I think there should be more forum input into banning.
Obviously not too much - not even a controlling vote, since that is dangerous - but something.
The response yesterday was sluggish - for an event we all knew was coming, banning the visiting whackjob.
As a result two valued members were insulted and the forum was bitterly disappointed by the mods for not indulging us a little sooner.
There is nothing in the Rules about forum input on banning or removing people who are disruptive - but there is also nothing about a three strikes rule.
If we are going to impliment this new three strikes policy - I think one of those strikes should be based on what the forum wants to happen. I realize there is a danger here to remove people we disagree with or just don't like, but if the mods control the other 2 strikes that shouldn't be a problem and at least [i]the forum[/i] has an opportunity to make a direct impact - rather than having to resort to an unorganized attack campaign. - Which I and all the members will happily resort to again should a similar situation arise.
Up until now this really hasn't been a problem since whenever an inappropriate comment was made - it was equally obvious to the mods and the forumites what needed to be done - banning or removing posts. But yesterday demonstrates that unfortunately the forum and the mods are not necessarily always aligned.
Basically a lot of us felt ignored by the mods for a little while there - before Admin and certainly Ed signed on. I think we were expecting a more traditional reaction like Sajid's than the new mod's three strikes too late policy.
Incidentally - Admin mentioned that mods cannot ban.
Why then, was the mod on duty "PhantomMod" talking about 3 strikes?
What tools are available to Mods, that could have been used on the third strike?
[b]I can not ban. I also presume neither of the Mod's can ban, not even TheRevivalEditor. That job lies solely in the hands of the Administrator. The 'PhantomMod' i think was giving 3 strikes as a way of warning (albeit a fictional rule with no precendence). As moderators, we can only edit and delete posts. Yesterday, no-one could ban the member until Admin came online ---------------- NewModOnTheBlock[/b]
Very peculiar subject. Maybe more senior members should be promoted to mods; the benefit with this idea is wont have to relay on handful of dedicated brothers and sisters to clean up the mess (once upon a time I was going promoted to a Mod on Mpac- oh it’s true) I assume ManfromSam was the first example and hopefully the last person who engulfs this forum with his thrifty tongue. On MD forum majority of the members are well behaved and pleasent
, Mashallah, It must be their innocence (age).
So what did the mod have in mind at the end of the three strikes?
three more?
There had to be some punitive measure at his disposal to impliment the idea otherwise he was just playing a very disappointing game of chicken.
From what I uderstanbd, the Mod was trying to buy time by pretending it had some powers that could be enforced.
Soon the mods WILL have the powers.The limbo idea does not seem to have worked out so far... but I have a coupke pf things up my sleeve.
However first I am working on the newsblog...
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.