What if there was a function where people could click a report button, and instead of sending a message to the mods, it would add a vote for banning them, and once someone had say 10 votes, they would automatically get banned for 1 day, and the mods would be PMed and asked to review it.

i think this would work great for spammers, as it would mean that their spamming could be stopped on first post, rather than allowing them to continue until a mod logs on.

what do you think?

EDIT:
im not talking about permanent bans, just 1 dayers that will be enough to discourage spammers, and give mods a chance to clean up before they make a mess of every thread.

any users that abuse it by conspiring to ban their opponents(especially in WE&P this could be a problem) have their voting ability stripped.

There's potential for abuse, i.e. a calculated ambush on one member by an organized group. Then again, sending a PM to a mod for review is a good measure against that.

I further propose that a reason should be given for voting to ban someone, or at least the username should be recorded. That way, abuse can be punished.

Not bad. Let's give it a try.

i suggest that unless you donate you have no vote as far as bannings go

It seems i am the only sane voter so far.

Vest all banning power in Ophiolite, with no right of appeal. You know it makes sense.

I think the more opportunities for abuse, the better the new banning method will work.

I swear to abuse the shit out of any powers conferred upon me.

Well, you have my vote for brutal autocrat of sciforums.

I swear to abuse the shit out of any powers conferred upon me.

Can I be the head of your secret police....???

Please...i promise to be ruthless and cruel.

i like to be the execusioner, im swift, effective yet utterly useless

Fuck it. I think we should just elevate Ophiolite to living god status and call it a day. But I call dibbs on the priesthood.

Methinks there are more profits in being a prophet ;)

What if there was a function where people could click a report button, and instead of sending a message to the mods, it would add a vote for banning them, and once someone had say 10 votes

Then unpopular opinions would be banned, and you'd have factionalist warfare raging across the board.

Not that that is a bad thing!

:m:

I'd create an army of puppets with which I'd rule, whimsically and cruelly.

It could work. The religion section would be taken down to 9 christians arguing against 9 muslims and 9 atheists. which would take up less bandwidth then 900 of each arguing

Can I be the head of your secret police....???
.You've shown your hand too soon. I know you are secretly planning to overthrow me. I anticipated this. In a moment you will hear a knock at your door...........

see my edited post. before the system even started we could remove priveledges from those wo know will abuse it. once all the initial abuse had been resolved(abusers losing their vote) it could work just fine

before the system even started we could remove priveledges from those wo know will abuse it.

Yes, I like that - guilty until proven innocent, "do it to them before they do it...", etc.

Very democratic.

I vote myself the new 'Head of Torture and Light Entertainment', with sole responsibility for mutilating people in increasingly humourous ways.

Then unpopular opinions would be banned, and you'd have factionalist warfare raging across the board.
Please read the second post in this thread. I think I addressed the problem fairly well:


There's potential for abuse, i.e. a calculated ambush on one member by an organized group. Then again, sending a PM to a mod for review is a good measure against that.

I further propose that a reason should be given for voting to ban someone, or at least the username should be recorded. That way, abuse can be punished.

Isn't sending a PM to the mod for review of a banning exactly the same as reporting a post?

Yes....

dunno, is it?

I do admit the current system isn't completely right, although I do understand why.

Firstly there are only about three people that can Ban here at sciforums, The administrator and two super-moderators. As for the rest of the moderators, we can only edit/delete posts in the areas we are assigned. Which makes it awkward when we spot something in a forum like a spam, that could be automatically deleted if we had access.

The main reason for the low number of people with banning ability is mainly a trust issue, the more people with the ability the more chance for it to be wrongfully abused.

The problem with having so few a numbers that can ban as well is the fact that they are blamed for peoples banning. They get blamed by the person thats banned and those people that supported the person that was banned. In all there are people that treat them like evil incarnate because they attempt to keep the forums operational and bareable to all those that frequent it. (It's actually a tough job when it's voluntary to take such stick)

I've admittedly mentioned to the moderators the potential for a new system and it uses most of the current softwares capabilities. Previously we'd (the people on sciforums) had discussed the usage of "Reputation" which comes with the Vbulletin Software. The problem with it is that if people do their group coordinated attacks on people they don't like, they tend to run them off the forums. In essence the system is very "Mob rule" orientated.

