[King GTS]

Our banning policy needs to be addressed. A motion has been made to require a user to post an "informal" poll which runs for 6 hours if that user wants someone banned. If more than 50% of the membership agrees to the informal poll, a formal poll is placed in the motions area.

The idea is to at least get a small consensus from the members before putting it to a full vote. The power is still left in the hands of the members.

<FORM METHOD=POST ACTION="http://www.viperalley.com/dopoll.php"><INPUT TYPE=HIDDEN NAME="pollname" VALUE="1063128529King GTS">


Should we revise our banning policy as outlined above?
<input type="radio" name="option" value="1" />Yes! Our policy should be revised.
<input type="radio" name="option" value="2" />No! Leave it like it is.
<INPUT TYPE=Submit NAME=Submit VALUE="Submit vote" class="buttons"></form>

 

[pj]

I suppose this change for the simple reason that banning polls should be a "last resort" action and at least getting a gauge of support for an actual banning is an important first step in preventing abuse.

 

[SUN RA KAT]

I voted "yes" on principle, but I think a 24 hour period from when the polls open would be a much better idea.

I don't want to see any hanging chads around here.

 

[remster]

the regular poll would be for 48 hours after that anyway, but yeah, 6hr seems a bit short to get a good sample, given time zones, work hours, etc.
12hr? Most people peek around here that often.

 

[King GTS]

If the premise of the idea passes I'm sure we could discuss the 6hr time frame.

 

[Snake Bitten]

If the premise of the idea passes I'm sure we could discuss the 6hr time frame.

So the key is to "stategically" post your informal poll, at a time when you know there are alot of GOP members online...Line em up! Then you move in, and ban the Frenchie...Got it!

 

[NOITALL]

If the premise of the idea passes I'm sure we could discuss the 6hr time frame.

So the key is to "stategically" post your informal poll, at a time when you know there are alot of GOP members online...Line em up! Then you move in, and ban the Frenchie...Got it!

:rofl:

strategic banning poll timing :rofl:

 

[King GTS]

If the premise of the idea passes I'm sure we could discuss the 6hr time frame.

So the key is to "stategically" post your informal poll, at a time when you know there are alot of GOP members online...Line em up! Then you move in, and ban the Frenchie...Got it!

/images/graemlins/laughing.gif /images/graemlins/laughing.gif /images/graemlins/laughing.gif

 

[City]

For the record, I voted NO. IMHO, banning polls are used too extensively on our site. This means to that end simply creates test banning polls for actual banning polls. It will only INCREASE the appearance of banning polls on our site (which I believe is this site's Achilles heel).

I would prefer to explore alternative means of limiting banning polls. I believe that our members can come up with other ideas. If nothing else, I would move to keep the "test" banning polls private, i.e., perhaps (and this is simply an off the cuff idea - NOT a play for mod power) we could require a minimum of 10 board members to start a banning poll. All 10 would need to have at lease 1 mod "second" the group. The group would bring their votes to any or all of the mods privately (via PM's) so that the entire board is not (typically) inundated with banning threads. With the group and a mod, the poll would then go up.

Just my first crack at an alternative to polls for polls. I'm sure other members will have other ideas likely better than my first "crack".

 

[Thin Man]

Voted NO as well..... too many polls...... too complicated... if I don't like you and can convince someone to second my motion... then the poll goes up... why have a poll to post a poll?????

We could just require a "third" and "fourth" to start a poll... instead of a "second"... is that permissible in Robert's Rules????


I do think there should be a "waiting period" between banning polls for the same person!

Lance

 

[Thin Man]

Just to clarify... the comment about a "third" and "fourth" was a joke... in case anyone misjudged it as a real suggestion.

 

[Guest]

Looks like i missed alot while i was banned.



...

 

[Snake Bitten]

Motion to take City's wand: one week...for making me read that entire freakin paragraph, when all I actually got out of it was "I voted no..."


WAR LONG WINDED NO VOTES!!!

 

[King GTS]

Looks like i missed alot while i was banned.



...

And who are you?

 

[Minivan Man]

I vote no--no need to do two polls. Instead, have a several-day waiting period between the nominations and the day the poll goes up.

 

[remster]

It's not my habit to touch people's crack, but Citysnake's crack is interesting. /images/graemlins/supergrin.gif

To ban someone it'll take 33 ban votes on a 50 votes total, so allowing banning polls to come up with just 2 users seems inneficient.
15 or 20 users seconding a ban motion should be what is required... They'd all post in the thread and when they reach the quota, they can flag a Mod and get the poll up.

 

[Bill Pemberton]

Dear Remster,

Not trying to get on the French Love Hate Bandwagon, but what the heck is the thing on your nose? I need Quadfocals, remember, but when your avatar comes up I see what looks like a white beak and yet , I wasn't sure. If this is just a play on Cyrano De Bergerac ( may be off on the spelling ) then, okay, but just a curious question and nothing more?

 

[City]

Motion to take City's wand: one week...for making me read that entire freakin paragraph, when all I actually got out of it was "I voted no..."
WAR LONG WINDED NO VOTES!!!

You're right...twas for naught; Words: 55,704 still (28pp)! issed:

 

[Snake Bitten]

Dear Remster,

Not trying to get on the French Love Hate Bandwagon...

Jump right on Bill...the majority rules.

 

[Mister Bone]

Dear Remster,

Not trying to get on the French Love Hate Bandwagon...

Jump right on Bill...the majority rules.

Wrong G....... the 2/3 majority rules ........bullshit if you ask me.....but who asked.....