What should be a bannable offense?

anarres · 18-03-2003, 18:20

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.

Aggie · 18-03-2003, 19:20

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, 19:46

yeah, personal attacks must be prohibited!

Sween · 18-03-2003, 20:43

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, 20:49

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, 00:07

I think the CFC guidelines are pretty good. It's what constitutes trolling that is sometimes difficult.

Shabbaman · 19-03-2003, 08:50

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, 08:54

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, 10:37

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, 12:56

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

18-03-2003, 18:20	#1
anarres anarchist butcher Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: United States of Whatever. Posts: 4,677	What should be a bannable offense? 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. __________________ <b>Calculate the probability of culture flips: Flip Calc</b>

18-03-2003, 20:43	#4
Sween Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: USA. Posts: 124	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. __________________ system warning: sween virus found. press ctrl w to disinfect.

18-03-2003, 20:49	#5
Lt. Killer M Emperor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: HAWK!. Posts: 4,365	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). __________________ One more turn..... just one more turn... one MORE!

19-03-2003, 00:07	#6
col King Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: South Sandwich Islands. Posts: 1,529	I think the CFC guidelines are pretty good. It's what constitutes trolling that is sometimes difficult. __________________ I can't be arsed.

19-03-2003, 08:50	#7
Shabbaman Administrator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Costa La Haya Posts: 8,493	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. __________________ "Our spam is backed with COMETS!"

18-03-2003, 19:20	#2
Aggie Emperor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: N/A Posts: 4,490	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?).

18-03-2003, 19:46	#3
ERIKK Moderator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Netherlands!. Posts: 2,636	yeah, personal attacks must be prohibited!

19-03-2003, 08:54	#8
Shabbaman Administrator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Costa La Haya Posts: 8,493	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. __________________ "Our spam is backed with COMETS!"

19-03-2003, 10:37	#9
col King Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: South Sandwich Islands. Posts: 1,529	Yes - thats important. What may seem like a bit of harmless fun to one person is perceived very differently by another. __________________ I can't be arsed.

19-03-2003, 12:56	#10
Melifluous Administrator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: In the bar with SF. Posts: 3,024	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 __________________ Isn't it awfully nice to have a penis? Isn't it frightfully good to have a dong? It's swell to have a stiffy, It's divine to own a dick. From the tiniest little tadger To the world's biggest prick! So three cheers for your willy or John Thomas. Hooray for your one-eyed trousers snake.