Is banning worth it? - Page 4
Forum Index > General Forum |
Lemonwalrus
United States5465 Posts
| ||
L!MP
Australia2067 Posts
| ||
Physician
United States4146 Posts
- anyway the main problem with banning is not with banning itself.. banning is nothing more than just one more forum moderation tool.. the real problem with banning is with its application: if you have a retard moderator, banning will always be a negative influence on the forum and will only hurt the forum in the long run etc.. banning is as good or as bad as the moderator's wisdom and criteria doing the banning.. (in fact good moderators usually moderate by setting a higher example and tend to avoid banning unless left with no other option). | ||
rei
United States3593 Posts
On October 24 2008 04:01 Fumanchu wrote: the only reasons i can see now to ban someone is because of power, spite, and to set an example. the only problem is setting an example is not needed. the people on this site who want to continue posting, and continue to get a good reputation with their posting aren't going to throw that away with a bannable post. they already know the norm of what is acceptable. and the people that get banned usually know why they got banned and don't give a care. i've never heard of someone being emotionally crushed because they were banned from something. The reasons you listed Power, by power do you mean admin power? you are saying one of the reason is because the admins have the power to ban people therefore they just ban without a reason? spite, by spite do you mean emotionally attached to someone's words over the internet? and then use that admin power to repair the hurted feelings? set an example, so that others will never post anything that cause emotional "spite" toward the admins? I see a correlation between all three of the reasons you gave, and since you said the ONLY reasons meaning you base on these reasons to create your 3000 banned people on dota. which your yourself is the role of admin in your dota banlist. This correlation between all three of your reasons for banning people provided that you are acting in the role of admin, which is "IT IS ALL ABOUT YOURSELF " and you dare use your self-fish reasons to compare to teamliquid admins'? Your hypocrisy knows no bounds, you don't care about all the thousands who were banned before you because they are not "emotionally crushed", it's all about yourself (maybe you are emotionally crushed?). you made this post after you got banned and try to show the admins that you can still post here, so why bother banning. Did I get it right? let me guess your possible response to my post: 1) you flame along the lines of me = stupid 2) ignore my post 3) attempt to construct a sound argument and have a manner debate I'm guessing it's either 1 or 2. prove me wrong plz | ||
The Storyteller
Singapore2486 Posts
If your main point is that anyone can get around a ban, that is true. But it takes a lot of effort to keep finding a new IP to make a new account, more than most people would take just to be jerks. | ||
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
| ||
pyrogenetix
United Arab Emirates5090 Posts
banning takes away the incentive to post useless things. with the stream of new-comers and a lot of chan people too i think, banning helps keep the sanity of TL. | ||
Manowarrior
United States159 Posts
Bah, didn't know I made a 100th post. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28263 Posts
Fumanchu (Original Post): FYI-- Unsure of what the point was about your wc3/dota banlist--disregarding. You say banning on TL seems pretty pointless because they can still post. [This logically says, the point of banning is to stop them from posting--if it does not do this, then it does nothing.] Following this, you conclude that there must be some point to banning [right] when you try to look for what the point could be. You list several potential points then shoot them down. However, with this approach you will never prove it is pointless, only that we know no point of it (but there may still be one, yet undiscovered). This is where your post goes. You say these are the only reasons you can think of [assuming you are inviting others to propose others if they know them]: power, spite, and to set an example. FYI To be honest I can't follow the connection between the sentences in your third paragraph. I do not see clearly what you mean by power; and if I analyze it a bit, spite seems to be a pretty empty saying too--they are angry so they ban you. That's a description of the emotion, not the reason or purpose or "point." When you are angry, say you swing a bat at someone. The point is to destroy them, in such a case. You believe the bat does something--it's not pointless. So you see how "spite" to me does not seem to describe the real "point"--the point is that you believe the result will happen, the point is the intended result--i.e., making someone lose the ability to post on their account, having to make a new account [surely you concede that this is what happens from a ban on TL]. Therefore, what you are really saying is that making someone do this whole thing