27 replies to this topic

[Radio]

I know this is an incredibly hot topic, so I'd love to address it with the utmost grace and finesse.

Pros to the Quick-Ban

• Nipping COC violators in the bud.
• Keeping the board full of thoughtful posts rather than having to sift through mindless questions, assertions, bad grammar etc.
• A sense of pride knowing that you didn't make that mistake.
• A more time effective solution to violators.

Cons to the Quick-Ban

• Many new members are banned before they can correct their behavior.
• NHIC stagnates because of a lack of incoming youngsters.

I would love to edit this post to be more inclusive of extra pros and cons, if you have a suggestion to help please post.

[Tornado13]

I think there should be a grace period, but for only 2 or 3 posts, not 5 or more.

[Blacksunshine]

Limit banned members to only be able to post in a specified thread where we can flame them and they can respond. This will continue until they are broken and fall in line. If they are not broken within say 1 week then we ban everyone that attempted to flame them to submission in a similar manner. If they are broken they are then allowed back on the forums but they will have a special avatar they have to use on their profile of a dildo. This will last for 1 month.

[durka durka]

We do need to deal with this problem, and part of that problem is that the new members aren't reading the code of conduct. If we could somehow make sure all new members read the cod of conduct then the problem would be less severe than it already is.

But some people will still break the rules even if we made them read the code of conduct. I like the sound of some of these punishments, expecially public humiliation. Members that don't read the code of conduct after we tell them to should be broken into submisson like blacksunshine suggests.

[Brummer]

We already have a grace period. It's called the validation process. That gives you more than enough time to read the CoC and read different threads to understand how things should go around here. Not to mention, the people responsible enough to be endowed with the ban hammer are adults, go to college, work real jobs, etc. What everyone is proposing sounds like it is making more work for the M&A team, not less.

Edited by Brummer, 17 December 2008 - 07:33 AM.

[Applefury]

As Brummer said we already have a grace period. If we allow a Grace period any longer than that the board will be FILLED with Nerf Haters that flood our boards creating useless topics? Do you want that?

[Radio]

It is my personal belief that Nerf Haters/Paintball goons RARELY have the patience to wait for 3 months for validation. I agree that the new members should be using the 3 months for COC studying but unfortunately thats not always what happens.

Like a new puppy home for the first time, often the first thing they do is piss the rug.

[Foamfoot]

It is my personal belief that Nerf Haters/Paintball goons RARELY have the patience to wait for 3 months for validation. I agree that the new members should be using the 3 months for COC studying but unfortunately thats not always what happens.

Like a new puppy home for the first time, often the first thing they do is piss the rug.

Usually, I am all for the better treatment of members, including new ones. But this just goes much too far. 3 MONTHS? Look, just because they've only been around here a week does not mean that the useless topics made don't deter from the board. I would love it if mild backseat moderating was allowed, not flaming, but ONE person POLITELY telling the new member how things work around here. Insulting people just makes our community look like angry chodes.

But a THREE MONTH GRACE PERIOD? DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THAT WOULD DO TO THIS PLACE? In my opinion, your validation is your grace period. You can't get banned during that period and you have a LONG time to lurk.

Edit: I just realized that this thread doesn't matter, because VACC is just gonna come in here and be awesome, and say how he is amused by this thread, and then close it up. Oh by the way VACC, a sincere congratulations on your post count reaching the late 1980s, cause those years kicked ass.

Edited by Foamfoot, 17 December 2008 - 12:00 PM.

[Ice Nine]

But a THREE MONTH GRACE PERIOD? DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THAT WOULD DO TO THIS PLACE? In my opinion, your validation is your grace period. You can't get banned during that period and you have a LONG time to lurk.

I'm fairly certain the three month period he's referring to is the three months they wait for validation. They should be spending that time finding out how to be a proper member on the boards; checking threads to see how to post properly, looking at flamers to learn how to avoid simple nooby mistakes, and working on stuff to post once they're validated to become actual contributing members to the boards.

That being said, if they have those three months for that, then they don't really deserve a grace period.

