Not that I would agree with the suggestion. Hell, even I might lose posting privileges. Yet I get the sense that a lot of posters are frustrated with certain posters and TPTB who let them slide.
I’d like to get the sense of the majority SDMB community with regard to having the power to ban certain posters. Some are simply trolls.
On the other hand, my view is that the contrariness of certain posters is neccessary to express the general view and the straight dope on the issues. TPTB don’t always get it right.
Perhaps a poster could start a poll for the proposition to ban a certain poster and after 1 week, a 2/3 majority would compel TPTB to ban the poster in question.
I’m a Charter Member, you’re not voting me off. And besides, if we voted off the stubbornheaded types like Rand Rover & Der Trihs, how would we [del]make fun of them[/del] try to change their minds?
Exactly. Us Charter Members should be the only ones allowed to vote ('cause of our high, exalted status), and the only ones who are allowed to be voted in/out are the [del]non-paying[/del], er, non-Charter Members.
I voted yes, assuming the moderators would control veto power. Basicaly, I would support an exception to the “Do not be a jerk” rule to allow posts/polls of the type “Should poster X be banned?” Assuming the vast majority of the community agrees to the ban, the moderators should support that.
Suppose a poster continually toes the line and sometimes crosses it, leading to an unpopular opinion from the masses. Suppose this poster lucks out of warnings and mod notes often enough for the members to notice it, and open pit threads and ATMB threads about it. Maybe they even butter up and befriend the mod staff and get unfair treatment. A poll requesting to ban the user, with a thorough list of offenses, and a X% majority from Y% of the community should convince the mods to ban the poster on the basis of “being a jerk” to a lot of people over a long time.
I don’t think the poll itself should have the power to ban anyone.
As some days may happen
That a victim must be found
I’ve got a little list
I’ve got a little list
Of society offenders
Who might well be underground
And never would be missed
They never would be missed
I don’t think so. I mean, maybe Starving Artist would be voted off, but that’s not because he’s a conservative, it’s because he argues in a particularly irritating and disingenuous fashion. OTOH, very few people would want to vote off Bricker, because even when he disagrees with the majority viewpoint, he does so in an articulate and thoughtful manner that doesn’t make one want to punch him through the internet.
I don’t see why I’d wish to do such a thing. I’d probably reflexively vote to keep anyone who was subject to such a vote. Anyway, if I want to ignore someone, I can just ignore them. It’s not hard. And I’m not even talking about using the Ignore feature.
Any time tempers ran high you’d have people getting thrown off for having unpopular opinions. You’d probably also see a dampening of discussions because of people being afraid to offend the Mob and get banned.
I’d like to see a vote on planned bannings. Like, a weekly run where anyone TPTB plan to ban for bad behavior (no use including socks or bots) would go on a list and at the end of the week, and we’d vote on which to let go. This might avoid some of the hard feelings and confusion which so often erupt after a banning, and would allow for discussion to occur in advance instead of the current bitter after-the-fact rumblings . We could suspend their posting ability and put “LISTED” in red under the name for the week.
But I think an open nomination process would get way out of hand, way too fast. And I’d have way too much time on my hands when I got voted out. . .
