[Alien in Bob Dole’s Body]
Porn for everyone!
Boo!
Very well. Porn for no one!
Boo!
Hmm. Porn for some, miniature American flags for other!
Yay!
[/AIBDB]
the OP apparently wants all steps in a banning process to be public (ie posted member status changes, public posting of cautionary emails etc.).
IMHO, very bad idea. We already have some public warnings wrt specific posters/issues etc, and what I see follows, as night follows day, that poster eventually gets banned. How? well, not only does the poster know that they’re on thin ice, so does every one else - witness the mess that is the country/Ilsa thread, where supporters/detractors of each are free to nudge all they want in that direction.
we’re adults (mostly) here, why on earth should all (and visitors) get to view mild admonishments on behavior? what possible good will that do? I can see it all now:
you told poster A to knock off the junior modding, but poster C did pretty much the same thing, in this thread, and poster d did it worse still and never got a warning. etcetcetc.
The Pit thread I have in mind is instituted when the user is one click away from banning.
Here’s how it goes:
[ol]
[li]Mod posts thread in Pit with links to the post that fleshed out the consideration of ban, as well as a couple of significant earlier indiscretions. [/li][li]User is limited to respond in that thread only. User has to be polite and explain what (s)he thinks of his/her behaviour and the mod’s characterization of it.[/li][li]Other users chime in with their takes and suggestions, for and against[/li][li]After, say, 3 days, the user is required to post a statement containing what he thinks he did wrong and what’s going to change. [/li][li]If that statement appears satisfactory to the mods, ban is averted.[/li][/ol]
If an user has already had a ban thread to his credit(?debit?) and is caught committing an indiscretion he stated he wouldn’t commit in the conclusion of his Pit-ban thread, no second ban thread then. (Unless his new violation is unrelated to his earlier ones) In any case, no user gets 3 threads, if a consideration for a 3rd thread comes up, direct banning.
So, in this contract, the party of the first part shall be known henceforth as the party of the first part?
(…noise…)] He (…) llo?
You obviously aren’t a Chaplin fan.
Your prospectus is so unbearably convoluted, it would burden the mods and the board to an unconscionable degree.
Well, I certainly agree that it is a mess, however I didn’t see anything related to banning in that thread, other than references to Ilsa’s past.
I don’t think the moderators use the opinions of posters to determine who gets banned; do they?
Ooh, I have a past!
county, I don’t harbor any long term grudges, but sometimes you do come off a tad on the moron side. Water under the bridge?
Really? and pray tell… how many hundreds of posters are under the threat of near-immediate banning every hour?
I didn’t mean to be so snarky, but say there are five banned posters a week. FIVE pit threads to which the mods must devote a great deal of attention and hog real estate. Then they start piling up. If there are ten banned posters, then almost the entire page is taken up by these threads. The server is clogged. So a new forum is instituted. Can you imagine?
743, but upwards of 900 on Tuesdays, for some reason Tuesday is “Get as close to being banned as you can” Day.
5 prolific posters getting banned every week? That’s one every weekday? I would say, more like, 3 posters at most, every two weeks. Of course, I would love if a mod could come and give us the s. dope.
And the mods don’t have to “devote a great deal of attention”. That’s the benefit of an open pit thread. Let the interested (and offended) users have a go. The mod reviews the thread after 3 days and depending on the ‘statement’, makes a decision.
Do you know how long a thread like that would get in 3 days, and how ugly they would probably get? I’d suspect several pages, since the post-banning game shows often run that long.
What does prolific have to do with it? I’d wager that five people are banned per week.
If that figure includes spammers and trollers, exclude them.
porcupine
Depending on the ambiguity of the infraction, no more than 150 posts. And plenty of threads in GD or Pit reach those limits.
Howyadoin,
Man, you just don’t give up, do you?
Do me a favor, willya?
If you really believe in the power of the great mass of people to act in the best interests of this board, please look at how many people are telling you this is a dumb idea. Get the picture? Then shut up, already…
“I cannot possibly see this working” - Una Persson
“Most wouldn’t deserve it” - AudreyK
“… the mods are to be trusted …” - Akatsukami
“We already have a workable system.” - porcupine
“There are enough hue-and-cry threads started up “Why was such-and-such banned?” to give enough transparency to the system.” - Ice Wolf
“Are you seriously saying that having a huge discussion involving any and all people would be better than the present one?” - dantheman
“Posters often get all the chances they really need.” - BayleDomon
“Lynn has a tough enough job. She doesn’t need more abuse.” - squink
…and last, but not least…
“IMHO, very bad idea.” - wring
“The sentence of the court is that this thread, “Bannings”, be taken hence by the Sheriff of Dope County to the Jail of said County and from there to the place of execution within the walls or yard of said Jail and that you be hanged by the neck until you are dead on the date the Governor of the Commonwealth shall appoint, and may God, in His infinite wisdom, have Mercy on your soul.”
:smack:
-Rav
Gyan9, you can argue for your system all you want, but I really, REALLY doubt that it or anything like it will be implemented. Now, if you want to set up your OWN message board, and use this system, be my guest. However, this would tax the server even more and it would certainly stir up a frigging hornet’s nest each time someone was close to banning. So I advise you not to hold your breath until we put this in place.
I thought I read that somewhere in the board guidelines; that there really can’t be any hard or fast rules for banning. I thought that’s what it said, and I liked the way it was worded.
Then again, I"m probably wrong. 
Earlier in this thread I tossed out the idea of a separate forum that was accessible only to BANNED posters. At the time it was just a joke, but I’m wondering if it doesn’t have some merit.
This isn’t the first time someone has advocated some type of public forum for BANNED dopers to argue their case. I can certainly see why the SDMB moderators wouldn’t want to spend any more time with an already unpleasant situation (and one that I can bet they have struggled with for a long time), so I don’t think you should ask them for any help in this matter.
So ** Gyan9 **, what I’m suggesting is that if you or anyone else wants to give BANNED Dopers a forum, just set up a Yahoo group dedicated to SDMB bannings. While I’ve never done this, it looks like a fairly simple procedure.
While this wouldn’t address all the protocol you proposed in the OP, it would (for better or worse) provide a place to debate the bannings outside of the SDMB.
The funny thing is, every Banning of a decently high post count member gets dead horse level rehashing in the Pit. You want more?
Worse, you want Pit Vulture input? ::shudders::
Boy, you are sure smooth with the sweet talk huh?
Nothing like calling someone a moron to mend fences.
