Ban of member

[towforce]

This topic should be locked to further comments.

Maybe move it to the Help And Suggestions forum? No need to close it (people still seem to want to express opinions about it), but now that everyone is aware of what has happened, it doesn't need to be in this forum.

[chessica]

Chessqueen has been permanently banned for the offence of spamming YouTube videos into his signature, an offence of which he has been previous made aware.

I am appalled that someone is simply put up against the wall like that. That really didn't have to happen. Block them and end it, that's how it should be.

[chrisw]

Chessqueen has been permanently banned for the offence of spamming YouTube videos into his signature, an offence of which he has been previous made aware.

I am appalled that someone is simply put up against the wall like that. That really didn't have to happen. Block them and end it, that's how it should be.

Reply-Quote pretty much negates the block function. Would that it be different, but apparently board software doesn’t allow.

Thus forum is pretty much split between those who think the ban was long overdue and those who find it too harsh. As to the “compromise” position, warn, ban, warn again, extend bans if no result, I find this more or less not relevant, since the OP has been told numerous times by moderators plus many many comments from angry board members over several(?) years. He just does whatever he does anyway.

So, this here thread is a process. By the end of it the way to proceed should become clear. How would you propose we get beyond stating “should have happened long ago” and “too harsh” in alternating reply? Or is it okay we just have two clashing opposite views forever?

Getting a statement from the OP, assuming he cares enough about it, would be useful.

[gaard]

Chessqueen has been permanently banned for the offence of spamming YouTube videos into his signature, an offence of which he has been previous made aware.

I am appalled that someone is simply put up against the wall like that. That really didn't have to happen. Block them and end it, that's how it should be.

Reply-Quote pretty much negates the block function. Would that it be different, but apparently board software doesn’t allow.

Thus forum is pretty much split between those who think the ban was long overdue and those who find it too harsh. As to the “compromise” position, warn, ban, warn again, extend bans if no result, I find this more or less not relevant, since the OP has been told numerous times by moderators plus many many comments from angry board members over several(?) years. He just does whatever he does anyway.

So, this here thread is a process. By the end of it the way to proceed should become clear. How would you propose we get beyond stating “should have happened long ago” and “too harsh” in alternating reply? Or is it okay we just have two clashing opposite views forever?

Getting a statement from the OP, assuming he cares enough about it, would be useful.

I won't miss CQ but unilateral permanent bans sound like a bad idea. If this is something done by the forum admin for security purposes (embedded links can be dangerous) then all is fair in love and war. Otherwise, I think the age-old precedent of moderation-term bans are more than sufficient, if or when moderation terms exist.

[towforce]

Would it be technically feasible to allow him to view any forum, but only post in the Kindergarten forum?

Two ways this could be achieved:

1. The forum software allows this to be done

2. Presumably the database for this forum is MySQL. If anyone has direct access to the database, admin rights in the database, and a willingness to learn the table structure and database management tools, then a trigger could be added to the table containing posts to move it to the Kindergarten forum (and perhaps a special thread for CQ posts within that forum) if CQ was the user who added the post

This restriction could be ended after a 6 month period of exemplary behaviour.

[hgm]

I won't miss CQ but unilateral permanent bans sound like a bad idea. If this is something done by the forum admin for security purposes (embedded links can be dangerous) then all is fair in love and war. Otherwise, I think the age-old precedent of moderation-term bans are more than sufficient, if or when moderation terms exist.

Well, at the moment real moderators don't even exist. It was somehow agreed that the members of the founder group should not be moderators...

[Ras]

So, this here thread is a process. By the end of it the way to proceed should become clear. How would you propose we get beyond stating “should have happened long ago” and “too harsh” in alternating reply? Or is it okay we just have two clashing opposite views forever?

If the YT sig links were the only aspect, then the ban would be overblown. However, the actual issue is years of shitpost-spamming, and the problem is that the charter doesn't address that properly. What we'd need is some sort of charter update, voted by the members, so that mods then can act upon that.

[Graham Banks]

I won't miss CQ but unilateral permanent bans sound like a bad idea. If this is something done by the forum admin for security purposes (embedded links can be dangerous) then all is fair in love and war. Otherwise, I think the age-old precedent of moderation-term bans are more than sufficient, if or when moderation terms exist.

Well, at the moment real moderators don't even exist. It was somehow agreed that the members of the founder group should not be moderators...

Really?

[Rebel]

I won't miss CQ but unilateral permanent bans sound like a bad idea. If this is something done by the forum admin for security purposes (embedded links can be dangerous) then all is fair in love and war. Otherwise, I think the age-old precedent of moderation-term bans are more than sufficient, if or when moderation terms exist.

Well, at the moment real moderators don't even exist. It was somehow agreed that the members of the founder group should not be moderators...

Really?

viewtopic.php?p=960552#p960552

After the turbulent restart of the forum we decided to stay as moderators for the time being, now that the forum is calm waters maybe now is the time for moderator elections.

[CornfedForever]

This topic should be locked to further comments.

No, that is even more draconian than the ban. Let people speak until they get it out of their system...it will die away eventually. Unless there is nothing else to talk about in which case...well, it's self evident, so I don't need to say it.