[jackass]

what about banning folks who habitually start threads just to accomidate personal attacks.

there are five threads begun specifically to engage in personal attacks against MOI.

And altho the attention is flattering, it seems like just one would have done the trick.

Who would you ban from those? The thread parent or somebody who took the bait?

Depends where it is at. Go ahead and do it all you like in the Steel Cage!

[MtnBiker]

MtnBiker's attempt to make an example of Hagbard just doesn't cut it.

They are perfect examples of completely unnecessary posts in a thread.

[shattered]

They are perfect examples of completely unnecessary posts in a thread.

Eh? This entire board is littered with those.. Are you going to lock out every member that makes an unnecessary post? Posts on this board should drop by 500 a day...

[loosecannon]

Eh? This entire board is littered with those.. Are you going to lock out every member that makes an unnecessary post? Posts on this board should drop by 500 a day...

I have been thinking the same thing but neither you nor I have yet articulated the point well enough to make it stick. But let's keep trying.

Approx 3/4 of all the threads here at any given moment are either stoopid fests or just plain stoopid threads to begin with.

Maybe 3/4 of all the threads here belong in the steel cage . Not in the rest of the forum.

(just throwin ideas around)

Not trying to make it personal but folks like Gaffe and OCA post stoopidly the overwhelming majority of the time. Hardly ever a comment without a personal attack.

But you need threads that deserve to be saved before you can ban people for trashing them. And that is the rare thread here.

[MtnBiker]

Eh? This entire board is littered with those.. Are you going to lock out every member that makes an unnecessary post? Posts on this board should drop by 500 a day...

I made an example of unnecessary posts, where did I say I would lock out a member?

[lily]

You mean like "it takes a village?" That's not a conservative trait sweetheart... that's your liberal philosolphy, handed down by your God hitlery.


I know we all look alike, but I'm no Hillary fan. In fact after tonights debates I hope Ron Paul has a chance. I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.

[lily]

I would like to have SOME threads that dont have to be moved to the Steel Cage because of said classless people.

......as would I, but it doesn't seem much gets put there. My point was, you know and I know which posters don't add anything to a conversation, it's easy just to put them on ignore or simply scroll past their posts. You're not missing anything either way, why get ulcers over it?

It's inevitable that a forum of this size is going to have it's trolls, or people you just don't wish to discuss with. Blocking them from one thread and you're just going to see them in another thread.

[jimnyc]

There will be no modification installed allowing members to ban other members from threads.

There will "most likely" be no modification installed allowing staff to ban members from threads.

Remember though, posting here is a privilege, not a right, so please make our "hands off" approach worthwhile.

Thanks!