Coventry?

Discussion in 'THE TEMPLE' started by Tephlon, Aug 18, 2005.

  1. Tephlon Active Member

    Some questions

    1) I suspect we'll have to coventry someone eventually.
    Will this happen in the same way (Adding names to the list) or with an anonymous vote? (I prefer keeping it out in the open... If only to remind others)

    2)Also, what are the consequences for putting someone in coventry? (For the one sent there... Blocking, Banning, Moderator supervision?)

    3) As for people we sent to coventry on the old boards but have nevertheless followed us here. Do we keep ignoring them?

    Or, better put, do the coventry rules apply here as they did on the old board?
    Or, as we now have the tools, do we Block or Ban?

    Feel free to add your thoughts.
  2. TamyraMcG Active Member

    Since this is a fresh start for the community I think we could give a fresh start to everybody, if people are troublemakers it is within our power now to deal with them. If they just got caught in the crossfire at the other place they might have a chance at redemption.

    I would say that if you did sign Coventry against a poster you would be well within your rights to ignore them until such time as you could stomach replying to them or they went away.

    It may be a good thing that we establish all procedures early on, but I vote to give peace a chance.
  3. Buzzfloyd Spelling Bee

    Tricky. On the one hand, this is a different board with differeny systems, which makes me think coventry should not apply. On the other hand, it's the same community and the same people who we kept giving chances to before - we haven't had a memory wipe when we moved, and how they behaved is still how they behaved.

    I'd like a response from the gods for this.
  4. Electric_Man Templar

    I don't know whether there will be need for a coventry tactic on here or not. I require more information on what alternatives there are first.

    However, anyone I sent to Coventry previously, will not elicit any response from me. We sent them to Coventry for a reason, and that is that they are a lost cause, they've had enough chances and messed them all up. I see no reason why they would change just because we've all moved.
  5. Roman_K New Member

    Well, regarding the Coventry tactic, we should indeed consider the alternatives.

    Banning is one, but we must have a clear definition for those who deserve to be banned. In some cases, it might be too drastic, but I dunno. As far as spammers and identified trolls go, I believe that banning is the way to go. For the rest I'm a bit unsure.
  6. Rincewind Number One Doorman

    Our coventry was our verison of banning them, we didn't have the power to ban them before but now we do.

    I'm with grace here. For someone to be placed in conventry on the HC board they had to anoy us pretty bad, and ignore multiple warnings and requests to change. Basically, they had to make it clear that they where either unable or unwilling to fit in here.They've already had countless chances.

    Juanty is a perfect example, I'm sure he thinks he wants to fit in. But his avatar here is one that was asked to be removed at the old board. It shows that He is either unwilling or unable to think about his actions in a responsible manner. He didn't think 'oh, on the other board this avatar pissed people off, maybe I shouldn't use it this time'. He doesn't think. I see nothing good to out way the bad.
  7. Buzzfloyd Spelling Bee

    [quote:242de9e142="Rincewind"]Our coventry was our verison of banning them, we didn't have the power to ban them before but now we do.[/quote:242de9e142]
    Yes.

    This is the salient point. Thank you, Rinso.
  8. Roman_K New Member

    [quote:890d7feadc="Buzzfloyd"][quote:890d7feadc="Rincewind"]Our coventry was our verison of banning them, we didn't have the power to ban them before but now we do.[/quote:890d7feadc]
    Yes.

    This is the salient point. Thank you, Rinso.[/quote:890d7feadc]

    I second that.

    On the other hand, I'm inclined to consider something Mal mentioned once. A sort of silent ban, as it were. They can log on and post, but only they actually see their new posts. If it can be done in a way that won't bumb topics, I'm all for it. On the other hand, if they use a single IP, it's better to block that IP for good.

