The Fundamental Problem with Permanent Bans

[King_Herpes]

That's an Andy Dufresne thing to say.

[timmytuttut88]

For the most part, we've taken the stance that Disciplinary Actions are between the user and Conquer Club. For our part, unless there is a public investigation going (a filled out Cheating & Abuse report), the matter is a private one. However, if the user would like to give their disciplinary action information, they by all means can, as it's their choice to remove the privacy from the situation. But from a a site standpoint, we won't be directly giving out information for respect of that privacy.


--Andy

I think it really depends upon the situation. I am not sure we need to know about every forum or chat infraction, for example.

However, I would like to know if someone has been busted for cheating without having to weed through the Cheaters and Abuse thread (hmm.. seems like we had a suggestion a while back to put some kind of mark next to a cheater's name .. at least for 6 months or so).

It would also help to get at least a brief explanation if someone is banned for a long period (a month or more). Just a brief "banned for forum abuse" . If someone is perma-banned, then a bit more is probably warranted.

Privacy issues are an issue, but only really if someone's real information has "gotten out" already. Else, I don't see what the harm is in saying "xyz was banned for repeated forum abuse" or "xyz was banned after conflict with admin", etc.

I can understand that you would keep the reasons between you and the poster. But can you put the type of ban or the length of the ban on the banned members profile?

[King_Herpes]

My member has a profile? Nice.

[TheProwler]

My member has a profile? Nice.

Here's mine:

[King_Herpes]

My member has a profile? Nice.

Here's mine:

Hawt

[PLAYER57832]

For the most part, we've taken the stance that Disciplinary Actions are between the user and Conquer Club. For our part, unless there is a public investigation going (a filled out Cheating & Abuse report), the matter is a private one. However, if the user would like to give their disciplinary action information, they by all means can, as it's their choice to remove the privacy from the situation. But from a a site standpoint, we won't be directly giving out information for respect of that privacy.


--Andy

I think it really depends upon the situation. I am not sure we need to know about every forum or chat infraction, for example.

However, I would like to know if someone has been busted for cheating without having to weed through the Cheaters and Abuse thread (hmm.. seems like we had a suggestion a while back to put some kind of mark next to a cheater's name .. at least for 6 months or so).

It would also help to get at least a brief explanation if someone is banned for a long period (a month or more). Just a brief "banned for forum abuse" . If someone is perma-banned, then a bit more is probably warranted.

Privacy issues are an issue, but only really if someone's real information has "gotten out" already. Else, I don't see what the harm is in saying "xyz was banned for repeated forum abuse" or "xyz was banned after conflict with admin", etc.

I guess we are back to what is serious and what is not.

On the one hand, anyone can file a report in the C & A forum and its public. However, someone can have escalating and repeated bans from forums and no one ever knows why. Publishing minor infractions would be invasive and just extra work for admin. However, at some point, publishing is essentially letting "victims" know. We already know if we click on a username and they are "not found", they have a ban. This just puts in in one place.

What about just listing those who have perma bans (you could even start now and put that in the rules so everyone knows in advance what will happen if they break the rules) or, if the proposed 6 month ban is added, have a list that would be public for a year from the charge. That is, the name would be listed for 6 months and then for another 6 months after that. (an alternative to the probation mentioned earlier) The list would just show the rough facts. person was banned for multism/ game abuse, forum abuse, or conflict with administration (a catch-all for various other issues).

[TheProwler]

My member has a profile? Nice.

Here's mine:

Hawt

It reaches the G Spot.

[b.k. barunt]

It was a rather lame response to my post too, but that's to be expected if you consider the source.


Honibaz

Lame? I even used "fooking" hilarious. How can a thread be lame if it has "fooking" in it? I mean just posting that makes it funny,original and clever... Myself I prefer "clucking", "plucking" and "oh fudge"...and granted, I didnt throw in someone elses signature...but im trying to figure out how to make that funny... Ill get there though...be patient.

It did however counter everything you said, and point out that you should maybe actually read a thread, before calling it trolling, especially since that is essentially what you accuse the moderators of every day.

Damn. Now he's even whining about posts that were for someone else. That was for mpjh fitz, not you - are you that fooking insecure? You've been pissing and moaning about God knows what for about 10 pages now - you "countered" nothing. You run on and on about some minor point that everyone else has forgotten or never cared about in the first place. You sound like a constipated old woman who just can't let it go. Get a fooking life.


Honibaz

[b.k. barunt]

For the most part, we've taken the stance that Disciplinary Actions are between the user and Conquer Club. For our part, unless there is a public investigation going (a filled out Cheating & Abuse report), the matter is a private one. However, if the user would like to give their disciplinary action information, they by all means can, as it's their choice to remove the privacy from the situation. But from a a site standpoint, we won't be directly giving out information for respect of that privacy.


--Andy

Andy, everyone here is aware by now that your "stance" is to keep things secret so that it won't be obvious to the members just how chickenshit and frivolous your mismanagement really is.

People on this forum just up and disappear, and no one knows what happened to them. You prefer it that way because it allows you do whatever you like without having to answer for it or explain yourself - it has nothing to do with any "respect for privacy", and you have no idea how ridiculous and hypocritical that makes you sound. You're making quite an ass out of yourself actually.


