Originally Posted by Pixelthief If you didn't notice, hes also been submitting bucketloads of engines, examples, and coding downloads, as well as donating to keep TDC afloat.
The poor guy. Well, maybe he can bring his joyous spirit and generous time and donations to a community that he doesn't ironically destroy, the more he tries to keep it 'afloat'.
If I or Adam or someone would've been such an irritating pestilence like this we'd get a ban no doubt... I don't know why the rules don't apply to you, but you've done well to avoid being banned for all of this, really.
Just to reiterate, there was lots of sarcasm there. I just find you funny now Pixeltheif That said, I'm not posting any more on this now. I'll let your voice fade into the sad, unimportant depths of illogical doom. To be 'seen and not heard' as it were, I guess
OK, well I dunno about the rest of you, but I'm gonna have a bash at getting back on track.
Pixel's questions were: "What are some thought and feedbacks on if this should be implemented? And concerns on how it could affect the relevant current cases, like Phizzy being banned?"
I think Rikus' proposed method is a bit complicated. A community is made up of individuals, which leads to the situation Pixel has been pointing out. On the one hand, Phizzy was a useful, active community member. But on the other hand, he could act very irresponsibly.
You can't handle that with a system, in my opinion. You need several personalities, who know the community, know the good and bad points of the individual in question, and can make an informed group decision.
In programming terms, it's a fuzzy-logic problem. There's too much grey to have a one-size-fits-all ban system.
I would personally recommend leaving things up to Admin/Mod group judgement. Any mod would be able to ban someone there and then (e.g. spammer turns up, starts flooding the forums, needs to be removed within the hour, only one mod is online).
However, they would need to explain their decision on the admin forums, citing any threads or DC Mail messages as evidence. The other mods would then all (or as many as could be found) decide on the extent of the ban (a week, a few months, forever, or pending later review). Due to the thread-based nature of these discussions, an old thread could be resurrected if an admin comes on later and disagrees.
This would help to maintain the individuality of banning - respecting the fact that people are all different.
Also, the ability to restict access to certain parts of the site. So in the case of Phizzy, if he had blotted his copybook in the misc/general/dailyclick forums, the admins may decide to temporarily ban him from these forums WHILE allowing him to use Code It and the review/article/download features.
That would enable someone in this position to continue contributing whilst still suffering some kind of restriction. And show their attitude. If they then spam on Code It, a full ban becomes more easily justifiable.
So that's how I see it. Keep the uniqueness by having all bans/reproof based on individual judgements, and just add the ability to customise the scope of bans. Ideally add a 'restrictions' feature to withhold certain privileges whilst maintaining others.
I think that'd work fine
Edited by the Author.
191 / 9999 * 7 + 191 * 7
Deleted User
5th March, 2008 at 17:51:41 -
Originally Posted by Knudde (Shab) If I didn't respect the rules, I'd have banned/silenced you a long time ago; Phizzy even encouraged me to do it yesterday.
omg dude I totally told you to ban everyone, don't inflate or pasteurise the truth!
you know, I agree with pretty much everything Dines said; if we need to change the ban system, while Rikus has a fairly good idea, its not exactly applicable on TDC, as with our small clientsize we'd need something more flexible, not more rigid, so leaving bans up to the discretion of the moderators, while giving them greater freedom to ban from specific PARTS of the site, rather then the whole thing at all
It seems to me that there's a split between whoever wants the Phizzy back and who doesn't. And that's bad. Maybe you should allow him back for a while on trial, see if he does anything bad, then act on him. Or maybe you've already done that, I dunno, I'm new. If you have already done that, and he did bad shit again, just ban him, he's not worth it.
Originally Posted by Steve Hallam Who is this Phizzy guy?
It seems to me that there's a split between whoever wants the Phizzy back and who doesn't. And that's bad. Maybe you should allow him back for a while on trial, see if he does anything bad, then act on him. Or maybe you've already done that, I dunno, I'm new. If you have already done that, and he did bad shit again, just ban him, he's not worth it.
That's my 2p anyway.
If you've been warned your whole life about how doing something will give you life in prison and you do it anyway, continue getting warnings, and continue doing it, then you're going to jail. Whats the differences here? The fact that Phizzy's life sentence was in fact revoked for a second chance, but he continued to do it. So what do I say? Everyone stfu and let it the hell go.
Life imprisonment? Say you'd get that for murder, what would be the equivalent in TDC terms? Hacking the site and deleting members from the database? I'm pretty sure I haven't done anything worthy of BANFOREVER.
And I don't think people really do the 'You shoplifted AGAIN!? That's it! PREPARE THE GUILLOTINE!' thing any more.
But yeah, that's why I think the idea of limited restrictions would be a good one, rather than a full on ban. Because if the admins had a certain issue with your use of one aspect of the site, they could impost restrictions rather than a full on ban.
Like limiting how many posts/threads could be made per day, forcing you to have an 'I've been a nortee boyeee' avatar, or blocking access to some of the forums but not others. That kinda stuff.
Basically, people get sent to jail for life if they get caught on pot possession 3 times in a row. Its by far the worst law system in the entire united states, which is really an accomplishment.
Btw if you read that article carefully, someone actually DID get 25 to life for shoplifting. And not only that, but the supreme court upheld it 5-4
"Some unusual scenarios have arisen, particularly in California — the state punishes shoplifting and similar crimes as felony petty theft if the person who committed the crime has a prior conviction for any form of theft, including robbery or burglary. As a result, some defendants have been given sentences of 25 years to life in prison for such crimes as shoplifting golf clubs (Gary Ewing, previous strikes for burglary and robbery with a knife), nine videotapes (Leandro Andrade, previous strikes for home burglary), or, along with a violent assault, a slice of pepperoni pizza from a group of children (Jerry Dewayne Williams, four previous non-violent felonies, sentence later reduced to six years). In one particularly notorious case, Kevin Weber was sentenced to 26 years to life for the crime of stealing four chocolate chip cookies (previous strikes of burglary and assault with a deadly weapon).[8] However, prosecutors said the six-time parole violator broke into the restaurant to rob the safe after a busy Mother's Day holiday, but he triggered the alarm system before he could do it. When arrested, his pockets were full of cookies he had taken from the restaurant.[9]"
The point behind what I said was not to compare what Phizzy was doing, to any sort of laws. So how about you both stop trying to twist my words around, eh? Fact of the matter is, when you get banned for doing something, that's all fine and good.. people deserve second chances. So go so far as to keep handing out chances just so they can be butchered, that is the part you guys seem to be completely missing. No matter how bad something you do is, if you've been constantly warned to stop doing something, and you have complete control over it... STOP doing it! Don't be a dumb ass, because chances are you're not being punished for what you did, but for the fact that you're just being an idiot. You gain nothing but mild humor by doing the crap you do Phizzy, mild humor that can easily be taken to a place where people care, which is not here. Sometimes I think the only reason you do get any humor here is simply because you have so many people to get smart with whenever they disagree.
Advertisement
That said, I'm not posting any more on this now. I'll let your voice fade into the sad, unimportant depths of illogical doom. To be 'seen and not heard' as it were, I guess 
Edited by the Author.