[VACC]

I think Foamfoot hit it on the head. If backseat moderating was limited to a single warning or suggestion, the problem would not seem so heinous. The issue is that everytime someone necros a thread, 3 more members feel the need to dogpile on and throw their weight around. We tell people that this is not appreciated, and reprimand them for such actions, but what further actions should we take. Were we to add that to the bannable offense list, people would simply backseat moderate the backseat moderators. It's just one of those things that isn't going to be solved through forum controls alone. People simply have to grow up.

As for an extended waiting period, this would be difficult to maintain given our large volume of daily membership applications. I go through, probably, 50 a day. Many of those don't make it through, but enough do to make this proposition troublesome from a logistical standpoint.

Right now I have the validations down to a 1 month queu, which I've been maintaining. The first step we would probably take, should our administrative team come to the conclusion that a change is needed, would be to let it run for another month before resuming validations.

VACC

[NerfDude1138]

This is Bull, give a warning or two then if they don't take a hint, throw them to the wolves. There are plenty of new folks that don't break the rules. If you're worried about the quality of new members then make getting in a little more work. For instance make a rule that an applicant has to submit a mod to get in. That will eliminate a ton of useless people who are not contributors and are just looking for a place to troll. When I first got here I was afraid to say anything before I had at least one mod up.

As far as backseat moderating goes, there are some here that do nothing else but play admin and its very annoying. On the other hand, when a real admin does it, it can be amusing (unless you are on the receiving end of course).

Edited by NerfDude1138, 17 December 2008 - 01:16 PM.

[Foamfoot]

Essentially, we already have this. New members don't get banned (usually) until they show repeated behavior. If they do keep on being annoying as hell, then usually the member has about 3-5 days before they get banned. New members are given multiple warnings, it's pretty rare that they get banned for one or two offensives. You know that stuff that the moderators say about "Strikes" or "You're officially on my shit list. Welcome to the club, they're selling shirts." they aren't kidding, you get a number of screw-ups until you get banned. I wish people could be nicer to new members, as if we are mean to them, not only does it not solve anything, we get these threads.

[Cmdrmack]

We have high standards here.

Anyone is welcome to join our community.

You are to meet our standards.

If you do not meet our standards, you will not remain a member of our community for very long.

[VACC]

Only because you actually asked:

Any objectively measurable action the admins 'officially' don't like could be subject to a short suspension. Backseat moderating - especially the piling on, might earn a week off. A worthless post that necros a thread dead for (n) months might earn that many weeks. Anything that you feel deserves the work of sending a reprimand might be worth a day off.

And an admin posting in the same thread that member so-and-so received "a little time out" for offense (x) would show the others what a bad example it would be to follow.

So we should create an elaborate point system of measured reprimands and painstakingly upkeep a list of the each member's current score in order to accomplish exactly what we're getting done as is?

Is this the kind of thing you really want my opinion on?

[Langley]

I think you're misreading what he's saying. I think what he's looking for is for admins to dole out lots of short term suspensions for minor indiscretions instead of giving out verbal warnings and permanent bans. The other point is that admins should post a notification of the suspension as a reply to the offending post, so that everyone can see that the person got suspended and what they were suspended for.

So if you found a bunch of people backseat modding in a thread, instead of verballing warning them or permanently banning them, you could suspend them all for a week and post a note in the thread basically showing everyone what the consequences of backseat modding are.

Personally, I think most of the people who get permanently banned around here didn't have much chance of improving if you were to only suspend them for a few days. But with the backseat moderating problem, I think suspending everyone in the thread for a week and making sure everyone knows who was suspended and why would be a better alternative to closing a thread. But then I'm asking you to push more buttons, and I know how you are about pushing buttons.

Edited by Langley, 17 December 2008 - 03:34 PM.

[NerfDude1138]

Some of these guys are trolling and flaming and just need to be banned. Some of them are posting topics that have been done and redone and redone again many times over and need some sort of reprimand. In some cases I'm surprised the admins don't disintegrate some of these posters. I'm sure that the admins don't just ban for one offense. They probably observe numerous stupid posts by the same person before they say that's it! From our perspective it might look like it was just one offense in one thread, but I have noticed on some occasions that the banned person went on a tirade and posted stupid crap in multiple threads all in the same day. Then got their asses kicked.

