O-Trap;1423866 wrote:I'll give you tree-fitty.



I honestly say you make a rule saying you (and only you) can ban someone if they are causing enough problems for you by trolling or stirring up shit ... or if you THINK they're trolling or stirring up shit.

It was like that at one point that only he would ban. But it sometimes took a bit for him to ban someone as Justin doesn't want to have to do too much moderation on this site.

We probably need to take some sort of action soon, because the band of retards are still on a tear and we're still just arguing with them with no real plan.

Or we just keep on keeping on.

Either way, we should probably at least get on the same page about it, even if we do nothing.

Yeah, you have to love LT and CoA on the "biggest problem" thread. They're giving an A+ effort in both showing a complete resistance to any thought that they might be part of any problem, while turning most every post into a slam on F4F. While doing the same sort of tag team work that gets people to think they're lovers or something.

In a way, entertaining. In a way, frustrating. I mean, I'm a thick-skinned smartass asshole, too, but I didn't think concepts like restraint were that hard to grasp. But apparently, they're impossible.

Fly4Fun;1423882 wrote:It was like that at one point that only he would ban. But it sometimes took a bit for him to ban someone as Justin doesn't want to have to do too much moderation on this site.

I'm talking account deletion bans. The rest of us can send to the basement, still, but since it's his site, I don't think it's unreasonable for him to decide if someone is causing him too much trouble on his own site.

Might be good to give a heads up that such a policy were in place, of course, but I don't think it could hurt the site much.

I propose an experiment.

Like_that, COA, sleeper, etc are banned from the site for one month. Overall site activity is gauged and they are allowed back.

Fly4Fun is relieved of his mod status for one month. Overal site activity is gauged.

Of course, after the first month I'd probably just want to "forget" to lift their bans.

justincredible;1424039 wrote:I propose an experiment.

Like_that, COA, sleeper, etc are banned from the site for one month. Overall site activity is gauged and they are allowed back.

Fly4Fun is relieved of his mod status for one month. Overal site activity is gauged.

Of course, after the first month I'd probably just want to "forget" to lift their bans.

I was going to say, since you'd be wasting 2 months answering a rhetorical question, you could just frame it as such and never unban them, lol

justincredible;1424039 wrote:I propose an experiment.

Like_that, COA, sleeper, etc are banned from the site for one month. Overall site activity is gauged and they are allowed back.

Fly4Fun is relieved of his mod status for one month. Overal site activity is gauged.

Of course, after the first month I'd probably just want to "forget" to lift their bans.

As good as an experiment can be you have to consider confounding variables. One that I can think of in this instance is we are heading into warmer weather and non-football/basketball season when traffic tends to die down generally so that could be deceiving when interpreting either result.

Anyways, I'm trying to decide how I feel about it.

I'm against it for the reason that I think it's just more catering to a select crowd (CoA, Like_That, Sleeper, SportAndLady) just because they tend to be very vocal.

But as I said on the thread, it's your site ultimately. You're the only person with a financial interest so it's up to you. All the rest of us, mods and posters, have would be time investment interests. I definitely wouldn't hold it against you and try to start stirring up shit.

Fly4Fun;1424047 wrote: I'm against it for the reason that I think it's just more catering to a select crowd (CoA, Like_That, Sleeper, SportAndLady) just because they tend to be very vocal.

But as I said on the thread, it's your site ultimately. You're the only person with a financial interest so it's up to you. All the rest of us, mods and posters, have would be time investment interests. I definitely wouldn't hold it against you and try to start stirring up shit.

This

For now lets go heavy on thread banning and see what happens. In the short term when you thread ban someone, unapprove their post and edit it to show that they've been thread bant. I will work on making it easy to identify thread bant members in threads. I haven't had a chance yet but can try and work on it this afternoon.

justincredible;1424119 wrote:For now lets go heavy on thread banning and see what happens. In the short term when you thread ban someone, unapprove their post and edit it to show that they've been thread bant. I will work on making it easy to identify thread bant members in threads. I haven't had a chance yet but can try and work on it this afternoon.

We should probably either close the "Biggest Problem" thread or move it to the basement at this point as there are clearly personal attacks in that thread.

Fly4Fun;1424123 wrote:We should probably either close the "Biggest Problem" thread or move it to the basement at this point as there are clearly personal attacks in that thread.

I think it should just be closed.

Should we create a sticky thread in here to list thread bans in the short term, so we don't end up undoing each other's shit.

In the long term, as mentioned if it could send a form PM to user/form thread to this forum like an infraction, would be sweet.


The only downfall about thread banning is it can't be done via phone, but if we report hopefully others at their PC can do it,

ts1227;1424126 wrote:Should we create a sticky thread in here to list thread bans in the short term, so we don't end up undoing each other's

Sure, go ahead and start one.