 Inari7  | 08 Jun 2012 8:04 a.m. PST |
Instead of voting to ban members here on TMP what other ways should there be? Maybe when you get 200 stifles?
(not 100 I am pretty close to that now!) Thrown in the Doghouse 10 times? When Bill feel like it?
Any others?
|
| ChicChocMtdRifles | 08 Jun 2012 8:14 a.m. PST |
Maybe stifles. A person could be stifled over a misunderstanding. Hard to write a *tone of voice* in a post. Probablly Dawghouse. Use the double-dawg for the really bad ones, and X amount of them will cause banishment. |
| Mooseworks8 | 08 Jun 2012 8:31 a.m. PST |
Why do we need to cast folks out? |
| Midpoint | 08 Jun 2012 8:35 a.m. PST |
Bribe the Praetorian Guard/Editor? |
| MahanMan | 08 Jun 2012 8:37 a.m. PST |
|
| Maddaz111 | 08 Jun 2012 8:41 a.m. PST |
No banning, I believe in the rights of free speech. However I can understand an auto DH policy that is fair when someone overstretches the mark on what is "reasonable" speech. I suppose when people are DH they can Sock puppet their way back…. but I am confident that the editor can pick up on those. I think the Editor does a pretty good job, and there are usually only a few idiots trying to break the rules to annoy him. Why they are all on the napoleonics board is beyond me though? (grin) |
| Allen57 | 08 Jun 2012 9:10 a.m. PST |
The only expulsions should be done by Bill. He seems to be even handed about this. The TMP equivalent of the Salem witch hunts we dont need. |
| Waco Joe | 08 Jun 2012 9:19 a.m. PST |
Personal challenges to Nude jello wrestling on the night of every blue moon. Loser is banned until the next blue moon. Two beings enter, one being leaves! |
| Mako11 | 08 Jun 2012 10:23 a.m. PST |
If you don't like someone's postings, just stifle, or ignore them. |
| Angel Barracks | 08 Jun 2012 10:31 a.m. PST |
If you don't like someone's postings, just stifle, or ignore them. True, but what if they keep bad mouthing you?
Simply stifling them will make you unaware of the attacks they make and you will be unable to defend yourself/put forward your side of events.
Why do we need to cast folks out? What if someone keeps condoning illegal activities? |
| richarDISNEY | 08 Jun 2012 10:34 a.m. PST |
Only when they violate TMP rules.
 |
| Lentulus | 08 Jun 2012 10:34 a.m. PST |
If you want to ban someone from TMP – that is you can't manage to just ignore him by yourself – then stifle him. That does nothing to harm him, and you don't see his posts. If a poster is that offensive, report the post to the editor for judgement. If neither of those is somehow allowed within your moral code then why the  do you think banning is so wonderful? As far as banning someone because of the number of stifles – those are all people who, by definition, are no longer troubled by the poster. Form your own opinion and act accordingly. We have an editor; banning is his to deal with. |
| CPT Jake | 08 Jun 2012 10:45 a.m. PST |
We have an editor; banning is his to deal with.
Not if the editor is intent on delegating his responsibility (which based on a current poll, AND on a topic the editor started may be the case.) Or the editor is  ing again… |
| Lentulus | 08 Jun 2012 11:31 a.m. PST |
Not if the editor is intent on delegating his responsibility True. But that does not change where the responsibility lies. I can see, in a case such as Angel Barracks describes, having a long discussion with the editor. But in the end, the responsibility is in one place. Ostracism was not the finest feature of Athenian democracy, either. |
| skippy0001 | 08 Jun 2012 3:44 p.m. PST |
Ban Bans. Immediately if not sooner. |
| Dasher | 09 Jun 2012 3:30 p.m. PST |
Except in the case of raging profanity spammers, I'm inclined to agree with Skippy0001.
Why on earth is there so much discussion of banning people?
Surely someone overtly offensive will be handled by Bill.
But this is starting to look like people are getting ready to lynch folks because they have a difference of opinion.
Step back, people, and calm down. |
