|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Apr 27, 2006 16:17:26 GMT -4
Maxaxe has been banned for rude behaviour.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Apr 28, 2006 4:55:13 GMT -4
Maxaxe has been banned for rude behaviour. I only saw two posts from that one, that must be some sort of a record. Like the last two, claimed to be an AB who thought we were HBs. |
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Apr 28, 2006 12:46:39 GMT -4
He thought we were HB's too and threw some childish insults at us. People like that don't improve the more they post so there was no reason to think not banning him was a good idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 28, 2006 21:41:58 GMT -4
I noticed that he posts don't exist anymore, any reason for that? Unless they were really offensive I can't see the point in having removed them.
|
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Apr 28, 2006 21:51:14 GMT -4
His posts contained nothing of value, they were nothng but pure insult so there was no reason to keep them. If he had asked a question about the hoax theory or about Apollo that would be worth keeping... but no, all he basically said was "you guys are all !@#&!$ for believing the moon landing were faked". It was a poor first impression, and like I said, people like that don't improve they only get worse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Jul 28, 2006 16:41:03 GMT -4
Too bad. Maybe alzheimer's or alcoholism.
|
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Sept 9, 2006 17:55:41 GMT -4
Orumdude has been banned for being rude.
Is it really that hard to be polite? I really don't get it. If people want to be taken seriously they have to at least act maturely.
|
|
|
|
Post by gonzo on Sept 11, 2006 4:52:37 GMT -4
For some reason I can no longer log in at home, but get the message "sorry, you have been banned from this forum" without being able to log in. This is from 9th September. Is it IP addresses that are banned, so that Orumdude's banning has also impacted on my home IP?
|
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Sept 11, 2006 5:40:12 GMT -4
I'll look into it, you're probably using the same internet provider as Orumdude. Sorry about that... I only banned the IP address that he was using, not a range of them. Edit: I removed the IP ban so hopefully you will be able to login. The IP address he used was identical to yours. Are you using the internet from a cybercafe or library? Or do you maybe have a teenage son?  |
|
|
|
Post by gonzo on Sept 11, 2006 7:35:14 GMT -4
I'll look into it, you're probably using the same internet provider as Orumdude. Sorry about that... I only banned the IP address that he was using, not a range of them. Edit: I removed the IP ban so hopefully you will be able to login. The IP address he used was identical to yours. Are you using the internet from a cybercafe or library? Or do you maybe have a teenage son? Thanks LunarOrbit. I have a straightforward cable broadband connection with ntlworld in the house. I had noticed on other forums here in the UK that anyone from my area (ie west of scotland) posting with ntlworld as the ISP had identical public IP addresses. Thanks for hopefully sorting it out - I'll check when I get home. No teenage kids yet; they're all much younger.... |
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Sept 24, 2006 19:34:52 GMT -4
kvhokuto has been banned. His first (and only) post was nothing but an insult directed at the other forum members. He did not even attempt to explain why he believes the moon landings were faked... I assume that is due to laziness?
|
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Sept 26, 2006 19:13:35 GMT -4
I'll look into it, you're probably using the same internet provider as Orumdude. Sorry about that... I only banned the IP address that he was using, not a range of them. Edit: I removed the IP ban so hopefully you will be able to login. The IP address he used was identical to yours. Are you using the internet from a cybercafe or library? Or do you maybe have a teenage son? Thanks LunarOrbit. I have a straightforward cable broadband connection with ntlworld in the house. I had noticed on other forums here in the UK that anyone from my area (ie west of scotland) posting with ntlworld as the ISP had identical public IP addresses. Thanks for hopefully sorting it out - I'll check when I get home. No teenage kids yet; they're all much younger.... It happened to me once that I tried to register at a forum having never visited it before in my life and I got the "Your IP has been banned" message. Turned out that the IP had been released by the original owner ISP and in turn purchased by mine. |
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Oct 5, 2006 10:11:01 GMT -4
lunatic has been permantently banned for rude behaviour.
|
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Nov 3, 2006 13:25:43 GMT -4
I want to comment on the current warning system.
I'm glad you have implimented a thermometer bar, but I'm not sure the criteria of measurement are clear.
"lunatic" was given a heck of a lot of warning chances, even to the point of 99% warning. I fully expected him to get to decimal-level warnings. Bill Thompson has finally been warned and immediately went to 50%.
Far be it from me to defend him, but it seems less than fair. Given his willingness to back off, I think his initial mistake was worth, maybe, 25% at most.
Since then, he's stunk up the topics in the "general discussion," bringing everything to the level of "military.com" members, so I think he should still be at about 50%, but with another firm warning to keep things on topic.
I just wonder if you are using a linear or logarithmic scale, or what?
|
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Nov 3, 2006 20:36:31 GMT -4
I know it appears I'm just pulling numbers out of thin air, but I do actually put some thought into my moderating of the forum, and I do try to be fair.
When Bill joined the forum I was warned about his behaviour on other forums but I decided to give him a chance. The 50% warning level is based on multiple rule violations, not one single event.
And in Lunatics case I gave him the 99% warning to clue him in to the fact that he was on thin ice and that there would be no more warnings. I gave him a chance to change his behaviour and he ignored it.
In some cases, like Margamatix, I have to deal with people who appear to want to be banned. There's no other explanation for why someone would post images of an executed person into the forum. I'm obviously not going to let actions like that off with a warning because I can't be here 24/7 to make sure they don't do it again.
The warning bar system is nice, in theory, but it's difficult to use fairly. It's hard to assign a number to how angry I am about a rule violation. Originally I planned to use a "3 strikes and you're out" system, with the warning bar going up in 33% increments, but it didn't work out right because some violations are more serious than others. Plus I try to take into account past good behaviour... a well behaved member who has contributed a lot to the forum can get away with more than someone who violates rules immediately after they join the forum.
Sometimes an action can be so outright wrong (ie. insulting someone based on their religion) that it justifies a serious warning or even an immediate ban, whereas minor rule violations will sometimes only result in a warning after multiple violations.
I can't be expected to write down every possible way a person could misbehave and what warning % I would assign to them. It's just not possible because as soon as I think I had thought of everything someone would come along and find a new way to be offensive.
If you can suggest a way to break this all down into a mathematical equation then I'm all ears. There are too many variables, too many shades of grey, for it to be that easy.
|
|
