PDA

View Full Version : New poll: What can a person be banned for IN THE LONG TERM?



Lucena
10-06-2005, 11:39 PM
Sorry, this one has a lot of options.

Note: Assume there are no "misunderstood factors", etc

DISCLAIMER: Please note I am in no way insinuating that all such behaviours have necessarily occurred on this bb nor am I accusing any particular person of any such behaviour.

skip to my lou
10-06-2005, 11:51 PM
posting too many polls?

Lucena
10-06-2005, 11:52 PM
posting too many polls?

If you want to vote for that one STML, you can click "other", by all means :thumbsup:

Garvinator
11-06-2005, 12:11 AM
If you want to vote for that one STML, you can click "other", by all means :thumbsup:
i also chose other as well, cause another option is, attempting to out do antichrist in creating polls :P

Lucena
11-06-2005, 12:13 AM
i also chose other as well, cause another option is, attempting to out do antichrist in creating polls :P

nice one :)

Alan Shore
11-06-2005, 01:35 AM
The options I chose were based on legal reasons. All the other options constitute far too excessive a penalty.

Personally, one I would have liked to see would be a 'vote-off' like Survivor... if there's one poster who everyone despises and there's enough support to oust him, then he's gone.

bergil
11-06-2005, 07:37 AM
Any long term ban is the admins to make, but maybe a sin bin could work only for short time period say 24 - 72 hours. Then we could do our tribal council poll with valid reasons, and if the reasons aren't legit (gang up on Bill) the mod or admin don't impose the ban.

Aaron Bellette
11-06-2005, 11:35 AM
Personally, one I would have liked to see would be a 'vote-off' like Survivor... if there's one poster who everyone despises and there's enough support to oust him, then he's gone.

Hehe - ChessChat tribal council :evil: :arrow: :buttkick: :arrow: :banana: :banana: :banana:

AB

Lucena
11-06-2005, 12:49 PM
Hmm, could have some disadvantages...inspired idea though :D

Lucena
12-06-2005, 11:54 PM
Come on Matt! What do you reckon about this?

PHAT
13-06-2005, 12:06 AM
Come on Matt! What do you reckon about this?

Tuesday ... too tired now from NSW Open plus driving.

Lucena
13-06-2005, 12:38 PM
Tuesday ... too tired now from NSW Open plus driving.

Ok, no worries.

Lucena
14-06-2005, 09:53 PM
Where is Matt on this thread?

PHAT
15-06-2005, 11:05 AM
Just read the options. I hope you ar egoing to do an analyisis of teh results from so much data.

Lucena
15-06-2005, 05:32 PM
Yes, once I get enough responses for the data to be reliable, and once I learn how do do statistical tests of significance on multi-vote surveys!

Lucena
15-06-2005, 06:16 PM
Come to think of it, I could have added an option of "persistent gratuitous trolling"

Rincewind
15-06-2005, 06:47 PM
Yes, once I get enough responses for the data to be reliable, and once I learn how do do statistical tests of significance on multi-vote surveys!

You will also have to take into account the fact that it is a voluntary survey and likely only to be responded to by those with strong opinions one way or the other.

Lucena
15-06-2005, 06:51 PM
You will also have to take into account the fact that it is a voluntary survey and likely only to be responded to by those with strong opinions one way or the other.

Yeah I know Baz, I wasn't being tremendously serious about it, there are all sorts of problems with the poll, too many options, it wasn't anonymous, etc.

Have you voted yet?

antichrist
15-06-2005, 08:45 PM
Question 1 so can get back to the game: How do we know who are minors, there is dispute even to the gender of posters, even though strictly speaking it is not our business?

Lucena
15-06-2005, 08:59 PM
Question 1 so can get back to the game: How do we know who are minors, there is dispute even to the gender of posters, even though strictly speaking it is not our business?

Let's just say there's reasonable grounds to believe the person is a minor.

antichrist
15-06-2005, 09:19 PM
Let's just say there's reasonable grounds to believe the person is a minor.

That is no answer, I wouldn't have a clue to the age of some posters and they could easily fool me. Before over the phone via a crossed line I fooled a pack of 16 year olds that I was about 18-20 year old. They were begging to meet me.

Look at all the odd names we have as posters. They are double-Dutch.

I could make a play for Mischa and make her day - and get slapped by someone else, esp some guys who are not that type.

Lucena
15-06-2005, 09:34 PM
That is no answer, I wouldn't have a clue to the age of some posters and they could easily fool me. Before over the phone via a crossed line I fooled a pack of 16 year olds that I was about 18-20 year old. They were begging to meet me.

Look at all the odd names we have as posters. They are double-Dutch.

I could make a play for Mischa and make her day - and get slapped by someone else, esp some guys who are not that type.