    Which brings my next question. What are we banning, a particular account or a particular computer? For all intents and purposes, banning an IP is far more effective, as new Emails and accounts can be made with relative ease. On the other hand, if a library or school computer is used on a regular basis, some unnecessary fallout can happen. Granted, it's extremely unlikely, but still possible.
  9. Electric_Man Templar

    Could you not just look through their posts and see if the IP is consistent or not? Then we'll know whether blocking an IP is worth it or not.
  10. Maljonic Administrator

    I'm glad someone brought this up; it's kind of what I was thinking about when I started the intitial moderators thread, I'd been thinking about it all night after seeing JA show up and behaving in exactly the same manner as before.

    I agree with Garner's thought on the above thread conscering this subject, including banning the people that have left us because they could no longer get along with us. :)
  11. Electric_Man Templar

    I think if we're planning to ban people, we should get a procedure for banning.

    I suggest a coventry-style vote/petition. If we get a majority, they get banned.

    If we do a poll, we should make it a condition that you post which way you voted for the vote to count. I guess this makes the poll more redundant, but it'll give us a quicker way of assessing the 'score'
  12. Buzzfloyd Spelling Bee

    [quote:9f8b8970fb="Roman_K"]On the other hand, I'm inclined to consider something Mal mentioned once. A sort of silent ban, as it were. They can log on and post, but only they actually see their new posts. If it can be done in a way that won't bumb topics, I'm all for it. On the other hand, if they use a single IP, it's better to block that IP for good.[/quote:9f8b8970fb]
    I don't really see how the effect of this is any different from just banning someone. Why is one preferable to the other?

    Also, what does 'bumb' mean?

    [quote:9f8b8970fb]Which brings my next question. What are we banning, a particular account or a particular computer? For all intents and purposes, banning an IP is far more effective, as new Emails and accounts can be made with relative ease. On the other hand, if a library or school computer is used on a regular basis, some unnecessary fallout can happen. Granted, it's extremely unlikely, but still possible.[/quote:9f8b8970fb]

    Emails should not have taken a capital here. :p I think the point about school and library computers is important.
  13. Ba Lord of the Pies

    Ba thinks Roman is amused by the idea of the trolls posting and not realizing no one else can see them. And he's pretty sure Roman meant "bump."
  14. Buzzfloyd Spelling Bee

    Cross-posted with Ben. Largely, I agree. However, there is a point to be made about majorities. At the moment, our membership is almost entirely active. However, that may not always be the case; think of the member list on the old board!

    Rather than constantly trying to assess the active membership, I think we should set a number of members that must be met on a coventry list to warrant banning, and occasionally review that number.
  15. Maljonic Administrator

    I think if we're going to do it by petition we may as well do it the same way, out in the open, so the banee (is that a word?) can see the WE as individuals don't want to speak to them. We could also have a banlist to refer to in future, perhaps someone might want to start that off with a list from the other boards? Hopefully we wont need it that much though. :)
  16. Buzzfloyd Spelling Bee

    [quote:65a82c76bd="Ba"]And he's pretty sure Roman meant "bump."[/quote:65a82c76bd]
    I think so too, but I'm exacting my Scorpionic revenge.
  17. Maljonic Administrator

    I should also add a couple of options to answer a couple of the original thought:

    When someone is banned we can:

    1. Delete their account, which removes everything they ever posted - good for mindless spammers and probably something that should be done anyway without the need for too much discussion.

    2. Make their account innactive, so all their posts are still on the boards but they can't posts any more after we ban them.
  18. Electric_Man Templar

    [quote:53216f4639="Buzzfloyd"]Cross-posted with Ben. Largely, I agree. However, there is a point to be made about majorities. At the moment, our membership is almost entirely active. However, that may not always be the case; think of the member list on the old board!

    Rather than constantly trying to assess the active membership, I think we should set a number of members that must be met on a coventry list to warrant banning, and occasionally review that number.[/quote:53216f4639]

    Actually I meant to include a bit about "Whatever a majority may be", must've forgot. I blame Kenny for distracting me whilst escaping from Dolphin Lundgren.

