What should be a bannable offense? - Page 2

ERIKK · 19-03-2003, 13:00

Well you dont want to have any insultings and fighting on the board????

Shabbaman · 19-03-2003, 13:05

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, 13:07

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:

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:

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, 13:21

Quote:

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:

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:

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, 13:23

Hey,

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

19-03-2003, 13:05	#12
Shabbaman Administrator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Costa La Haya Posts: 8,493	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. __________________ "Our spam is backed with COMETS!"

19-03-2003, 13:23	#15
Shabbaman Administrator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Costa La Haya Posts: 8,493	Hey, We could make 'guidelines' first, and see if that works. __________________ "Our spam is backed with COMETS!"

19-03-2003, 13:00	#11
ERIKK Moderator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Netherlands!. Posts: 2,636	Well you dont want to have any insultings and fighting on the board????