Time for a semi-general pardon (unbanning banned members)? (Page 5/11)
Raydar MAY 22, 06:15 PM

quote
Originally posted by IMSA GT:
...
The contributing members who were worth a damn to the Fiero world all left on their own accord. They weren't banned. People like Madcurl, Troyboy, Infinite Will, and Bloozberry all left because they chose not to deal with the dickheads on here who DON'T get banned.




This. Exactly.

Edit - Since you asked...
(At least) two of the people who were banned were NOT banned due to "popular (or unpopular) demand" - aka "ratings", but due to some indiscretion that was invisible to the rest of us. They have mostly green bars, still visible to this day.

One was accused of "spamming in PMs". (I wonder how that works, but obviously I can't see that), and the other just got into a shouting match with the admin. THAT one seemed particularly petty, as the person in question was one of the most gentle, polite people I have ever known.

Just observations. Sorry. You did ask.

[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 05-22-2020).]

Skatulaki MAY 23, 01:08 AM
I wasn't around here long enough to witness any banning, or any banning of someone I might have had rapport with !

However my personal opinion is this: Banning to me is the same as Bullying! Who do you side with? The Bully/Banner, or the Bullied? In the USA , we have a First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech, If you have some people who can't get along to well, rather than ban them, move them into a "Romper Room" until they have agreed to settle their differences. Banning does not settle anything!

No I'm not some snowflake, I grew up the runt, and had to pop a few bullies in the mouth to earn respect!
jonrev MAY 23, 02:24 AM

quote
Originally posted by Skatulaki:

If you have some people who can't get along to well, rather than ban them, move them into a "Romper Room" until they have agreed to settle their differences. Banning does not settle anything!




Tried and tested, it doesn't work.
Cliff Pennock MAY 23, 05:59 AM

quote
Originally posted by jscott1:

With all due respect, I believe the ad revenue in T/OT has blinded you to how vile it has become



I have no idea where my ad revenue is coming from. That's not something I keep track of. Either way, ad revenue has never been a consideration in how/why/what I moderate or which section to keep or close for that matter. I simply do not believe in not allowing certain topics do be discussed. If people want to discuss politics or religion, that's perfectly fine with me. TO/T will never go way because it serves a purpose in the PFF community. I might make a few small changes so that political/religious threads can be avoided more easily by those who do not want to see them.

But again, TO/T will never go away. And not because of ad revenue since I have absolutely no clue what ad revenue is for TO/T (nor have I actually ever cared). I *am* curious now, but only because you mentioned it and because now I'm curious if there's any section that pulls in more ad revenue than others.

As for "how vile it has become", that's a broad statement for the entire TO/T section. AFAICS, most of the threads are perfectly fine. And indeed, only the political threads get very heated. But really, nobody is forcing anyone to read those threads.
Cliff Pennock MAY 23, 06:05 AM
PS: I just checked and I have no idea how I can see where ad revenue is coming from. Anyone familiar with AdSense?
Cliff Pennock MAY 23, 06:35 AM
A lot of people don't realize they can actually disable politics and religion:



On idea I have been toying with for some time now is to disable politics and religion by default. Someone has to explicitly turn those sections on to see political and religious threads.

Also, mislabeled threads (so marking a political thread as "general") would then be cause for immediate deletion of the thread. Threads that start out as non-political/non-religious and turn political/relegious will be moved to the appropriate section.

And lastly, this:



Use it, people. I get a lot of complaints I hardly moderate anything but apparently nobody can be bothered to click that button if they see something that needs moderation. So far this year, a post was reported only 8 times. And only by the same three members (you know who you are, and thanks for making an effort!).
sourmash MAY 23, 08:35 AM
Have there never been vacations, meaning temporary bans?
How many people are banned that you've considered allowing to return?
Cliff Pennock MAY 23, 08:52 AM

quote
Originally posted by sourmash:

How many people are banned that you've considered allowing to return?



None. So far I haven't considered anyone yet.
Quadfather MAY 23, 10:12 AM
Putting an expiration date on negative ratings is a good idea. Old negative ratings should not haunt someone for years.

As for T/OT, if you don’t like what’s posted there, don’t visit it. Instead of asking Cliff to moderate the content or remove the whole section, you can address the situation yourself by not reading the posts.
IMSA GT MAY 23, 10:38 AM
As I mentioned earlier, no need to change anything. I can give you an example of how members that were banned already have new accounts on here anyway.

Right now we have a member in the O/T who has had 4 different accounts on here in the past. Each one of his accounts was banned due to poor attitude, arguing, insulting, and also he posted the same car under each account which pretty much gave him away. Currently, he rarely posts in the O/T but is still present and has a ratings bar that is doing ok.

My point is that people simply create new accounts to replace their banned accounts.

If you want to do something helpful, run a script on the server that auto-deletes accounts that have not been logged into for over a year. Then the existing rating bars will change and be accurate once those dead accounts are off the server.

[This message has been edited by IMSA GT (edited 05-23-2020).]