My suggestion was to allow the system just for the Moderators and Super-Moderators (Admin is obviously default). This would mean that even if a moderator doesn't have access to edit or delete a post in a forum they are not assigned, they could still post a negative reputation when it comes to spam (and perhaps more).

At certain levels of negative reputation, a user could be moved to different groups which constrict their access. It could be possible to cover Temporary and Permenant bans in this manner.

Using such a system would mean that posts could be dealt even when the supermods with ban power aren't available.

Very democratic.

Where can I vote to end democracy?

I think a better method would be to show a small meter or gauge that records a member's "buddy" to "ignore" ratio. If more members have TheVisitor on "ignore" than assigned as a "buddy," it would indicate a "credibility" ration or Karma guage or something.

Might encourage those that are worried about their image (most kooks are, hence their status-seeking tendencies) to post more carefully and with less spam. It would also encourage more members to simply ignore the kooks -without their attention, they would go away without a ban being needed.

You've shown your hand too soon. I know you are secretly planning to overthrow me. I anticipated this. In a moment you will hear a knock at your door...........

I heard the knock on the door. Too bad the door is covered with fast acting poison. And if that doesn't get you. The shotgun attached to the door and which I heard firing behind the door probably did. I just received a complaint from the apartment manager about the spilled brainmass on the hallway walls. Needless to say I had him arrested. And his family.

The dictator is dead, long live the dictator.

I would still like to be the executioner, if the position is available. I'm even willing to do some light handyman work around your magnificind palace doing times of little to no executions.

How ever i'm scandinavian as you well know and I demand all the benefits i have become so accustomt to, on top of that I also want some of those hawaii'en chicks in those hawaii'en skirts serving drinks now and then. Executing people is hard work you know.

I heard the knock on the door. Too bad the door is covered with fast acting poison. .I always delegate. I guess Happeh never will return now. (Although, I am puzzled. Where would the brains have come from?)

I always delegate. I guess Happeh never will return now. (Although, I am puzzled. Where would the brains have come from?)

Perhaps it wasn't brains, perhaps it was some other similarly coloured substance, which having never found release during his short life, had filled the vacant space that a brain normally occupies.

Even monkeys have brains. Maybe he had a brain, but it never folded.

Isn't sending a PM to the mod for review of a banning exactly the same as reporting a post?

Yes....
*sigh*

You skimmed, and consequently you missed important details.


What if there was a function where people could click a report button, and instead of sending a message to the mods, it would add a vote for banning them, and once someone had say 10 votes, they would automatically get banned for 1 day, and the mods would be PMed and asked to review it.
That is, spammers would be automatically banned so that they couldn't just keep on spamming. That's more than a simple report being sent.

im a fan of skinwalker's idea.
a "status" bar, based on:
1. number of posts
2. votes garnered by that particular user, from other members
3. how long the user has been a sciforums member (retroactively, of course)

'elijiah the greatest' has now made 15 duplicate threads. my method would allow for them to banned at this point by the users, so that a mod could deal with it when they log on, as there arent any online now.

:m:

usinging the report function would allow the mods to see elijahs post when they come online and take appropriot actions aswell.

usinging the report function would allow the mods to see elijahs post when they come online and take appropriot actions aswell.
But only the method outlined in this thread would stop the problem right when it starts.

Banning should stay with the mods. There would be too much temptation for the majority to use their "power" to squelch the minority voice. Not that the minority voice is always or even frequently correct, but they still have the right to a voice.

If its a matter of spam, use the report function and ignore the user. Easy as pie.

Siknwalker
Why ban anyone everyone can stick up for themself in here.

You've obviously not read the thread or at least haven't comprehended what I've written in this thread. I'm in agreement that "bans" should be limited.

SkinWalker hi,
never said you did.

SkinWalker, am i still on your ignore list?

:D

It's a fun idea I think :D

Also, I want to be minister of truth and education :l

Youv'e come to the wrong place then!! :)

no keep it to the mods otherwise then you could have mob power

I want mob power!

I want to be king of the mob, just you watch me!