    I think a set number would be good. I'd say we have between 30-50 active posters at any given time. So 20-30 might be a good amount.
  19. Buzzfloyd Spelling Bee

    Say 25?

    And Mal, I like those options. I say option 1 for spammers and option 2 for troublemakers.
  20. Roman_K New Member

    [quote:a0f8c224f7="Ba"]Ba thinks Roman is amused by the idea of the trolls posting and not realizing no one else can see them. And he's pretty sure Roman meant "bump."[/quote:a0f8c224f7]

    What Ba said. That, and it keeps said trolls occupied.
  21. Maljonic Administrator

    [quote:2cbe617eea="Electric_Man"]Could you not just look through their posts and see if the IP is consistent or not? Then we'll know whether blocking an IP is worth it or not.[/quote:2cbe617eea]We could try this if they keep coming back, the only trouble with this is that the ip address can sometimes be a whole bank of computers, say at a library - so we'd ban anyone from posting from that particular library or college room or whatever.

    Having said that I have caught people out before on Majonic's Dreams because of their ip address, once it turned out someone's little brother was logging on and saying stupid stuff about his older sister - I asked her if she was the same person because of having the same ip address and she found out what had been happening and he came on and apologised, never to be seen again - so IPs can be useful sometimes. :)
  22. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    Lemme say up front, I've probably missed some relevant posts. I'm trying to catch up on a lot of stuff, and am coming down with a cold at the same time.

    Re: Tamyra's suggestion of a fresh start: Absolutely not. There will be no debate on this subject. We are not a new community, we are the same community with a new website.

    If someone was coventried in the past and shows up here, unless the very first thing they say is "I'm deeply sorry and hope to prove my worth", I'd say instantly ban them. even if they DO post something like that, they should never be given more than one final chance.

    As for banning in the future, I'd say that we need to be flexible on the "majority" of posters simply due to not having consistent member numbers. an anonymous vote should not be used for "coventry", since that is a personal pledge and petition. it has to be done openly. on these boards, we don't need to 'coventry', and can ban outright. for that to happen, some sort of majority is needed.

    I don't think that moderators should carry any more weight than "regular" members, but i do think that people who've been part of the community long enough to be considered 'regulars' ought to have more say than someone who showed up two days before a vote.

    this needs further discussion and consideration, but I'd like to agree that if someone's here to spam us with paypal schemes, we can delete the account outright. if they show up with a discworld ebay auction or whatnot, we ought to give them a warning.

    and of course, if they've been here for a while and we know they're not JUST trying to advertise something, i genuinely think that advertising someting relevant to the boards is not an unforgivable sin.

    beyond the worst of the spammers, i dont think deletion is necessary. our community history is important. we carry a lot of it with us (words in the heart, as it were), and don't need to have a physical (as it were) copy of them, but we shouldn't delete them casually.

    BOTTOM LINE: banning is the new coventry. for a ban to be in place, we need some sort of majority agreement AFTER sufficient warnings and corrective criticism have been attempted.

    sorry if i'm just repeating stuff everyone's already said
  23. Maljonic Administrator

    Okay, so shall we unban Jaunty then seeing as he wants to give it another go; I mean he'll probably just screw things up again but if we tell him to read our rules first, I don't know? :)
  24. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    no, Jaunty screwed up on the new boards already.

    I meant for people like Tony or Silmaril... but, honestly, my PERSONAL opinion is to leave em on block. I don't genuinely think they're that petty, that they might try to screw up our voting or anything (hell, I doubt they even care about us, except that I know silmaril was lurking a few days ago) but I know I certainly am petty enough not to give them the chance.

    If everybody else feels that Jaunty should have a final chance, then I guess we can give him one. As you say, he'll just screw it up, but we DO have to have "FINAL" chances.

    once one reaches the end of cake, there should be no more cake. that's what the END means.

Share This Page