Suggestion for banned members

[AbareMax]

Well, of course that is understandable. Yet, if other members see why they were banned and the reasons, then more than likely the same error will not be repeated. Of course there will be the 15% around here that "just don't get it," and they will still cause problems.

I don't know, I think if they see what went wrong then it won't keep happening over and over. Maybe then, and only then will the forums become a happier and better place to be at ;)

AbareMax

 

[Kylie-chan]

Jorge is right. I disagree with this idea strongly. I have been to "Banland" myself, and I didn't want the fact I'd flamed splashed across the forum. If the person wants to disclose the reason you guys can ask them personally.

AbareMax, what not to do is in the rules, banned people don't have to be made examples just to get that across. These people are the people who didn't read the rules, read the rules if you don't want to be like them.

And it's been PC unwritten law for a long time - don't ask. It's now officially in the rules, so this idea means that rule would have to be scrapped. It's there for a reason.

 

[Spectrum]

If a member is banned and they don't know why they're banned they can just e-mail one of the higher staff and ask.

Well, there's the thing. If you're a friend of a person, you're a lot more likely to have their e-mail/IM address. However, one may use e-mail for contacting their friends and no IM, which would mean that person can't go to a higher staff's profile and e-mail them from there, obviously. Which is why it's probably better to send that person an e-mail, but that's just me.

So what is better: People making a thread about some members ban, or just a little notice in the member's sig?
Which of these things is attractiong more attention?

The former is, but wait. Which attracts more attention - a spam thread, or a non-existing thread? That's my point. Spam threads can't be stopped, and it's the same for ban-questioning threads, so if a member wants to waste their time asking something that won't be answered, that's their choice.

I don't know, I think if they see what went wrong then it won't keep happening over and over. Maybe then, and only then will the forums become a happier and better place to be at ;)

And I'd think that if you asked people to read the entire thread before replying, it wouldn't keep happening over and over, no? Evidently that isn't the case, as you skipped right past my previous post countering that theory. So if that doesn't work, how would your theory?

Thanks Erica~ <3

 

[AbareMax]

Jorge is right. I disagree with this idea strongly. I have been to "Banland" myself, and I didn't want the fact I'd flamed splashed across the forum. If the person wants to disclose the reason you guys can ask them personally.

AbareMax, what not to do is in the rules, banned people don't have to be made examples just to get that across. These people are the people who didn't read the rules, read the rules if you don't want to be like them.

And it's been PC unwritten law for a long time - don't ask. It's now officially in the rules, so this idea means that rule would have to be scrapped. It's there for a reason.

Well, technically speaking not everyone reads the rules that follows them. I haven't read the rules, yet do I run around breaking them? I'm sure the rules are basically common sense, therefore I know how to act.

Now suppose the person being banned read the rules, that doesn't make them any better of a person. The still have just as much a chance of breaking them as someone who didn't read the rules. Case and point.

AbareMax

 

[Ryoutarou]

No, it just means that if a banned person is banned, then they know why they're banned. And every member should read the rules, if they don't then it's their own fault if they end up banned.

 

[Spectrum]

No, it just means that if a banned person is banned, then they know why they're banned. And every member should read the rules, if they don't then it's their own fault if they end up banned.

I've read the rules many times and the reason I thought I was banned is different to the one I was presented with. But eh, you've shut me up.

 

[MegaDitto]

Why was I banned then?(Brittany)

And even if there's a reason, why wasn't I warned via PM/email/etc first? And the repeated sig edits can't be the reason either, because there's no rule against the context within my old sig.

I used no profanity, nor flamed a specific member worthy of being banned without warning.


And incase you're wondering why I made this account, it's because I didn't know where to find PC staff's email addresses without logging in.(couldn't check people's profiles)

This thread says why. https://www.pokecommunity.com/threads/47637

 

[MegaDitto]

No it doesn't. I would like to know the specific reason why I was banned.

If my sig, I would like to know what part of it was against PC rules.
And if my posts, I would like to know why I wasn't allowed to post what I posted. Not because they told me to stop, but the reason of why I should have stopped.

Oh I see.
I agree with pika 2000 idea. Every time there is a member banned and a thread is made. The staff always say's resort it in PM. But they tell anyways. It happens every time. :\

 

[Kurosaki]

Okay, it only ticks me off when members ask why other members are banned, and say it's their business because they're said banned member's friend. In reality, being a friend with said banned person does not make why they were banned your business. However, I have no problem with banned members coming to try and get the facts to why they were banned, which is why I won't reban Brit right now.

 

[Ryoutarou]

Not only that, but Scyther5 was banned in his last posts to defend myself.



Perfect reasoning for banning two innocent members. He might as well just said 'lets all whore the admincp because certain members don't like us!. A good ban will teach them!'

Funny, because that's exactly the situation I put into my sig reasoning why I hate PC staff. And the situtation came upon myself. If the reasoning in my sig was incorrect, then why exactly did it happen to myself?

Does PC staff put themselves into a paradox in which they cannot be correct and resort to banning purposely?

So, more or less you're just saying it's okay for you not to listen to staff if you don't want to.

Scyther5 was banned for not listening to staff, taking a thread offtopic more than once and for being rude in his posts. As for why you were banned, your sig was edited more than once because of the comments in it, I wasn't the one that did it so I wouldn't know really.

 

[ryan]

So, more or less you're just saying it's okay for you not to listen to staff if you don't want to.

Scyther5 was banned for not listening to staff, taking a thread offtopic more than once and for being rude in his posts. As for why you were banned, your sig was edited more than once because of the comments in it, I wasn't the one that did it so I wouldn't know really.

so, more or less you're making acusations that she can't defend because she's banned? scyther5 was pissed off at the staff because they were ganging up on brittany for presenting perfectly legit arguments. his remarks were less than polite, and if he had a problem with the staff he should have put it in community feedback, but in light of said anger, it seems quite reasonable to me that he would lash out in that thread. if PC was a country and it "removed" any citizen who spoke out against it, it would be freakin' fascist or something. i'm pretty sure that what happened there (arguing points logically and standing up for your friends) shouldn't be punished so harshly. you guys already ravaged scyther5's rep, isn't that enough punishment for posting out of place? now this thread is getting off topic...

 

[Chairman Kaga]

I don't want to get heavily involved in this argument, but all I'll say is that I don't blame any of the uppers for being a little trigger happy (if you can even call it that; I personally trust in their responsibility) after all the unnecessary crap that we take from everyone each day. Mod hatred is almost at an all-time high, and it's for no better reason than the members' collective nature to oppose law enforcement; dare I say because it's trendy, and the "lolz anarchy" crowd always comes up in full force after a banning. I suppose you could say that any actions we take are true to life in a sense--people, like Brittany, can be very articulate in the arguments they give for why they should not be punished, but it still does not absolve them of any infractions against the rules. In real life, merit is not given to people based on their level of intelligence but on the black-and-white basis of guilt versus innocence. I do not pretend to know anything in detail about many banning cases, but what I've previously said I know to be true. It's just frustrating that, on top of all the critisism we get for doing routine moddings, when a banning occurs people don't tend to look at them on a case-by-case basis and continually come out delcaring it to be wrong. As a mod, it's very insulting.