Means no more anime threads! Finally!The act of posting the same thing over and over and over again consecutively, or any other unreasonably large volume of content with little to no actual value. This includes both text and images."
Means no more anime threads! Finally!The act of posting the same thing over and over and over again consecutively, or any other unreasonably large volume of content with little to no actual value. This includes both text and images."
Posting anime in an anime thread won't be flooding. Sorry Bacon.Originally Posted by Bacon
...unreasonably large volume of content with little to no actual value...
There's value in the Funhouse?
By saying that, I was referring to specifically the nipples or areola.
Bacon, image dumps in an anime thread has value for that thread regardless if it has value to you. What that rule is referring to are people that post:
The same thing over and over again
The same thing over and over again
The same thing over and over again
The same thing over and over again
The same thing over and over again
The same thing over and over again
The same thing over and over again
The same thing over and over again
The same thing over and over again
The same thing over and over again
The same thing over and over again
The same thing over and over again
x 100
If it would be (which it's not), it would probably borderline favoritism and/or misuse of power.
However, my question about warez still stands. Does warez only include the distribution and acquisition of said illegal content, or is all general discussion (ie. Technical help) about the illegal content covered under warez as well?
Damn, got my hopes up for a moment there.
Whatever, proceed.
@y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0:
Warez should not belong on a forum like Southperry. People should not discuss illegal activities on this forum.
Well perhaps Sarah and all these other so called "beneficial" people to the forum should learn how to follow the rules so the situation never arises.
If Sarah gets the infraction points for a permanent ban, then that should be a permanent ban for her. Just like any other member of this forum.
I guess the best way to think about warez is to swap out the word "warez" with "Maplestory hacking".
Can you discuss the effects of Maplestory hacking on this forum? Sure.
Can you distribute Maplestory hacks on this forum? No.
Can you teach people how to obtain maplestory hacks? No.
First of all, I'm of the strong opinion that arguments should be judged on their own merit. To attack you because this obviously benefits you would result in a logical fallacy. If your argument is good or bad should fall on its own merit rather than by who said it.
Conduct Based Bans
The problem I see with these bans is that "poor conduct" is an extremely vague term. What is poor conduct? How can I quantify if someone or something is acting poorly? How much poor conduct is enough to warrant a ban? In this case, the actual ban (10 day tempban) is so extreme given the amount of offenses that a person would likely commit during a period that no one would get banned. Moving to conduct based bans instead of point-based bans would result in more people going against the rules because the 10 day tempban is a huge penalty that shouldn't be awarded for something like spamming.
Or perhaps you mean that a person who doesn't seem all that offensive and only gets infractions every now and then shouldn't be subject to a BoS. This system would really try my patience as I would have to deal with users I would rather not deal with. So yeah... this one is easy for you to say...
Three strikes system
This system states that we should instead go for 24 points before a BoS. The theory is that if a person receives more infractions, that provides more opportunities for a person to learn. Let me ask you this, though - is there any evidence that once a person has received so many infractions that they do begin to behave better? Does a person who has received 3 or even 4 speeding tickets eventually learn not to speed? Furthermore, is allowing more infractions per person better for the forum?
Consider this. You have $24,000 and you can spend it any way you like. So you go out to expensive restaurants and eateries and start splurging money fast. You better believe when you get down to the wire of only having $2000 left that you're going to savor every dollar spent. You're going to watch every penny. Giving a person $16,000 ensures that he or she reaches this point quicker and therefore encourages more people to watch how they spend their money.
Probationary Bans
This would be the system I am most for given all three of the systems you have proposed. We do have many examples of users that have left the site after being banned, then returned later as perfectly good posters.
This was more along the lines of the second paragraph, not the removal of the points system. Someone who quickly accumulates points in a short period is much obviously more harmful to the site than someone who gets one infraction a month, and for varied reasons each time. This system essentially targets obvious trolls and trouble-makers rather than valued members of the community with loud-mouths. Loud-mouths still want to be here, they care about the site and even do things to help, and obviously should be in no way above the law, but at the same time, it's my feeling that as long as what they're doing isn't a constant issue (approximately one infraction a month isn't a constant issue) they should be given some leeway.
This method isn't about favouritism, as Heidi and Yoshi implied, so much as it is about caring about your community. It's a lax policy that still punishes offenders without dismembering the site.
If you split that $24,000 into three parts of $8,000 and told them that once the first $8,000 were spent they'd have to go without any money for a week, you'd expect some minor changes for a brief while. If they spent the second $8,000 and told them that once it was gone, they'd need to go without any money for month, I'm inclined to believe they would spend it much more carefully. If they made it to the final $8,000 and you assured them that once that money was gone, there would never be any more money, the prudent person would be very careful about how they spent it, not even just getting down to $2,000 before realising this is all they've got.Three strikes system
This system states that we should instead go for 24 points before a BoS. The theory is that if a person receives more infractions, that provides more opportunities for a person to learn. Let me ask you this, though - is there any evidence that once a person has received so many infractions that they do begin to behave better? Does a person who has received 3 or even 4 speeding tickets eventually learn not to speed? Furthermore, is allowing more infractions per person better for the forum?
