[Mugge]

Lately there have been a couple of threads that where particularly funny. Unfortunately they also involved politics and a few members managed to drive them into a thread-lock with their knee-jerk drama.

Have you any idea how irritating it is to have written an epic post, just to find the tread locked once you hit the submit button.



I suggest a feature that would allow the moderators to issue a ban that is only effective within a certain thread. And thus can be used to help an otherwise good member stay out of a discussion that he can't mind his manners in. Another useful variation of this could be a feature so that members could put a specific thread on their ignore list.

Alternatively I wouldn't mind seeing some short 12 hour bans being used more liberally. Just as a friendly slap over the wrist.

[Fahrenheit]

Yeh sure, ban people like Republican fiend John McCain would ban freedom. And babies. You are such a George Bush liker.

[Mugge]

Originally Posted by Farenheit Yeh sure, ban people like Republican fiend John McCain would ban freedom. And babies. You are such a George Bush liker.

See, that the kind of member that needs a firm but loving slap on the wrist. Or in the bottom. You like it in the bottom, don't you, Fahrenheit?

[709]

You'll have to pry my Sexy Librarian VP out of my cold, dead hands.

[Fahrenheit]

I miss WindowsRookie.

[Brad]

If your epic post belonged in the original Sarah Palin thread, you'll be happy to see that I've pruned it of the political bullshit and returned it to being just about how Sarah Palin is a cutie.

[Mugge]

Unfortunately it was for the Bristol thread. And it contained references to Obama and Rove. It was kinda intended for a thread that I knew in advance was doomed.

But I am much grateful. Maybe I'll recycle some bits if I think I can get away with it...

[jdcfsu]

Originally Posted by Mugge I suggest a feature that would allow the moderators to issue a ban that is only effective within a certain thread. And thus can be used to help an otherwise good member stay out of a discussion that he can't mind his manners in. Another useful variation of this could be a feature so that members could put a specific thread on their ignore list.

Political stuff aside, I think this is a great idea!

[Argento]

Originally Posted by Mugge Lately there have been a couple of threads that where particularly funny. Unfortunately they also involved politics and a few members managed to drive them into a thread-lock with their knee-jerk drama. Have you any idea how irritating it is to have written an epic post, just to find the tread locked once you hit the submit button. I suggest a feature that would allow the moderators to issue a ban that is only effective within a certain thread. And thus can be used to help an otherwise good member stay out of a discussion that he can't mind his manners in. Another useful variation of this could be a feature so that members could put a specific thread on their ignore list. Alternatively I wouldn't mind seeing some short 12 hour bans being used more liberally. Just as a friendly slap over the wrist.

Agreed but that once again puts the burden on the admin and not on the person. I don't think taking personal responsibility on putting on the admin is a good idea (which in my opinion it would do). I think they need to be banned from all to really feel it.l I think the 12 hour ban is a good idea though.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by Argento Agreed but that once again puts the burden on the admin and not on the person. I don't think taking personal responsibility on putting on the admin is a good idea (which in my opinion it would do). I think they need to be banned from all to really feel it.l I think the 12 hour ban is a good idea though.

Eh... really?

Flame the shit out of someone, have dinner and go to bed, get up... repeat! No time lost!

[Mugge]

Originally Posted by Kickaha Eh... really? Flame the shit out of someone, have dinner and go to bed, get up... repeat! No time lost!

It was only thought of as a warning. Not a real punishment. If a poster has foul intentions then were talking a regular ban.

[Kickaha]

Personally I'm all for a three or four strikes rule.

It's obvious to most reading some of these threads who's causing the problems... it's usually the same couple of folks going at each other. Look at the locked threads, and it's just a few names that pop up at the end of each.

If you're one of the parties in getting a thread locked due to being unable to control flaming over politics:

First time: a warning.
Second time: a 24 hr ban.
Third time: a one week ban.
Fourth time: a ban until Jan 2009, after the elections.

Ramp it up, make it stick.

[Banana]

No problem with Kick's proposal, exact I'm not sure if this sidestep the problem of "arbitrary enforcement". I can think of couple posters (myself, I'm sure) who just can't keep to the thread's title and *must* inject prefabbed [Red | Blue] statement and thus deserve full wrath of the Banhammer™, but when the prefabbed [Red | Blue] statement has a bearing on the title, does it stay the wrath for a little awhile?

Regardless what we end up, I love coming to AN because of climate & folks here, and am more than happy to support the leaders to keep the climate.

[Kickaha]

Honestly, while I find the inability of some to keep from tossing in a "Bush sucks!" or a "Hillary swallows!" into a more or less unrelated thread to be *annoying* (and frankly immature and trolling), I don't think it's what gets threads locked. It's when it a) takes over the thread completely, and b) leads to rampant flaming.

[Banana]

Kick, not to be an asshole or something, but it sounds like you're undermining your own point- because if it's really the nth post that starts it all, just *exactly* which nth post is to be blamed (and thus a ban slapped on), thus defeating the whole idea of banning a idiot who can't keep his fire to himself because it's now diffused among several people...

Or am I not understanding something?

EDIT: To rephrase a bit, I would think it more workable to rap the first poster who inject an unnecessary ["Bush sucks!" | "Clinton swallows!"] statement in a unrelated thread, than waiting for nth post to bring it all to hell. Other posters should quickly figure that kind of junk isn't just accepted around here.

[Kickaha]

Fair enough, each option has its points in favor, and against.

First comment: easier to spot (maybe - what's the level of trolling that's acceptable as a tongue in cheek comment?), leads to never ending arguments over what constitutes a violation.

Landslide: easier to note as leading to a lock, less banhammer on mild sarcasm and light teasing.

The first comment may be innocuous, although stupid. If we banned for stupid comments, I'd have been gone long ago. When it hits a snowballing effect though, there's generally a filtering effect, where only a handful of people stick around in that thread, and revel in being truly vitriolic and not adding anything of worth to the conversation or thread. That's the point at which this board becomes their personal playground, and not the community's.

Calm rational debate = love it. But we can't *HAVE* that around here because of a few retards that keep fucking it up. *fume* (I use the word 'retard' lovingly. Really. Pinky swears. I like most all of the folks on here, but some of you otherwise likable ones turn into major *assholes* when politics comes up. Seriously. (And as an asshole from a long line of assholes, I know assholes.) Step away from the politics, you don't have the maturity to ride that ride. )

[Banana]

Agreed.

Maybe something in middle...

A verbal warning (doesn't have to be in that scolding tone anyway) at first post. (As matter of fact, several members, whether a leader or not, already does that!) Then apply banhammer to any users who persist after that point...

[Kickaha]

What we need is tagging.

Hey mods, how about it? A little /.-esque points meter for each post, with tagging? *HOW HARD COULD IT BE?!?*