Another change in bannings?

**Smokin** · September 10th, 2003, 02:38 PM

What about changing bannings so that you can only have one FORMAL (posted on the motions area) once every XXXX (30,60,90, you decide) days. This makes it from being more difficult to post a motion over and over again when you dont get yoru way. The flip side is that the person can be almost immune for that period of time....

**packetjunkie** · September 10th, 2003, 02:39 PM

I think we just do a dogpile on anyone who tries to abuse the system without having to get this granular...

**Snake Bitten** · September 10th, 2003, 02:41 PM

Motion to ban Smokin...for trampling my First Amendment right to ban the Frenchie...daily if necassary...

NOITALL · September 10th, 2003, 02:41 PM

:bonk:

**Smokin** · September 10th, 2003, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Bitten

Motion to ban Smokin...for trampling my First Amendment right to ban the Frenchie...daily if necassary...

actually I voted to ban frenchie [img]/images/graemlins/laughing.gif[/img]

**Snake Bitten** · September 10th, 2003, 02:42 PM

Craig...You just made "the list"...

City · September 10th, 2003, 02:43 PM

How about if the motion to ban does NOT pass...then the member that BROUGHT the motion gets suspended for a week! Sort of like the looser having to pay for both attorneys. (Sorry...I'm just SO tired of the banning thing).

**Smokin** · September 10th, 2003, 02:46 PM

Thats why I put this thread up. Its not that Im not for gettin rid of the french traitor, its that I think the incessant bannings is bad for the PR of Viperalley.

**Minivan Man** · September 10th, 2003, 02:47 PM

I'm for it.

**Snake Bitten** · September 10th, 2003, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smokin

Thats why I put this thread up. Its not that Im not for gettin rid of the french traitor, its that I think the incessant bannings is bad for the PR of Viperalley.

Motion to ban double negatives...

**Smokin** · September 10th, 2003, 02:48 PM

motion to ban motions to ban double negatives.

City · September 10th, 2003, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smokin

incessant bannings are bad PR for Viperalley.

YES!!!

**King GTS** · September 10th, 2003, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smokin

What about changing bannings so that you can only have one FORMAL (posted on the motions area) once every XXXX (30,60,90, you decide) days. This makes it from being more difficult to post a motion over and over again when you dont get yoru way. The flip side is that the person can be almost immune for that period of time....

I agree 100%. And things like this need to be settled on now. I think at least 60 days should elapse before another banning attempt can be made. That's just my opinion.

**Jerome** · September 10th, 2003, 02:57 PM

So if I should pass the first banning poll I then would have 60 or whatever number of days to be a total fucktard?

Now I think we are getting too many rules.

And I still say that the 2/3 to ban shit is just that, shit. We don't need 2/3 for the other polls to pass, so why this?

NOITALL · September 10th, 2003, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Bitten

Craig...You just made "the list"...

**Jerome** · September 10th, 2003, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig201MPH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Bitten

Craig...You just made "the list"...

Sounds like I know who "Windbreaker" is now.

CAP · September 10th, 2003, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerome

And I still say that the 2/3 to ban shit is just that, shit. We don't need 2/3 for the other polls to pass, so why this?

Because it is quite an extreme action. It is felt that it should require more than a simple majority to ban someone from this site. At least that was the thinking at the time.

**Jerome** · September 10th, 2003, 03:02 PM

.......then so much for "majority rules"

Maybe all the rules need to be gone over and voted on?

CAP · September 10th, 2003, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerome

.......then so much for "majority rules"

It doesn't always. There are many instances where more than a simple majority is required to make thing happen.

**packetjunkie** · September 10th, 2003, 03:08 PM

> We don't need 2/3 for the other polls to pass, so why this?

2/3rds are required to override a veto in the Congress - does this seem fair to you? It our system and its our way of showing how important those kinds of votes are which require more than just the weight of a simple majority.

Personally I'd rather see banning polls banned and put the power to ban into the hands of a majority vote by the moderators who's job is to keep serious trolls off the board - not people who other members simply dont like. This isnt a popularity website - at least it shouldnt be.

But the system is working - how many people have actually been banned? A handful, maybe. One was recently let back in. Maybe the polls seem frequent, but overall I think the system works better than some of the alternatives.