Consider this. You have $24,000 and you can spend it any way you like. So you go out to expensive restaurants and eateries and start splurging money fast. You better believe when you get down to the wire of only having $2000 left that you're going to savor every dollar spent. You're going to watch every penny. Giving a person $16,000 ensures that he or she reaches this point quicker and therefore encourages more people to watch how they spend their money.
I'd think that anyone who really wants to be here wouldn't take that last strike lightly, especially after serving two bans of increasing lengths without the ability to post.
I mean, as far as I know you've never made anyone serve even a single week so I'm not sure how you can dismiss the power of three strikes when all you've done is let people walk.
Some final words on the issue of banning, and why I think permanent bans are too extreme. I'll start by loosely quoting Fiel who noticed, "people only realise how important Southperry is to them when they're at risk of losing it," just the other day. And that's true. Being banned blows plantain. I've been there, and it wasn't a fun 10 days, now I'm facing a permanent ban and I can't help feeling like it's going to happen regardless of what I do unless I just stop posting. Nothing I've ever done is worth removing me entirely from this site, and yet that is the future I face. I know Greg is sitting in limbo right now and all he wants is to come back to Southperry because he loves this place. I'm sure he has many regrets about his actions and they'll only deepen as he spends time away.
Fiel even just said it himself, there are many examples of users who come back after three or so months with a new respect for Southperry's rules because they love it here. We all love it here. This new policy basically spits in the faces of those people who love your site but have made some mistakes. The love that we all have for Southperry, in spite of our mistakes, should mean that in time we can be forgiven. We are the children of Southperry, and as a good parent you should not disown us because we didn't live up to your expectations or because we let you down.
Sorry that's dramatic but it's the truth. I can't imagine anyone who actively posts here who wouldn't agree that they love southperry and would wish to be forgiven if they made a mistake.
What about a combination of the ideas:
- First 8 points is a 10 day ban
- Second 8 points is a 30 day ban and a 30 day probation period in which any infraction is 8 points
- Third 8 points is a ban on sight
I just think that "three strikes" is nominally more cut and dry than reversing "permanent" bans as a part of procedure.
Sarah, is it that you have trouble following the rules or that you think you should be allowed to break them every now and again? o_o
You should be attacking the argument, not the person or the person's relevance to the argument. Your point is irrelevant as it is distracting.
As now is the time for discussing new ideas for the new rules, we ought to cover our bases as best as possible. Considering that the method of banning is changing with this new iteration, it is in SP's best interest that we choose the best banning system for ourselves. Let's focus on the issue instead of focusing on the people. I think the third option sounds closest to what is already being done and has worked successfully already in SP. What do you say to the third option?
It has nothing to do with me feeling like I'm above any laws, or having difficulty following any rules. Two of my three current infractions were based on something entirely out of my control; circumstances that occurred long after I had made my initial post. I don't go out looking to be infracted or to cause trouble.
I feel that has sufficiently answered your question, and I will refrain from speaking further on this issue as I feel you are attempting to bait me into flaming you, as there are few other ways for me to respond to these rude comments you're making. Please keep your thoughts about me to yourself, as I have not attacked anyone in this thread and it is highly inappropriate for you to bring this here.
The third option is the option I feel is best for both the user and the community, which is why I did not take the time to rebut it. It's simple, gives everyone involved a chance to cool off and think, and most importantly, doesn't isolate anyone who actually cares about the site.
Last edited by Sarah; 2010-04-23 at 01:44 AM.
What prompted the change between banning the user and banning the account?
Remember when X was banned, but came back as Y, Z, A, B, C, and D?
those were fun times..
In the old system there was a lot of confusion. When an account was permanently banned, the user could not know if he or she was BoS or if just the account was permanently banned. A user would have to create several new accounts before they finally realized that they were BoS. In the old system, becoming BoS was largely out of the user's control - usually decided by me if I completely tired of dealing with a user or if I felt that bringing the user back would bring no good to SP. This led to a lot of confusion and hurt feelings in the user as there was no real objective measure as to whether a person was BoS or not.
The simplest method of a user knowing if he or she is BoS is if all accounts are BoS upon permanent ban. No confusion there. It saves me time because then I don't have to keep much of a watch out for that user to create new accounts. The user knows what's expected of him and I know exactly which rules to enforce for the user. Furthermore, in the few rare cases when I enforced someone to serve their ban by taking a time off, each one of them expressed an immediate sadness and a desire to reconnect with the community. This feeling, I believe, is only reinforced more during that person's leaving and will result in greater cohesion of the community and an increase in compliance with the rules.
1) I was attacking the point she made, not her. I don't understand why she feels that she needs extra chances. I would say the exact same thing to ANYBODY that posted it. It's nothing personal towards Sarah.
2) I wasn't baiting you Sarah. I can't force you to believe that I wasn't, but
Eh, I already know I can't communicate though
Sorry Sarah and Fiel
Lost-in-translation problems occurs really often on forums because everyone can sound rather monotone (at least, as I perceive it to be), and there's no emphasizing certain words or phrases.
Though on-topic, I agree with Sarah about the 3rd option. I left SP, came back, and hell, you don't see me making 20+ threads in the Funhouse a day and pissing people off. Actually, I rarely post now, unless I find something interesting. Meh.
Posting Permissions
|
|
Bookmarks