"Banned"

[InstrumentalityOne]

This one's simple!

Please bring back the user title "Banned".
People could be banned and nobody would know.

Like how Xard just got a week ban just now

[Mr. Tines]

Setting it is the easy bit; remembering to unflip it when it expires is where the problem comes.

[riffraff11235]

Couldn't a bot be used to handle a task like this?

[CJD]

If it's as simple as remembering to unflip it could always use http://www.futureme.org/ Never used it for long term stuff but I've heard the infamous "2 years later slowpoke" used it.

wb btw IO. Hope your psyche wasn't crushed too much.

[Fireball]

Wait, Xard got banned again?

[Reichu]

Setting it is the easy bit

I'm not sure I would say that. When the forum is acting the way it is, it's just another piece of hassle to potentially get caught behind a 50* error while implementing.

And with most of these bans only lasting 3 days? Even less worth the hassle.

Wait, Xard got banned again?

Heed not the red text and the hammer comes swinging down. While his contributions in Q and Beyond have included some very outstanding stuff recently, it doesn't excuse some of the slop he leaves around for admins for clean up. (Not that he's been the only one, by far, but he's the one you asked about.)

[NemZ]

Yep, the ban hammer has been very active recently.... overactive, I'd say. TBH I'm still a little angry I got hit by it when I was specifically trying not to run afoul of the spoiler policy. There's a lot of resentment over this crap brewing through back channels.

[Reichu]

NemZ: There's no way to make everybody happy. If you're forum staff, you learn that fast enough. I don't enjoy being resented, or having my actions resented, any more than the average non-sociopath, but, well... The bans are pretty small potatoes (3 days? or, less often, a week?), too.

If you weren't trying to run afoul of the policy, great. But how am I supposed to separate your intent from what I have to clean up? More to the point: It was made clear from the start that bans would be issued on a zero tolerance basis. You posted a spoiler (i.e., information not revealed in the materials that we'd OKed, of the sort that the Unsullied would want to be avoiding), and that was that. If you're going to be angry, don't be angry at us.

[child of Lilith]

Lady Luck just isn't smiling on you guys it seems. I, on the other hand, have luck to spare.

You may have some of mine if you like.

[NemZ]

zero tolerance

Is always a retarded policy. Authorities only put that up when they don't want to be held responsible for making stupid decisions.

Clearly we have very different opinions on what is and is not a spoiler, but the ban hammer has been dropping on a lot of people for reasons unrelated to the spoiler policy as well.

[KnightmareX13]

Is always a retarded policy. Authorities only put that up when they don't want to be held responsible for making stupid decisions.

Clearly we have very different opinions on what is and is not a spoiler, but the ban hammer has been dropping on a lot of people for reasons unrelated to the spoiler policy as well.

aye, yer bloody right, the bloomin' modsquad as been exercisin' their dildos a wee bit on the bleedin' frequent side.

[Ornette]

Clearly we have very different opinions on what is and is not a spoiler, but the ban hammer has been dropping on a lot of people for reasons unrelated to the spoiler policy as well.

Yeah, for this: http://forum.evageeks.org/post/574964/Minimizing-the-mess-READ-THIS/#574964

[Reichu]

Authorities only put that up when they don't want to be held responsible for making stupid decisions.

Stupid decisions... like alienating all of the forum-goers who are trying to avoid spoilers, because a small minority of posters just can't help themselves?

Own up to a little responsibility, yourself. If you were the least bit unclear about what constituted a spoiler, you could have played on the safe side, and perhaps, I don't know, used the tags just to be safe, or asked one of us for additional clarity.

aye, yer bloody right, the bloomin' modsquad as been exercisin' their dildos a wee bit on the bleedin' frequent side.

I do like my dildos.

[BobBQ]

aye, yer bloody right, the bloomin' modsquad as been exercisin' their dildos a wee bit on the bleedin' frequent side.

It builds character. Deal with it.

[ZapX]

I'll agree that the admins may have been a little aggressive on the off topic bannings, but the spoiler stuff is there for a reason, and I see where they're coming from. It's just a small, temporary thing to reinforce "be careful you don't do this again". No reason for either side to be all disputatious.

[KnightmareX13]

It builds character. Deal with it.

Oiy ye bloody wanker! are ye daft? Exercisin' dildos does not build character, exercisin' the bloomin' guns builds it.

[riffraff11235]

I don't really see why the definition of "spoiler" is so difficult for people to understand in the first place. It's pretty clear, as is the forum's spoiler policy. If there's a rapidly-growing subforum dedicated to these discussions, what need is there to post that content elsewhere in the first place? Reichu's solution is the simplest one there is: When in doubt, spoiler tag it.

[Fireball]

Well, I think everything is working out good so far. I mean, I'm trying to avoid Q spoilers like the plaque and funnily enough, EGF is about the safest place I can think of at the moment.

[NemZ]

I don't really see why the definition of "spoiler" is so difficult for people to understand in the first place.

Well then, would you consider it a temp-ban worthy spoiler for someone to mention the rather common first name of a minor character, and not even connecting that name to a face or saying anything about what that charecter does in the film?

I mean there's this series called Cowboy Beebop, and there's totally a dude named Bob in there somewhere who has a few lines here and there about things. Gee, guess I ruined it for you completely now, huh? I'm such a bastard, I know.

[UrsusArctos]

Well then, would you consider it a temp-ban worthy spoiler for someone to mention the rather common first name of a minor character, and not even connecting that name to a face or saying anything about what that charecter does in the film?

There are people who would take umbrage at that being revealed, yes. And the trickle of little irrelevant details could easily result in a major spoiler breaking free of the net and wreaking havoc.

If there were a method of say, censoring each and every post until it was evident that each and every one of them were spoiler-free, we wouldn't need temp-bans. Only in that case, we'd have no forum at all. It's a matter of using what tools we have at hand and what tools work at keeping the forum running.