Seeing a lot of Banned users, is that normal?

[RageBurner]

I'll steal it and make it "Baked (Permanent)"

Bake Boss? LOL

 

[Gorse]

I suppose in part @Gorse's concern stems from the slippery slope phenomenon

I can’t think of a single time this “fallacy” has been wrong.

 

[Strategist]

I suppose in part @Gorse's concern stems from the slippery slope phenomenon, but again, I don't think you'll find the kind of leniency and freedom we enjoy here elsewhere on the internet.

The slippery slope slips both ways. Allow too much leniency and we have the next 4chan on our hands. It's on all of us to build the community we want to see. Part of that is understanding that mods need to set limits for the greater good.

 

[AtlasM]

Sounds like me, but I think we're thinking of different things.

It's always funny how slang works to me. With the green stuff, it is that baked, with cake and muffins, it's another baked

 

[DrunkOcelot]

The slippery slope slips both ways. Allow too much leniency and we have the next 4chan on our hands. It's on all of us to build the community we want to see.

What do you mean by allowing too much leniency, exactly? I think so far things seem on an even keel. Noone is shouting racial slurs.

 

[Gorse]

It's on all of us to build the community we want to see.

I agree, which is why, as users, we should all commit to making high-quality, good-faith posts. WHO’S WITH ME????? (IMMEDIATELY BANNED)

 

[RageBurner]

What do you mean by allowing too much leniency, exactly? I think so far things seem on an even keel. Noone is shouting racial slurs.

Exactly, no one here is that mean spirited, and said person would stick out like a sore thumb.

 

[Strategist]

Exactly, no one here is that mean spirited, and said person would stick out like a sore thumb.

And the easiest way to keep it that way is to have clear rules that empower the mods to do their jobs.

 

[RageBurner]

And the easiest way to keep it that way is to have clear rules that empower the mods to do their jobs.

Right, I don't think this point is being argued.

 

[DrunkOcelot]

And the easiest way to keep it that way is to have clear rules that empower the mods to do their jobs.

The mods have all the power they need to do their jobs. The point here is that noone wants the mods to be able to wield a little bit of power and start making decisions based on personal impulses and not the welfare of the board.

 

[RageBurner]

It's the oldest game in the world - powers and checks to said powers; again, though, I honestly don't think the rope is being tugged too hard on either end.

 

[χKai]

Over 200 posts in a short 7½ hours is pretty good for an innocuous thread, I'd say.

 

[Strategist]

The mods have all the power they need to do their jobs. The point here is that noone wants the mods to be able to wield a little bit of power and start making decisions based on personal impulses and not the welfare of the board.

Maybe a three strikes, you are out policy? Maybe temporary bans for first time offenders? I don't think what Gorse is suggesting is a good idea, though.

Edit: Another idea is an appeal system for bans.

 

[ZombieFish]

I agree, which is why, as users, we should all commit to making high-quality, good-faith posts. WHO’S WITH ME????? (IMMEDIATELY BANNED)

I don't think your definition of "good faith" is in good faith though. What with the sneak dissin' and all.

 

[DrunkOcelot]

Maybe a three strikes, you are out policy? Maybe temporary bans for first time offenders? I don't think what Gorse is suggesting is a good idea, though.

I think we should hold public trials and, if necessary, executions. But three strikes could also work.

 

[χKai]

I don't think your definition of "good faith" is in good faith though. What with the sneak dissin' and all.

But that's what keeps things interesting!

 

[Additional Damage]

One of the weidest thread here. And one of the most-commented I think. Ho, my, where did I end up...

 

[DrunkOcelot]

Make the strikes public

 

[RageBurner]

I don't mean to minimod, but a weighted offense system an some form of advance warning make sense, in a vacuum.

 

[AtlasM]

Maybe a three strikes, you are out policy? Maybe temporary bans for first time offenders? I don't think what Gorse is suggesting is a good idea, though.

Why do you think so? Maybe explain the reasons?

 

[χKai]

Gorse seems to love tip-toeing the line for what is an acceptable or at the very least, a tolerable amount of shit-talking, and I think people would be more against it if he wasn't so darn good about it.

 

[AtlasM]

I think we should hold public trials and, if necessary, executions. But three strikes could also work.

That's so tedious though

 

[Strategist]

Why do you think so? Maybe explain the reasons?

Because what he's suggesting is so nebulous and undefinable, it makes for poor policy.

 

[DrunkOcelot]

Gorse seems to love tip-toeing the line for what is an acceptable or at the very least, a tolerable amount of shit-talking, and I think people would be more against it if he wasn't so good about staying fair about the whole thing.

Being able to shit talk in a reasonable and adult manner is what Gorse is advocating for, and it seems reasonable.

 

[AtlasM]

Because what he's suggesting is so nebulous and undefinable, it makes for poor policy.

I see. I can see why you would think that way. Like previously said, it's hard to expect everyone to not ignite in the face of such topics