Well, let's say the person appears to be a minor and there is no grounds to say they're not-would sexually suggestive remarks to that person constitute grounds for long-term banning?

antichrist
15-06-2005, 09:40 PM
some Jezabel could deliverately register their profile as blah blah which infers 25 yo, but is in fact 15 yo - entice someone in a set up to cross the line and then they would be joining Schepple in the sin bin

Lucena
15-06-2005, 09:52 PM
some Jezabel could deliverately register their profile as blah blah which infers 25 yo, but is in fact 15 yo - entice someone in a set up to cross the line and then they would be joining Schepple in the sin bin

Ok well in that case assume the maker of the sexually suggestive remark is not at fault(inasmuch as the recipient was a minor), as they could not have known.

antichrist
15-06-2005, 09:58 PM
Ok well in that case assume the maker of the sexually suggestive remark is not at fault(inasmuch as the recipient was a minor), as they could not have known.

The only proper method is to have an adults section which posters and viewers must agree that they are of age.

Mischa
15-06-2005, 09:59 PM
That is no answer, I wouldn't have a clue to the age of some posters and they could easily fool me. Before over the phone via a crossed line I fooled a pack of 16 year olds that I was about 18-20 year old. They were begging to meet me.

Look at all the odd names we have as posters. They are double-Dutch.

I could make a play for Mischa and make her day - and get slapped by someone else, esp some guys who are not that type.

Please explain above...

antichrist
15-06-2005, 10:02 PM
I worked extremely hard today and almost conking out so dont want to read and think of all the options.

I had thought of another which I thought was important but can't remember.

Lucena
15-06-2005, 10:06 PM
I worked extremely hard today and almost conking out so dont want to read and think of all the options.

I had thought of another which I thought was important but can't remember.

Well never mind you can always vote tomorrow.

antichrist
15-06-2005, 10:11 PM
Please explain above...

At a job when about 20 YO I wobbled my ........ at a guy and he took offense and tried to assult me - you never know with some people

ursogr8
15-06-2005, 10:18 PM
.

Rhubarb
16-06-2005, 01:49 AM
"Other."

For CONTINUALLY being stupid, boring or illiterate ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS.

P.S. This is overkill for many posters.

ElevatorEscapee
16-06-2005, 09:07 PM
.

Yes, thanks Starter, I remember those very same words of wisdom being uttered by none other than Humphrey B. Bear himself when he entertained the kiddies in the room next door to the Box Hill Allegro chess tournament that I played in a couple of years back. :lol:

Now, one would normally think that as a next-door neighbour, Humphrey would not be a problem for a chess tournament, unfortunately, however he brought along a "helper" with him to interpret, sing, dance, and scream the bloody house down... Yaaaaay! :rolleyes:

I personally would like the ACF to officially ban Humphrey from all sanctioned chess tournaments, he clearly has no pants, err I mean [I]place in chess!

~EE

Lucena
17-06-2005, 07:08 PM
Yes, thanks Starter, I remember those very same words of wisdom being uttered by none other than Humphrey B. Bear himself when he entertained the kiddies in the room next door to the Box Hill Allegro chess tournament that I played in a couple of years back. :lol:

Now, one would normally think that as a next-door neighbour, Humphrey would not be a problem for a chess tournament, unfortunately, however he brought along a "helper" with him to interpret, sing, dance, and scream the bloody house down... Yaaaaay! :rolleyes:

I personally would like the ACF to officially ban Humphrey from all sanctioned chess tournaments, he clearly has no pants, err I mean [I]place in chess!

~EE

Come to think of it, the ACF doesn't have a mascot yet, does it? Perhaps that's something we could have in the pipeline. I thought the Olympiad mascot was well-designed, have attached a photo. Maybe Matt, given his fondness for attracting attention, will volunteer to dress up as the ACF mascot when we have one? Ideas for a design, anyone?

Rincewind
17-06-2005, 08:11 PM
At a job when about 20 YO I wobbled my ........ at a guy and he took offense and tried to assult me - you never know with some people

Pity he only tried. ;)

antichrist
17-06-2005, 09:47 PM
Pity he only tried. ;)

You should have seen him freeze and the terror in his frozen eyes. He was reputedly the best fighter in the city.

Lucena
18-06-2005, 11:36 AM
You should have seen him freeze and the terror in his frozen eyes. He was reputedly the best fighter in the city.
He was afraid of you AC. But you can't even pluck up the courage to vote in this poll!

antichrist
18-06-2005, 05:53 PM
He was afraid of you AC. But you can't even pluck up the courage to vote in this poll!

There was one important exception which I can't remember, and it is too similar to the previous poll for me to get into.

We have already been informed that this is not a democratic institution. I think people should have been barred for swearing but that cuts no ice but the rest I don't care about except serious defamation. On this board, it is who you know that is for sure and the monthlies of the mods, esp the males. Posters get away with outright lies so I consider the position hopeless.

There are mods who don't recognise nor believe in the importance of freedom of speech so what hope is there.

Is that sufficient?

Not because of any of the above I am thinking of an extended break from BB anyway - I already sit down enough reading the SMH every day - my religion.

For the third time I believe that 80% of all people are so and sos what more can I add or expect.

firegoat7
19-06-2005, 02:17 PM
Hello,

I find it interesting to examine the populous outcomes from this vote.

It is of no surprise that people would expect sexually explicit material to be banned especially as an interaction with minors... a reflection of the larger society here.

