The Rule About Discussing Bans...

Should be removed.

http://sythe.org/showthread.php?t=519526

That entire thread has people discussing bans all over, moderators providing information, etc. While I understand it could be 'kept' to this thread, allowing a spam forum thread for well known banned members should not be frowned upon. They're usually locked quickly when no harm is coming from discussing it in detail.

For instance: http://sythe.org/showthread.php?t=1034800

A thread like that would garner a lot of posts because of how many people knew him, and such. While I would agree to removing posts that seem to question decisions made, discussing the bans themselves should not be something prevented. Yes, it's none of our business... but why stop us from talking about ex-members? Threads like those will usually get posts like "I miss him" or "He was a cool guy" etc. We're not FORCING you to tell us something, and if people start getting heated... just delete/infract/goaway.

If they're kept to the spam forum, I see them as at least something conversational.

To top off my point, I browse the spam forum only, in general, and so if anyone leaves sythe, gets demoted, gets banned, etc... that's where I look, and I'm sure that's where 3/4ths of everyone else does as well. No harm will come from leaving these threads alone, and more importantly they provide a dedicated thread to lost members. I know if I were banned (again) at some point... I would appreciate the fact that it was noticed enough to garner a full self-titled thread... rather than 2-3 posts in a 190 page thread amongst other people who no one gives a shit about...

So, /rant. (sorry was so long, didn't intend for that, just making the points and such).

 

Agree completely. I really don't see the point in having rules against ban discussion (especially in the spam forum). Spam forum has been taken way too seriously lately IMO.

 

Well, I've grown accustomed to it, but I wouldn't mind seeing it removed. Support.

 

i'll support this, they getting to siriues

 

I also support, Although its obviously there for a reason, may someone tell me why?

 

I agree with it to an extent. Sometimes bans cannot be discussed publicly because of an ongoing investigation (don't understand why we keep it private, surely if the public knew it could result in further proof being shown) and the staff do not like information posted. In some cases, when it is all speculation, we can only lock in order to prevent further tarnishing of a potentially innocent user. Discussing bans isn't allowed, and should stay that way. Finding out reasons is a whole different thing though.

 

The only reason people discuss them is because they disagree with them or they want to know why. The threads that are like "LULZ this guy got banned!" really do not count as discussion. There is absolutely no reason to disallow these discussions at all.

 

With potentially inaccurate information, their arguments count for very little.

 

no they can discuss all they want in that thread

 

So you're saying the idea is to censor discussion simply for the banned members benefit?

The problem with that is the existence of the thread I posted which completely nulls your point in which bans are discussed quite often. They may only be asking why and where they went, but I see a multitude of posts answered by the same globals that lock ban discussion threads which involve discussing a ban after the information has been provided.

We aren't staff members, we aren't releasing secretive information, and we aren't trying to tarnish the banned members status. Almost all of the threads created about banned members involve asking why they are banned, RIP threads, or something of that like.

There's absolutely no valid reason to prevent those posts. The only people who complain about them are the banned members who don't want to be talked about when they can't reply... To which I'd reply... you're banned so you have no say >.>. Everything else... yeah =/. Pointless rule, to sum it up.

 

If the discussion is simply for the sake of discussion, agreed. However if a ton of people start to discuss it in the sense that they complain about the result of the decision, then that wont really be permitted. But if a thread pops up about it in the spam forum, wouldnt really matter imo.

 

I agree with Nate, it should only be for the discussion of someones ban. But to the limit that it should not contain people debating if the bans warranted or not.

If its just good ol jolly chit chatting, there shouldn't be a problem.

 

Most of these do pop up in the spam forum. And what's wrong with questioning a decision made in regards to someones ban? I mean, if civil unrest doesn't occur over the matter, I understand... but basically the rule exists to stop us from 'doubting' a decision made.

You of all would understand how limiting discussion and preventing a disagreement is a bad idea .

If it gets out of hand, take care of it then... but don't prevent threads in the spam forum from discussing bans and ban decisions... ^.^.

 

The users can not tell the staff that they are wrong? That doesn't even make sense. Whats the harm? If I were to make a thread saying that Syed's ban is not justified (which it isn't) what is going to happen? Nothing of importance, so why does it matter?

 

You are correct, nothing would happen. So why allow pointless discussion which is conducive only to bitching and complaining when those efforts could be better spent furthering the site?

 

Let's see...

http://sythe.org/forumdisplay.php?f=237
http://sythe.org/forumdisplay.php?f=324
http://sythe.org/forumdisplay.php?f=527
http://sythe.org/forumdisplay.php?f=210


Those forums are hubs for bitching and complaining threads... Honestly, 3/4ths of the forum contains pointless discussion. Another thing... the Spam forum is there for threads like that. Why limit them? If I want to complain about my day, my fiancee, my life... or someone banned on Sythe... I see no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to simply because it does not follow the decisions made by the staff.

I'm not screaming corruption here, btw, because I honestly don't believe it's something that people have investigated thoroughly enough to make a corrupt decision. While you raise valid points, Nate, I would ask where the productivity of the Spam forum is if its not to let loose. Not only that, but members that most people don't give a shit about don't have threads made about them when they're banned. Only members that people know are talked about.

Not to mention, spam forum threads are like a hub of information. I mean, I didn't know Brendan was banned for like a week because there was no spam forum thread on him when I browsed. That first page usually contains up to date hot sythe topics. That's where the community rests, and everything is known. Hell, the spam forum MAKES the community. 9/10s of the staff were spam forumers at one point or another. It's the activity of that section and that section alone which creates this forums importance.

Sure, the market has the numbers. Yes, the website COULD exist on the market alone. However, there would be no community without the group of people that make up these "pointless discussions".

 

You do realize I supported your notion to allow discussion of it in the spam forum right

 

Yes, I did . I was debating your other points about where a discussion should lead and all that jazz ^.^.

E: Sry, btw, it's 3 a.m., I just closed, and now I'm working again, so I iz tired . So my rant can be ignored as a general random spout of deaconess pls. thx.

 

I agree to an extent

--------------
off topic
What the fuck is up with this?
http://sythe.org/member.php?u=277340
Thought multiple accounts = ban?

 

http://sythe.org/showthread.php?t=981577

Special treatment, bro.