--Honibaz

[redhawk92]

i think that every user not banned bc they were a multi should be released

[notyou2]

Anyone know if Reader's Digest is going to release a condensed version of this thread?

We need to distillate the good suggestions from the effervescent fluff.

We could then put forth suggestions to the admins with hope for reasonable change to the bans that are occurring.

[owenshooter]

We could then put forth suggestions to the admins with hope for reasonable change to the bans that are occurring.

there is already a thread in suggestions about this, so you are a bit behind...
Subject: For Minor Infractions, 6 Months Max Vacation instead Perma
feel free to add a suggestion there...-0

[oVo]

few things in life are fundamentally fair

[pimpdave]

Anyone know if Reader's Digest is going to release a condensed version of this thread?

We need to distillate the good suggestions from the effervescent fluff.

Valid questions about the priorities of the moderators versus the priorities of the website as it pertains to community management and continued growth of the site. A recommendation that the moderators and everyone else watch The Great Escape, a classic film that (in the first 2/3) gives ideas for how healthy forums operate, then capped off this recommendation with a reference to the Emmy award winning sitcom, 30 Rock, by saying "dummies", which is a friendly term of endearment, as demonstrated on the show.

Nothing, for quite awhile, thanks to Andy's inconsiderate and viciously heavy-handed method of leadership and communication.

I guess I have some reading to do. Hope the mods have lightened up and aren't major flipcases anymore. Maybe they could try talking to people who have questions of a critical nature first. I know, I know, revolutionary concepts of customer retention...

By the way, the use of the word dummies can be found on page one, in the first post. They're really reaching for "flaming" on that one. It's pretty clear this is just being vindictive, and I wonder why Andy's trigger finger is so twitchy. It's kind of sad, really, because it makes it so obvious that they banned me for criticising them, but had to drum up a "charge". It's disappointing and the mark of awful leadership.

Mods, please learn about leadership before persisting in your foolishness.

[oVo]

Just watch the movie you dummies. It's free and legal.
Mods, take notes. You're supposed to be cool guards.

Are you saying the use of the word dummies in the very first post of this thread
was the source of your recent vacation time?

[stahrgazer]

we have a right to know what happens to our compatriots here.

They can tell you themselves via other methods. I like the idea of disclosing on a profile that a person is on a 24 hour vacation. GUESTS really doesn't say much.

That would definitely help. It would also help if it said "SITE BAN" or "FORUM BAN" or something like that. But, about being provided the information on "how the person got banned" I think it would certainly help if it was made public because as Prowler said it would cut down these threads by at least 3 or 4 pages.

Indicating why a member was banned would help others know what they must comply with, given that rules vs. judiciary contains a lot of interpretive area. Further, since these nicks are anonymous, the idea that it is "personal information to indicate why and for how long, one of the nicks is banned is arguable, if not laughable.

[MeDeFe]

we have a right to know what happens to our compatriots here.

They can tell you themselves via other methods. I like the idea of disclosing on a profile that a person is on a 24 hour vacation. GUESTS really doesn't say much.

That would definitely help. It would also help if it said "SITE BAN" or "FORUM BAN" or something like that. But, about being provided the information on "how the person got banned" I think it would certainly help if it was made public because as Prowler said it would cut down these threads by at least 3 or 4 pages.

Indicating why a member was banned would help others know what they must comply with, given that rules vs. judiciary contains a lot of interpretive area. Further, since these nicks are anonymous, the idea that it is "personal information to indicate why and for how long, one of the nicks is banned is arguable, if not laughable.

I'd go with "laughable" in this case.

[GENERAL STONEHAM]

For the most part, we've taken the stance that Disciplinary Actions are between the user and Conquer Club. For our part, unless there is a public investigation going (a filled out Cheating & Abuse report), the matter is a private one. However, if the user would like to give their disciplinary action information, they by all means can, as it's their choice to remove the privacy from the situation. But from a a site standpoint, we won't be directly giving out information for respect of that privacy.


--Andy

Andy, everyone here is aware by now that your "stance" is to keep things secret so that it won't be obvious to the members just how chickenshit and frivolous your mismanagement really is.

People on this forum just up and disappear, and no one knows what happened to them. You prefer it that way because it allows you do whatever you like without having to answer for it or explain yourself - it has nothing to do with any "respect for privacy", and you have no idea how ridiculous and hypocritical that makes you sound. You're making quite an ass out of yourself actually.


--Honibaz

B.K. Barunt, makes a great point. When I received my THIRTY DAY BAN, I had to e-mail a friend, so I could receive info on my tournament games. I also had my friend put a new thread in {General Stoneham's 30 Day Ban] to tell everyone about my b.s. ban. Guess what, my friend received a WARNING for it.

This so-called privacy act that the Moderators are using for an excuse is lame and dishonest.

Regards,
General Stoneham

[4myGod]

For the most part, we've taken the stance that Disciplinary Actions are between the user and Conquer Club. For our part, unless there is a public investigation going (a filled out Cheating & Abuse report), the matter is a private one. However, if the user would like to give their disciplinary action information, they by all means can, as it's their choice to remove the privacy from the situation. But from a a site standpoint, we won't be directly giving out information for respect of that privacy.