is actually pointless. You are perhaps saying it is negligable, that it does not perform any function for the site. Others have responded that it at least slows down and deters many people; some have said the bans they have witnessed have changed how they posted. It seems to do something, and I have not been convinced that these things the bans clearly do, is pointless. So this is my analysis of your first post. You sound like you are getting tired of banning what seems like an endless army of ban-needing people. I think you know though that there would be a difference if there was no banning at all, despite how hopeless it seems that the banning never does enough. Hope this cheers you up. I'm interested in this conversation BTW because before I was banned from this site, I was someone who frequently adocated the banning of particular members. Since being banned I have come to take a softer stance on banning. But I hardly see it as pointless, which is what this topic is about. It's a death sentence within the universe of this site, at least within the universe of your identity--it would be like if you were in an online political forum and you were Bill Clinton but you couldn't tell anyone, compared to in RL where you can (that's the difference between being banned and not ever being banned)--obviously that matters. --dead man talking | ||
NiGoL
1868 Posts
| ||
meegrean
Thailand7699 Posts
| ||
jjun212
Canada2208 Posts
I got temporary banned for saying "GG no RE" after a post. I have never said that again until now. | ||
Piste
6137 Posts
Of course it is worth it. Even tho you can go and create new account you have to find a new IP, register again, create new nick and set's your post count to 0. At least it is a good punishment and maybe you learn something from it | ||
niteReloaded
Croatia5281 Posts
Because tempbanning is perfectly reasonable. However PERMAbanning is like completely 'imbalanced' to put it that way. It doesn't offer a realistic crime-punishment balance. If you draw a parallel between real life and crime punishments, permaban would be a deathpenalty. Now you name me one thing a person can do on TeH internetz that requires this cyber-TL-deathpenalty. He can't kill(ban) anyone else. He can't take any of your possesions. The only possible reason would be if someone insults someone in a very bad bad way. But we see permabans for to petty reasons like a bad thread made. I'd go exclusively with tempbans, preferably with explanations on why a person got the penalty. Then it's a corrective measure which is what bad posters need. | ||
KwarK
United States40776 Posts
On October 25 2008 00:14 niteReloaded wrote: I'd rename this topic into "Is PERMAbanning worth it?". Because tempbanning is perfectly reasonable. However PERMAbanning is like completely 'imbalanced' to put it that way. It doesn't offer a realistic crime-punishment balance. If you draw a parallel between real life and crime punishments, permaban would be a deathpenalty. Now you name me one thing a person can do on TeH internetz that requires this cyber-TL-deathpenalty. He can't kill(ban) anyone else. He can't take any of your possesions. The only possible reason would be if someone insults someone in a very bad bad way. But we see permabans for to petty reasons like a bad thread made. I'd go exclusively with tempbans, preferably with explanations on why a person got the penalty. Then it's a corrective measure which is what bad posters need. Killing people is wrong because they have a right to life. Permabanning people isn't wrong because they don't have a right to teamliquid. Your analogy fails. This is our house. We can kick people out and stop them coming back in. | ||
niteReloaded
Croatia5281 Posts
Your analogy fails. If this was a house - it'd be an invite-only style forum. | ||
KwarK
United States40776 Posts
On October 25 2008 00:29 niteReloaded wrote: Do you have the doors on your house open so that anyone comes in? Your analogy fails. If this was a house - it'd be an invite-only style forum. Then it's a library. Anyone can come in but if you start being too noisy then they can ban you for the common good. My point is people don't have a right to it. Banning isn't morally wrong. | ||
niteReloaded
Croatia5281 Posts
I'm pretty sure you can get away with pretty much everything untill you start causing some cardinal shit. If you are simply being a naughty boy by talking loudly, you'll be warned at least a few times before any concrete action. --- It's not even about having rights or not. It's about what are you trying to acomplish by permabanning someone. You just want to ban a person out of pleasure? I dont think so. You want him to stop 'behaving' badly. I'm not sure permabanning is the best solution, and just having the permaban button doesn't mean you need to press it just coz you can. | ||
Physician
United States4146 Posts
On October 25 2008 00:24 Kwark wrote: This is our house. We can kick people out and stop them coming back in. It is actually not your house and there is very little "we" going on when it comes to banning. | ||
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
| ||
| ||