|
Post by The Silent Fourteen on Jan 9, 2011 22:13:22 GMT -5
Simple. Every time you say something out of line, that's one strike. Three strikes and you are out. For good.
|
|
|
Post by Risk on Jan 10, 2011 19:39:44 GMT -5
Hey, now there's an idea. =D
|
|
|
Post by Wolfe the Edge on Jan 10, 2011 19:47:47 GMT -5
I'd agree with this idea, if it wasn't for the fact that people have their own biases. "Out of line" could mean one thing to a certain person, but something completely different to another.
If you guys really want to implement the Ban system I'd say leave it up to the Head Admin only. HEAD ADMIN ONLY. Because everyone else will want so and so banned for something, and so and so will say "I don't deserve to be banned".
|
|
|
Post by The Silent Fourteen on Jan 10, 2011 20:04:57 GMT -5
I'd say we have a vote system. We have three admins. Two out of a three earns a strike/ban.
DEMOCRACY!
|
|
|
Post by Risk on Jan 10, 2011 20:49:37 GMT -5
How about when a staff deems it out of line, it's out of line. -_- The title doesn't seem to carry the proper amount of weight anymore.
|
|
|
Post by The Silent Fourteen on Jan 10, 2011 20:59:53 GMT -5
Alright. I could agree to a moderator only thing. Us mods decide what exactly is out of line, and then we all enforce it off the same system.
|
|
|
Post by Risk on Jan 10, 2011 21:09:57 GMT -5
Unfortunately RD is nowhere to be found.
|
|
|
Post by Evil McBadGuy on Jan 10, 2011 21:29:59 GMT -5
How about when a staff deems it out of line, it's out of line. -_- The title doesn't seem to carry the proper amount of weight anymore. So basically simply because one holds the title of "staff", any normal member isn't allowed to argue their case? What's stopping a staff member from just outright targetting someone they don't like?
|
|
|
Post by Risk on Jan 10, 2011 21:40:56 GMT -5
It's not that someone can't argue their case, DS, it's that someone can't argue their case in a rude fashion. You can't trust the staff not to target, or to be reprimanded if other staff feels that they have done so.
|
|
|
Post by Evil McBadGuy on Jan 10, 2011 21:48:19 GMT -5
It's not that someone can't argue their case, DS, it's that someone can't argue their case in a rude fashion. You can't trust the staff not to target, or to be reprimanded if other staff feels that they have done so. So basically you're now saying that because one is staff, they get to specifically target anyone they want? Not to mention, everyone has their own interpretation of "rude". Also, I like how this whole idea tries to compare human relations to a baseball game. Just saying.
|
|
|
Post by The Silent Fourteen on Jan 10, 2011 22:09:12 GMT -5
Ok. My idea is simple. As an entire Staff entity, we decide what is acceptable and what isn't. After that, moderators work off of those rules.
It's not some random kangaroo court.
Any moderator caught abusing his/her powers will be banned immediately.
Any objections?
|
|
|
Post by Risk on Jan 10, 2011 22:17:38 GMT -5
I don't think staff should be banned for flawing the plan. I think perhaps a removal from the staff list would suffice and prevent loss of important members.
|
|
|
Post by The Silent Fourteen on Jan 10, 2011 22:18:23 GMT -5
ok. that's fair
|
|
tk
Squire
Posts: 38
|
Post by tk on Jan 10, 2011 22:33:11 GMT -5
How about when a staff deems it out of line, it's out of line. -_- The title doesn't seem to carry the proper amount of weight anymore. no offense, but reading around, you seem to have a reputation for being easily angered, and that could develop into flying off the handle. with such a history, I can see why people might view this as threatening, in a potentially oppressive manner. I think tempbans lasting no longer than a day should be possible, but all perma- or long term bans should require approval from the root or acting main admin. that should be a decent counter-measure for now.
|
|
|
Post by The Rising Dragon on Jan 10, 2011 23:12:45 GMT -5
Have you guys considered a checks and balances system? Worked well enough for the US, for the most part.
|
|