TheMachine1 wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
However, having fair warning that someone with the ability to ban you is considering doing so is another thing entirely. In a place where there seems to be no hard and fast definition of what is "bad" exactly, having the sword of Ban-ocles hanging over your head is a little worrying.
Out of interest, whats the appeal process?
Its rare that a person would be banned on WP and not
understand well before that they were breaking the rules
enough to be banned. Its usually a long process with a lot of violations before a person is banned.
Not sure on offical appeal process. But e-mail Alex and
requesting and unbanned is the method. I have unbanned 3 members on my own. 2 of which I rebanned for using
sockpuppets a few days ago.
The problem I always found with banning people is not so much the persistent offence users, but the ones who have fallen foul of either a personal dislike from an op or mod, an obscure rule, a different interpretation of a rule, or an overenthusiastic op (or a nasty one.) That and accidental bans. (I once saw someone ban the whole of London from a server, because he didnt appreciate how large the place is, and thought a blanket ban would settle a couple of gits from a certain area, without a big drop in usage. Likewise he also tried to ban a complete ISP, not realising that it services across the whole UK. )
I notice that the WP TOS is actually quite unrestrictive, compared to some I have seen (including several that ban the use of certain characters in names, and even certain names) which I suspect is a double-edged sword. Some people will push matters right up to the semantic meaning of a rules phrasing in order to act up. (A user I knew spent a lot of time using the word Niger, claiming it in the sense of the legitimate country and river, when it was patently obvious he was just using it to get round the various N word restrictions.)
If there is one thing Aspies do well, its use semantics.
IMO, I've never been a fan of banning, whether I'm in the position to ban people or not. I much prefer to argue, using fact and reason to reach a conclusion .. though obviously I agree with banning for the more "ret*d" transgressions such as flooding and spamming repeatedly, that kind of thing. Generally I agree with Hadron that some form of heads up would be nice, especially in more obscure cases like arguments and matters of opinion getting out of hand.
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]