this would be a handy option..some ppl keep coming back and are a pain in the ass up until the moderators do something about it (which can often take a fair while if the things they're doing aren't majorly serious offenses...most union leaders want their unions to be open to everyone really...
this would be a handy option..some ppl keep coming back and are a pain in the ass up until the moderators do something about it (which can often take a fair while if the things they're doing aren't majorly serious offenses...most union leaders want their unions to be open to everyone really...robbristow
yea I agree cuz some people just keep coming back even after you kick them outta your union
It's been proposed by countless users before, but the thing that keeps this from being done is the other side of the same argument. Being that unions are supposed to be publically viewable content and such, and that denying people the right to see and participate in a public place is infringing on rights and stuff... I personally don't quite agree with that, seeing as how misconduct should really override any "rights" these users are entitled to. It's the same power the moderators have... while they act based on violations, it eventually comes to an arbitrary, subjective decision to actually go through with it. So it's all the same either way. However, this is necessary to a point because mods have had to babysit union leaders in handling their insignificant troublesome users countless times, when it could've been solved by the leader themselves if they had the power to ban that user from that specific union.
[QUOTE="dbz345"]It's been proposed by countless users before, but the thing that keeps this from being done is the other side of the same argument. Being that unions are supposed to be publically viewable content and such, and that denying people the right to see and participate in a public place is infringing on rights and stuff... I personally don't quite agree with that, seeing as how misconduct should really override any "rights" these users are entitled to. It's the same power the moderators have... while they act based on violations, it eventually comes to an arbitrary, subjective decision to actually go through with it. So it's all the same either way. However, this is necessary to a point because mods have had to babysit union leaders in handling their insignificant troublesome users countless times, when it could've been solved by the leader themselves if they had the power to ban that user from that specific union. i believe that if there is misconduct in the union caused by certain users then they should have such rights taken from them...there is one thing if theis is implemented tho...there needs to be a way to unban users as well really just in case a leader accidentily bans someone that they didn't mean to...or alternatively i guess there could just be a pop up window asking if they want to or not...
Yes of course, because obviously a user can choose to change their ways, and then leader should have a way to undo their previous action when giving said user another chance. Either way, my point really does stay: a leader should have the power to keep out misbehaving members, even if some conditions have to be met for a continued banning (either some kind of a approval of a moderator to make the "ban" last more than a few days to prevent abuse).
Yes of course, because obviously a user can choose to change their ways, and then leader should have a way to undo their previous action when giving said user another chance. Either way, my point really does stay: a leader should have the power to keep out misbehaving members, even if some conditions have to be met for a continued banning (either some kind of a approval of a moderator to make the "ban" last more than a few days to prevent abuse).dbz345
The idea behind UCBs/Unions not getting ban powers for their particular domains is that for someone to do something suspension or ban worthy in there, then it'll be something worth being banned/suspended from the entire community for. Basically, if a person is causing some real trouble in a union that the leader/admin can't handle, then he/she asks us for help, since the union/UCB is still bound by the overall Terms of Use. In any case other than this, it's likely just either a personal dispute or "I don't like this person, he's banned!", which is hardly a bannable offense... that's why even among the mods, only about 6 of us can actually ban. All of that aside, one point that stands out is one that others have already mentioned. Union officers/leaders and UCB mods/admins have been getting all power-hungry lately and either going on modding sprees just to show off or getting power hungry to the extent that even the Gamespot mods have been modded just for posting in "our domain" as one person put it (needless to say that whole thing didn't go over well). There are just too many bad eggs out there for GS to trust people with banning abilities, even if it only exists within someone's UCB or Union.
[QUOTE="hoop_hard"][QUOTE="Dracula68"]Normal users with a ban option? Very bad idea! There are already enough problems cause UCB mods have too much power.TSP99
What does UCB stand for?
Hello,
I think it means User Created Board
-TSP99
Correct. I don't think a ban option should be included for some of the reasons stated, even if the powers are restricted to the UCB/Union.
[QUOTE="Dracula68"]Normal users with a ban option? Very bad idea! There are already enough problems cause UCB mods have too much power.hoop_hard
Hello,
:|
huh? :?
I thought that this Idea was leaders or/and Officers to ban users from unions, not the site.
-TSP99
Trust me, Dracula is right. Some people on this site are crazy. Take what mud1234 did to Liquid Designs for instance. It's too risky. What did he do?He had been recently made the leader of Liquid Designs, one of the more noteworthy banner/sig/avatar/etc unions on GS. One of the members was running a contest, and mud wanted to be on the judging committee, even though the judges had already been picked for a while. When he didn't get his way, he started deleting a whole bunch of threads in that union, destroying years of hard work that people had put into it. His justification was that it was "his union, so he can kill it if he wants to." He was indefinitely suspended with the option of coming back, but he never bothered to talk to an admin, last I checked. Long story short, it was a case of poor judgment on the part of the previous leader, but it doesn't change the fact that Leaders/UCB admins already have the ability to cause some major problems for people if they're not responsible.
[QUOTE="MAILER_DAEMON"]The idea behind UCBs/Unions not getting ban powers for their particular domains is that for someone to do something suspension or ban worthy in there, then it'll be something worth being banned/suspended from the entire community for. Basically, if a person is causing some real trouble in a union that the leader/admin can't handle, then he/she asks us for help, since the union/UCB is still bound by the overall Terms of Use. In any case other than this, it's likely just either a personal dispute or "I don't like this person, he's banned!", which is hardly a bannable offense... that's why even among the mods, only about 6 of us can actually ban. All of that aside, one point that stands out is one that others have already mentioned. Union officers/leaders and UCB mods/admins have been getting all power-hungry lately and either going on modding sprees just to show off or getting power hungry to the extent that even the Gamespot mods have been modded just for posting in "our domain" as one person put it (needless to say that whole thing didn't go over well). There are just too many bad eggs out there for GS to trust people with banning abilities, even if it only exists within someone's UCB or Union. I'm totally in agreement with MAILER_DAEMON. This topic comes up every few month and I've talked about it before. In the future there may be a way to restrict membership in a union, but if the union has an open forum board, unless the user has been banned/suspended on the whole site, they'll still be able to participate. Of course if they are being disruptive, you can always report them to the moderators/admins and they will take appropriate action.
you know you can easily solve this problem by making your Union by application or invitation only. If any user starts trouble and break the rules, just kick him/her out and she/he won't be able to post in your Union.
you know you can easily solve this problem by making your Union by application or invitation only. If any user starts trouble and break the rules, just kick him/her out and she/he won't be able to post in your Union.Gallego
yer that's true, alot of leaders dnt like doing that for some reason tho...despite it only really being necessary for a moderate period of time...they won't keep trying to get into the union forever.. still..being able to prevent specific users from getting into the union for whatever reason would be helpful...at present kicking someone from a union is often not as effective as it should be at dealing with a problematic user...
Log in to comment