PDA

View Full Version : What should be a bannable offense?


anarres
18-03-2003, 19:20
I want to know under what circumstances a member should be banned.

This is being asked so that Mod guidelines can be written for all Mods, but with hotbeds of opinion like OT in mind.

So, if I call Saddam a twat, and Bush a terrorist, is it going too far? Am I 'bannable' in your opinion?

Note that if no-one replies to this there is no comeback when I ban the lot of you. :D

Aggie
18-03-2003, 20:20
I would say: personal insults. Respect should be high on the list. Doesn't mean that we can't be joking around. As long as it stays 'tongue in cheek' (that's the correct English expression, isn't it?).

ERIKK
18-03-2003, 20:46
yeah, personal attacks must be prohibited!

Sween
18-03-2003, 21:43
i think personal attacks on a poster should be prohibited. but if somebody wants to call bush a terrorist then maybe he should. how do you see their point of view when they aren't aloud to express themselves fully? of course if it's just flaming with no reasoning behind the post, that's a different story... i would handle that situation by asking them to please calm down instead of banning them on the spot.

Lt. Killer M
18-03-2003, 21:49
personal attacks, (repeat) offences of deletable postings (child porn and so on), intentional PBEm spoiling in 'wrongÄ' threads(! - I'm serious about this one!).

personal opinion is OK for me, let someone call Bush a terrorist. But if that poster does it tohurt the feelings of another, then crack down on him (and I know this will be hard to determine. an idealistic goal).

col
19-03-2003, 01:07
I think the CFC guidelines are pretty good. It's what constitutes trolling that is sometimes difficult.

Shabbaman
19-03-2003, 09:50
Personal attacks, continuous trolling... Well, I think the 'social control' (don't know if that's english btw) will straighten that out before someone's got to be banned.

For the rest: I don't think you can call George W. an asshole, that's not very constructive. But, if you can come up with a reason, it's fine by me (i.e. George W. is an asshole, because...)

Just a hypothetical example, of course.

Shabbaman
19-03-2003, 09:54
Oh, I just want to add something to this. This thread is on bannable offenses, but we should also discuss on what should be moderated, or when warnings should be issued.

And on personal offences: take note that a lot of people identify theirselves with, for example, their leader. So, if you'd call Sadam an asshole, you're insulting all the Iraqi's on this site.

col
19-03-2003, 11:37
Yes - thats important. What may seem like a bit of harmless fun to one person is perceived very differently by another.

Melifluous
19-03-2003, 13:56
OK guys,

So what is the difference between this site and CFC?

Same guildlines, same rules and probably the same personal opinions colouring the banning by the Moderators.

Shame thought this was going to be the Civ3 forum without rules, guess I was wrong. And all this from anarres the anarchist.

Melifluous

ERIKK
19-03-2003, 14:00
Well you dont want to have any insultings and fighting on the board????

Shabbaman
19-03-2003, 14:05
Hey, you can call me names, as long as you come up with a reason. And no, bannings shouldn't be colored, they shouldn't happen at all. I think my first post describes pretty well where I stand, but such a stance wouldn't bring me anywhere on CFC.

anarres
19-03-2003, 14:07
Killer, I can promise that deliberate spoiling of PBEM games will incur automatic bans, and maybe permanent ones at that...

Shabba, the reason I called this a 'bannning' thread and not a 'moderating' thread is because I only see warnings and moderation as occouring when a bannable offense is comitted and a mod is lenient on the offender.quote:And on personal offences: take note that a lot of people identify theirselves with, for example, their leader. So, if you'd call Sadam an asshole, you're insulting all the Iraqi's on this site.I can't see attacking a national leader becoming bannable, they are the people we should be questioning. 'Saddam is an asshole' and 'Bush is an asshole' are two perfectly valid opinions.quote:Yes - thats important. What may seem like a bit of harmless fun to one person is perceived very differently by another.What if someone got offended at people talking about carpets for example? Should we ban anyone who says they re-carpeted their house? It is an extreme example, but it follows the logic of not saying anything that could offend. People get offended all the time, but I don't necessarily think of this as a bad thing.

Personal attacks on someone are a different matter, but I don't think it's possible or right to ban people for upsetting each others sensibilities. If we do that we become an exclusive club, pandering to thse who agre with us, and opressing those who disagree.

anarres
19-03-2003, 14:21
quote:Originally posted by Melifluous

So what is the difference between this site and CFC?The difference is that we decide the rules, this is your chnce to take part. I will make final decisions with ProPain on his return.quote:Same guildlines, same rules and probably the same personal opinions colouring the banning by the Moderators.Good to see you've already decided what the mod rules will be. ;)quote:Shame thought this was going to be the Civ3 forum without rules, guess I was wrong. And all this from anarres the anarchist.'anarchist' is a convient thing I label myself with becuase I share some ideology and principles with anarchists. I also have a fair few communist (lennin/marx) type ideals and a number of socialist ones too. I don't think of you as 'Soft and Honeyed' because I don't take those labels too literally. :) Also, I have never said what the rules would or wouldn't be, it was an assumption on your part.

I have to say that I don't like rules much myself, and for the most part we probably agree about this. You should argue your case for not having rules, rather than complaining about things that have not happened yet...

Shabbaman
19-03-2003, 14:23
Hey,

We could make 'guidelines' first, and see if that works.