Severity needed to get "Banned"

[Oboy]

After this whole Nublar banning, a question came to mind. How serious of an offense is needed to get banned?

What are some things that will get you banned?

For the record, I am not questioning the Mods on Banning Nublar. Nor do I want to know what he did (I believe the Mods when they say they do not want to drag his name through the mud).

I am just curious What would actually get you banned? Continuous offense of TOS? Or is some violations of the TOS more serious than others?

 

[inFINSible]

There are definately things that we take more seriously than others.


There are two categories of infractions, most fall under either annoyance or malicious intent.

Annoyance is what we get 90% of the time and what usually fills up someones warning meter before they get banned. It consists of the common everyday occurances like, personal attacks, trolling, posting off topic in the wrong forum and things like that....Annoyance doesn't get you banned immediately, you only get banned once we establish malicious intent.

After so many warnings and no change in behavior, malicious intent is easy to establish....But it happens frequently with people trying to use this site to advertise their own site, it happens when people intentionally post porn, or we can sometimes tell by people's posts and language that they are only here to cause harm in some way. There's insubordination, there's undermining of authority (the staff), and there is blatant disregard of posting rules usually involved with anyone deemed to have malicious intent.

We have bannned hundreds of people on their first post, because we could establish malicious intent immediately. Some people hide it better than others but, when we do find out for certain, and we always make certain first, then we act without question.

 

[Oboy]

Thanks Infins,

I knew about the "annoyance" factor and that is where I was amazed to get banned from that. What I did not realize was the "malicious intent" and the extent at which that covers.

 

[IceStorm]

Undermining authority? LOL That statement alone is hilarious. The United States of America was created by "undermining authority".

I'm thinking that the term "failure to adhere to established practices" would better suit your explanation.

lol :D

 

[dlockz]

There are definately things that we take more seriously than others.


There are two categories of infractions, most fall under either annoyance or malicious intent.

Annoyance is what we get 90% of the time and what usually fills up someones warning meter before they get banned. It consists of the common everyday occurances like, personal attacks, trolling, posting off topic in the wrong forum and things like that....Annoyance doesn't get you banned immediately, you only get banned once we establish malicious intent.

After so many warnings and no change in behavior, malicious intent is easy to establish....But it happens frequently with people trying to use this site to advertise their own site, it happens when people intentionally post porn, or we can sometimes tell by people's posts and language that they are only here to cause harm in some way. There's insubordination, there's undermining of authority (the staff), and there is blatant disregard of posting rules usually involved with anyone deemed to have malicious intent.

We have bannned hundreds of people on their first post, because we could establish malicious intent immediately. Some people hide it better than others but, when we do find out for certain, and we always make certain first, then we act without question.

Got a question on bans. I think I was banned for a day and asked for an explanation of why I was banned which I think is fair and never got an answer. Is that standard policy. I mean I have no warning points since the warning meter was introduced, doesn't it seem reasonable to get an explanation.

 

[Mike13]

There are definately things that we take more seriously than others.


There are two categories of infractions, most fall under either annoyance or malicious intent.

Annoyance is what we get 90% of the time and what usually fills up someones warning meter before they get banned. It consists of the common everyday occurances like, personal attacks, trolling, posting off topic in the wrong forum and things like that....Annoyance doesn't get you banned immediately, you only get banned once we establish malicious intent.

After so many warnings and no change in behavior, malicious intent is easy to establish....But it happens frequently with people trying to use this site to advertise their own site, it happens when people intentionally post porn, or we can sometimes tell by people's posts and language that they are only here to cause harm in some way. There's insubordination, there's undermining of authority (the staff), and there is blatant disregard of posting rules usually involved with anyone deemed to have malicious intent.

We have bannned hundreds of people on their first post, because we could establish malicious intent immediately. Some people hide it better than others but, when we do find out for certain, and we always make certain first, then we act without question.

So in other words, don't **** around.

 

[Celtkin]

So in other words, don't **** around.

It's an easy rule to apply and a members doesn't even have to read the TOS if they have common sense. Just pretend that you are a guest in a friends home ...a friend that you respect to the highest degree...a boss or perhaps a parent , in-law, clergy... and act as you would there.

If a poster can't maintain control under those supposed circumstances, chances are that they won't survive here either.

It's really very simple

 

[The Rev]

It's an easy rule to apply and a members doesn't even have to read the TOS if they have common sense. Just pretend that you are a guest in a friends home ...a friend that you respect to the highest degree...a boss or perhaps a parent , in-law, clergy... and act as you would there.

If a poster can't maintain control under those supposed circumstances, chances are that they won't survive here either.

It's really very simple

But, you wouldn't sit on my couch and eat chips if you respect me, right? :tongue:

 

[njfinfan]

Got a question on bans. I think I was banned for a day and asked for an explanation of why I was banned which I think is fair and never got an answer. Is that standard policy. I mean I have no warning points since the warning meter was introduced, doesn't it seem reasonable to get an explanation.

No - that's not standard policy. If you are banned, or even if only warned, you should receive a pm from the staff member telling you what you did and how long you are banned for. Next time (hopefully there won't be a next time), send one of us a pm and we'll advise you promptly.

 

[dlockz]

No - that's not standard policy. If you are banned, or even if only warned, you should receive a pm from the staff member telling you what you did and how long you are banned for. Next time (hopefully there won't be a next time), send one of us a pm and we'll advise you promptly.

Cool and hopefully there is no next time, I wrote the admin of the site and never got a reply and knew I had done nothing to justify a ban so I was more than perplexed.

 

[inFINSible]

Cool and hopefully there is no next time, I wrote the admin of the site and never got a reply and knew I had done nothing to justify a ban so I was more than perplexed.

How long ago did it happen?

 

[Celtkin]

But, you wouldn't sit on my couch and eat chips if you respect me, right? :tongue:

Not without an invitation, brother :wink:

 

[dlockz]

How long ago did it happen?

It was just before you instituted the warning meter I believe. My main problem was I sent an email to the site admin and nobody at least wrote me to tell me a reason.

 

[njfinfan]

It was just before you instituted the warning meter I believe. My main problem was I sent an email to the site admin and nobody at least wrote me to tell me a reason.

Was it under another member name?

 

[WharfRat]

It was just before you instituted the warning meter I believe. My main problem was I sent an email to the site admin and nobody at least wrote me to tell me a reason.

that may have been during the period where I was the lone admin... Muck had temporarily retired, and AJ had stepped back from that stuff... I was a bit overwhelmed at the time (to say the least) so there were probably several emails that I simply was unable to answer...
I apologize if you slipped through that crack....it wasn't an intentional attempt to ignore you.