Also it is not surprising that persistent defamation that runs the risk of legal liquidation is high on everyones agenda. Again a reflection of the importance that people attach to legal institutions in our (larger) society.

What is fascinating is that people then suggest, it is 100% agreed, that posting criminal information is a definate no no. Frankly, I am surprised, there appears to be no reflection about what is criminal, and what is in fact 'criminal' that should be transgressed as a social norm. This also seems at odds with societal norms.

As an example, it is currently illegal to download music on the internet. But I myself would actually want to encourage people to make such information freely available. Does that make me a criminal..well i suppose so, but often such things depend on who is doing the measuring.

At the moment it is currently illegal to harbour illegal refugees in our country, but I for one believe this is a rule that ought to be transgressed, since clearly the definition of 'illegal' is highly disputable. Can anybody be regarded as illegal in reality? Anyway you get my point? Criminal laws are often meant to be broken. To want to enshrine the banning of people on a forum for breaking criminal laws seems at odds with reality. Often it is a necessary for social change.

I am also surpised that hydra accounts rate at a more concerned level then cultural villification. Personally I believe you ought to be able to abuse anybody about anything...at least that way we know where you stand on such issues like racism, gender, class etc. I think its more honest and open.

But I also understand that my views on these things are at complete odds with mainstream society. I would even suggest that mainstream society could be right on this issue, especially in regards to racial slurs.

What surprises me is that individuals choosing to take on another personia, is considered a worse crime. Why? Do people feel that they have been conned? Are they worried about manipulation? Do they believe that this is an integrity issue? I'm unsure, I find it irrelevent..in fact it doesn't bother me...well at least it doesn't bother me as much as cultural villification. I am positive that it doesn't bother mainstream society as much either.

Cheers Fg7

Kevin Bonham
04-07-2005, 11:46 PM
OK. Once again I did not vote because of the concern raised on the other thread about how if I did not vote for a given option people would assume I would never support an indefinite ban for the offence. However some thoughts on these.

persistently insulting the admin - play with fire and you get what you deserve, this is a privately owned site.

Posting drunk ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS in the space of a week eg 2/3 days in a row, or every 2nd day - depends on what is posted. Drunk posting is not an issue if the drunk poster can behave themselves but if an individual is prone to breaking rules while drunk then it could make sense to ban them from posting while drunk.

Refusing to stop posting drunk despite several temporary bannings and/or warnings - see above.

CONTINUALLY making offensive, and/or profane remarks, CONTINUAL warnings and/or moderation required - usually short ban first unless extreme.

CONTINUALLY making ofensive and/or profane remarks, DESPITE warnings, moderation AND TEMPORARY BANS - long ban.

persistently creating hydra accounts to breach a ban - long ban.

persistently promoting another "rival" chess forum despite warnings and past temporary bans - long ban.

posting remarks on another board about a chesschat bb member that may constitute defamation - I would say that this is not a moderation offence on this board.

persistently arguing over ACF maters eg rating system despite lack of knowledge, distotion of facts? - not an offence unless there are other offences involved.

improperly promoting business interests(assume this is a one-off) - surprised noone voted for this as we do sometimes ban overseas spammers for first or second offence.

persistently promoting business interests improperly - long ban after warnings and short ban have failed.

threatening legal action against the forum - up to the admin to decide depending on how he feels about the threat.

making ONE post that is inflammatory or vilifying towards certain religions, races or cultures - would have to be very extreme and illegal.

CONTINUAL posts that are inflammatory or vilifying towards certain religions, races or cultures - long ban if illegal. probably no action if not unless very severe.

continual unwarranted copying of posts from that place despite numerous warnings - have been away for a while so not sure if this is still an issue. short ban first then long ban if repeated on return.

persistently disclosing to the forum the contents of private messages without permission - short ban first then long ban if repeated on return.

making sexually suggestive remarks to a bb member who is a minor - depends on severity. for extreme cases, permanent ban for first offence. normally, warning first,

defamation that may expose the forum's owner to potential legal liability - depends on severity, anyone can step just over the line now and then by mistake. Also up to admin.

persistent defamation that ran the risk of exposing the forum's owner to potential legal liability - see above but continual breach of rules despite warning should lead to long ban.

concrete and credible threats of physical violence - permanent ban and encourage target to report to police if serious. Sometimes you get half-hearted threats as a result of drunkenness or loss of temper, these probably merit just a short ban for first offence with severe warning, then permanent ban if repeated.

posting material, written or pictorial, of such type that it comprises a criminal offence - again an issue for admin (his legal liability). depends what it is. Note that encouraging criminal activity can often itself be illegal.

mischievous impersonation (eg Jamo/Jammmo) - permanent ban for first offence in all cases. poster creating account could also face action.

persistently making off-topic posts - would get warnings and short ban first.

A note on the whole thing about long bans for transgression of short bans (eg by creating another account) - I don't know why a few people kick up a fuss about this, it is similar to the principle in everyday justice that if you evade punishment you get a bigger one, and the point is that misconduct cannot be controlled if evasion of suspension goes unpunished.