A Closer Community

WHOEVER DENIED THIS IS AN ASSHOLE. IT WASN'T EVEN CONSIDERED FOR A FULL DAY. PUT IT FUCKING BACK YOU COMMUNIST BASTARDS.


This may seem like a bogus suggestion, but hear me out. It could actually prove to be quite beneficial to both Sythe.org and its members.

Often we have suffered at the hands of an idiot, a troller, a faggot, etc. We the people endure them until they fuck up and are banned/leave. This grows tiring, and often the community is left divided, breaking rules as they insult the people not liked, they attack, etc.

It's no doubt that we do not like people who push our limits.

I'm not saying just those in our SPAM forum, I'm saying all over the forums, these kinds of people roam. They don't care for other people, they don't care about the forums, and they're basically just assholes here to waste our time (more so).

So lets have ban referrals !

I figure, if 5 different people provide like 10 reasons why a particular member should be banned, a vote should be started in the staff lounge for the staff to vote on a banning. Ranging anywhere from 2 weeks to permanent.

The forum for this would be private, you could only see posts you make, and replies by staff members, everything else wouldn't appear. That way no one knows you suggested them for banning, and no one gets upset/hacks someone etc.


Of course this system can be abused, but I think referral banning for staff members to make the decision would be a great way to clean up some of the filthy people who plague our threads.


They aren't technically breaking the rules, but if they don't wanna contribute properly, or they constantly annoy and piss off members, no reason why they should remain in the community.


For instance, back during my conspiracy days, if you had had something like this, you could have banned me without cause as it was a majority vote, sort of like a form of democracy.... that works.

There would have to be at least more than one person reporting another person, so it doesn't become a scammer report fest, and it can't be for any reasons like breaking the rules and such. After the information is compiled, it's put in the SL for discussion/voting. Majority vote wins, user then is sentenced to whatever term deemed necessary by an admin.

I'd say the number of votes would persuade harsher/lighter sentences. For instance, if it's a ban by +1 majority, then make it a 2 week ban, if it's unanimous, then permanent... etc.


It's kinky, but sexy.

 

iSupport <3

EDIT: There would have to be a new group of people controlling this "Ban Mods" lol

EDIT x2: A community is a group of people. If you want the community to last, the people must understand each other. When there are newfags in the place, there you have chaos. I believe you got the idea.

 

I really like this idea. Thank you. I'm sick of all these idiotic forum-goers, that are just here to please themselves. This is a forum. A community where we share ideas, not a place to flame and yell at each other.

I feel if we rid the forums of these types of people, it would be a much better place.

 

I thinks it's pretty genius, but I think it'd take a little more than a referral from five people, seeing as how a gang of people could just try to get someone banned because they simply don't like them. However, if that were the case, it probably wouldn't go through with staff. In short, you have my support.

 

/agree

Its not just new people that are fags, though.

 

Well, the referral is simply to tell the staff that the members do not like that person. They'd have to provide instances in which they are not benefiting the community, and are creating chaos (without breaking the rules). After a bit, the reports would be seen, and then the staff votes. Us normies don't have a say in who gets banned, we just tell the staff we aren't enjoying ourselves because of a certain person.


Lets do an example, and it's completely bogus for a reason :

Lets say Shredderbeam goes on a tangent about how much he hates God, and blah blah blah. Several religious people report him, after a bit, the staff takes the report, votes, and if deemed ban worthy, or disturbing the community, the proper action is taken.


Of course you can't report a staff member, that's what feedback is for, but that was just an example.

 

So basically 5w33t p00p3r should kiss his ass good bye?

 

If the staff deems him unwanted by all of the community, then unfortunately .

 

I agree. Weed out the people that nobody likes.

It's not like this site has a constitution or anything, they aren't protected against "unfair banning"

One flaw would be the voting off of seasoned members. I can name a few other respected and well known members that would like to see me banned.

It's a good system, but some people should have immunity.

 

In my opinion, a good addition would be that you can basically cancel someones referral out. By this I mean if someone says that, lets say, 5w33t p00p3r should be banned, I could say I don't think he should, and then that one referral towards 5w33t wouldn't count. That might kinda defeat the purpose of staff voting, but whatever.


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 6 (6 members and 0 guests)
duopperi, Billyy, eias, jebadiah the wise man, orlando_jordan, shakaka

Oh, hello there, orlando. Are you shaking in your boots yet?

 

Not immunity, persay, but respectability with higher regards and considerations. No one is above the rules, except Sythe, so unless you get Sythe to say you're immune, you're not immune ^.^.


Do remember, that there has to be SEVERAL reports which prove you to be a bad contributor to the community, and THEN there is a vote.

Again, that wouldn't work. Because regular members can't see nominations for removal. It's not beyond a dispute/apology, but it'd simply be a quick way to get a message across. If someone returns after a ban, and AGAIN receives several nominations, you can guarantee they won't be allowed back after a second time. Sweet will just have to not be such an ass to the wrong people.


But again, remember, it's not for rule breaking offenses. Those merit their own infractions. This is simply a way for us to get rid of the bad apples.

 

The system could get abused, but I agree.

 

I think it's a good idea and a bad idea at the same time,
I'm pretty sure it would clean the forums as you said,but most filthy people as far as i know can't be bothered to post who referred them to this site,so they wouldn't post it,but normal people would post it sometimes,so i don't see the big deal of this suggestion.

 

I think you misread.

Indeed, however, the staff being the ones to vote will clearly revoke any potential for abuse. Ultimately, the decision rests with the administrators, not anyone lower. Therefore, bogus reasoning will simply be tossed out.

 

Oh,sorry but english is my third language,what do you mean by this then?

 

We tell the staff who we think is bad for the community, and they vote whether or not they should be removed amongst themselves.

 

I think this is a good idea, but I don't think the staff can be bothered to maintain it. Look at the reports they have to deal with already, spam and scam. There are 14 pages of scam reports and 8 pages of spam reports to be dealt with right now. Do they really need something else to moderate?