The only area that I think the admins need to focus on more is the backseat modding problem which is getting worse. The backseat modders clutter up the threads as much as the offenders.

All in all the admins are not babysitters and shouldn't have to police the site. But if they didn't just imagine the anarchy that would run rampant.

Edited by NerfDude1138, 17 December 2008 - 03:57 PM.

[UpperHand]

To the people who said the grace period should be 5 posts long... Really? A member is allowed to act like a dipshit for 5 posts before being banned? I think a member should be given one, maybe 2 warnings. Then possibly a shorter ban than the 9999 day special.

[Foamfoot]

To the people who said the grace period should be 5 posts long... Really? A member is allowed to act like a dipshit for 5 posts before being banned? I think a member should be given one, maybe 2 warnings. Then possibly a shorter ban than the 9999 day special.

I think most people did that because there is no way to say zero posts.

[Link2TheFuture]

If you're worried about the quality of new members then make getting in a little more work. For instance make a rule that an applicant has to submit a mod to get in. That will eliminate a ton of useless people who are not contributors and are just looking for a place to troll. When I first got here I was afraid to say anything before I had at least one mod up.

NerfDude1138 has a great idea, but a person can only come up with so many mods for a nerf gun. There are not an infinate amount of mods for a Longshot or any other gun. It would be possible, however, for an applicant to come up with a new technique or give an interveiw (using temporary PM) with a designated volunteer veteran member. That would ensure no retards can join and would also make sure the applicant knows the rules. It shouldn't take much work on the veteran member's part, just three or four PMs to the applicant and one to a admin giving him his recommendation on a new member. This would also give VACC a little less work since he would only have to choose an active member from a list of volunteers and pair him up with a newbie.

Edited by Link2TheFuture, 17 December 2008 - 08:19 PM.

[Just Some Bitch]

I think they should be allowed for maybe 10 posts. Just so they can get a chance to prove that they are NH worthy.

[Foamfoot]

Anyone remember the old school way? People had to write a thousand word essay to join.

[analogkid]

We have high standards here.

Anyone is welcome to join our community.

You are to meet our standards.

If you do not meet our standards, you will not remain a member of our community for very long.

Nailed it.

On banning:
This is the internet. This is also a privately owned forum.

Much like private property, if the owner does not want you on the property, they are authorized to remove you or have you removed. The administrators have been given the authority to represent the owner in his non-presence. They can ban anyone that they like, with or without reason, because they are the owners or representatives of the owner of this site. It would be foolish to ban someone without a reason, and the administrators know that, because it would hinder the growth/sustainment of this hobby.

On backseat moderation:
Read the above paragraph closely. Especially the line "The administrators have been given the authority to represent the owner in his non-presence. " This applies only to the administrators. Anyone else has no authority to giving out warnings, threats, "w3 gunn@ ban'd jooo"'s etc. If one person wants to possibly reference the CoC or give a reminder about grammar, that's fine, but do it when appropriate. Half the time, someone spells 2 words slightly incorrectly and doesn't capitalize one first letter of a sentence and twelve members tell him to fix his grammar. If its a serious case, use PMs, and don't feed trolls. I quit, you can too.

[Soothsayer]

1 post grace period, and that's too much, really.

Read the god damn rules, follow the god damn rules.

[BustaNinja]

We have high standards here.

Anyone is welcome to join our community.

You are to meet our standards.

If you do not meet our standards, you will not remain a member of our community for very long.

Thank you.

Ok guys, look who is bitching about this. People who recently joined.

Just stick it out. People will point out your errors. It's just the nature of the beast. Its what the Haven does. Live with it.

[AssassinNF]

I think the admins should warn someone if they're doing something minor, and ban them if their first post prooves they're a fucktard.

Oh wait...

Seriously though. I think the system we have right now works great. There are few, if any, instances where the victim of a 9999 day special could have been worth a shit. People are given more than enough time to lurk and learn the rules while they are being validated. If they can't figure out how things work around here by then, they probably never will, and their banned ass will not be missed.