--Andy

Andy, everyone here is aware by now that your "stance" is to keep things secret so that it won't be obvious to the members just how chickenshit and frivolous your mismanagement really is.

People on this forum just up and disappear, and no one knows what happened to them. You prefer it that way because it allows you do whatever you like without having to answer for it or explain yourself - it has nothing to do with any "respect for privacy", and you have no idea how ridiculous and hypocritical that makes you sound. You're making quite an ass out of yourself actually.


--Honibaz

B.K. Barunt, makes a great point. When I received my THIRTY DAY BAN, I had to e-mail a friend, so I could receive info on my tournament games. I also had my friend put a new thread in {General Stoneham's 30 Day Ban] to tell everyone about my b.s. ban. Guess what, my friend received a WARNING for it.

This so-called privacy act that the Moderators are using for an excuse is lame and dishonest.

Regards,
General Stoneham

Point 1 for the customers.

SCORE:
Customers: 1 point
The man: 0 points

[pimpdave]

Just watch the movie you dummies. It's free and legal.
Mods, take notes. You're supposed to be cool guards.

Are you saying the use of the word dummies in the very first post of this thread
was the source of your recent vacation time?

Don't call it a vacation. That's their bullshit euphemism. Please, call it what it is. A banishment. A vindictive and passive aggressive method of control. It's not diplomatic in the slightest. It is punitive.

It's also kind of hilarious in a completely messed up way that that's how they respond to criticisms and questions about the practice of bannings, is to ban you. For a month.

[chaosfactor]

Fundamental? Problem? Permanent?

Three words that describe me

Without trolling through the crap you have written, I will use my cocaine fueled ego to summarize that what we need here is more control, more moderators and less freedom.

Once we have established a dictatorship, we can enlist more gestapo elitist fodder to the fold and build upon their DNA by force feeding them versus from Wicked's Duff Bible.

I shall not be content with this site, unless that one day, there will be 1 player, and 60 thousand moderators whipping his(her) sorry arse..

2006 was all about war
2007 was all about war
2008 was a bit more
2009 involved me learning how to chain down my wife to the bed, and getting her to beg me to stop whipping her sorry arse, and I can safely say I learn't most of my Bloody S&M religion from logging onto this site!

Never before have we had it so kinky, it is a pure joy for me to be humble in the presence of so many learned people, Salem to you people, Peace out.

[Woodruff]

we have a right to know what happens to our compatriots here.

They can tell you themselves via other methods. I like the idea of disclosing on a profile that a person is on a 24 hour vacation. GUESTS really doesn't say much.

That would definitely help. It would also help if it said "SITE BAN" or "FORUM BAN" or something like that. But, about being provided the information on "how the person got banned" I think it would certainly help if it was made public because as Prowler said it would cut down these threads by at least 3 or 4 pages.

Indicating why a member was banned would help others know what they must comply with, given that rules vs. judiciary contains a lot of interpretive area. Further, since these nicks are anonymous, the idea that it is "personal information to indicate why and for how long, one of the nicks is banned is arguable, if not laughable.

I'd go with "laughable" in this case.

Although there ARE probably some real names in use and since your username cannot be changed at this time...

[MeDeFe]

They can tell you themselves via other methods. I like the idea of disclosing on a profile that a person is on a 24 hour vacation. GUESTS really doesn't say much.

That would definitely help. It would also help if it said "SITE BAN" or "FORUM BAN" or something like that. But, about being provided the information on "how the person got banned" I think it would certainly help if it was made public because as Prowler said it would cut down these threads by at least 3 or 4 pages.

Indicating why a member was banned would help others know what they must comply with, given that rules vs. judiciary contains a lot of interpretive area. Further, since these nicks are anonymous, the idea that it is "personal information to indicate why and for how long, one of the nicks is banned is arguable, if not laughable.

I'd go with "laughable" in this case.

Although there ARE probably some real names in use and since your username cannot be changed at this time...

Since Woody's back now... Care to continue where this was left off?


Even if someone is using their real name as their nick the only way to know is if they say so, and even then one can't be sure because they could be lying. And besides, who would be that stupid? ok, someone probably would be, but I think that's stupidity on a level where professional help (for example by the grandchildren) should at least be considered.

If anyone here is using their real name as a nick: yes, I think you have exhibited a significant amount of stupidity by doing so.

I know I have revealed a few tidbits about myself over time, someone who knows me in RL could be able to figure out who I am, a stranger would have a harder time tracking me down from what little I have said, though.

Any name on a site like this is essentially a pseudonym, you are not required to give your real identity when signing up, not even a fake identity is required, just an email address. Unless you know the person in RL or give a detailed description of where to go and what to say like bk did it's as good as impossible to physically find the person behind the nick (and in his case a considerable amount of travel is involved, at least for me, but I still hope to have a beer with him some day).

[pimpdave]

This thread could use some more Mustard.



Just sayin'.

[#1_stunna]

This thread could use some more Mustard.



Just sayin'.

i just threw up