The Evil Do-ers thread

[CiB]

Originally Posted by morshem

Atresica explained here the purpose of the thread.

And it is being updated regularly. Since I became a mod, that is (before that it contained like 1 year irrelevant stuff),.

If you remember, what I asked about was not the idea of keeping a record of who is banned, it's why we keep a record of who was banned. And if that information is already availible to moderaters, why do we need to keep it in that thread where everyone can read it?

What I was asking about is why keep records of who was banned for one week three years ago? And Atresica did not explain that in the thread you linked too Morshem. So far, the only answer I've seen to this is for moderaters to see what has happened in the past- but incording to Lightwing you have that information elsewhere, so why have that information in the Evil Do'ers thread?

[Kitarii]

Well, what's wrong with it being there?

[CiB]

Originally Posted by Ricochet

Well, what's wrong with it being there?

Depends on your perspective. In my opinion, unless theres a reason to keep the info there when the moderaters already have it (which I'm yet to see) all the information being there is serving to do is to colour peoples opinions of other people.

There is a direct accusation in the 'now unbanned' bit that OBrasilio "has no idea how to behave on a forum" for soemthing he did two years ago. The thread is stickied, and thus theoreticaly read by everyone. I personaly don't think it's apropriate to have such things said about members who are now behaving themselves. If you were new reading that would affect your opinion of people who have now matured greatly.

[Kobold]

Originally Posted by CiB

The thread is stickied, and thus theoreticaly read by everyone.

O RLY?
Take the System Problems forum as an example, noone ever reads those sticky threads.

[CiB]

Originally Posted by Kobold

O RLY?
Take the System Problems forum as an example, noone ever reads those sticky threads.

That would be why I said "Theoretically read by everyone", as opposed to saying "read by everyone".

[Double-J]

I think the Evil-Doers thread suffices well enough so that we know what happened, who did "it," and why they were reprimanded. The only thing I'd like to do would be, whenever possible, to link to the thread(s) in question, even if some of the content has been removed (as in the case of Anakin). I realize this would be impossible for the spam-bots, but for most others, it would be fine I would think.

[Kitarii]

No intended hostility CiB, but it seems like you're the only person that doesn't approve of it.

[Battler]

- Ricochet: Actually, I agree with CiB. If the Moderators have evidence of the past bans posted elsewhere, then there's no need to have it posted here as well.

Also, some of the descriptions in that thread are written rather too personally, and biasedly, so I agree with CiB on that one as well.

[Kobold]

Originally Posted by OBrasilo

and biasedly

For example...?

[morshem]

Actually, the mods can see who is currently banned, but not who was in the past.

[Battler]

- Kobold: The line, that says, that my second Ban shows yet again, that I have no idea about how to behave on a forum, which is essentially a very biased summary of the events. Let's just say, that that particular Ban was a result of something I did, that could have been dealt with just a Wrestlefest-only punishment, but it was brought to the usual scale by the usual crowd.

[Kobold]

......afaik you requested yourself to be banned.

[Battler]

- Kobold: That's true, but if you read it better, I would have got Permanently Warned, until Atresica sees improvement, instead, had I not requested the 30-days ban, so essentially, I just chose the punishment, that was stronger but shorter, instead of the one, that was weaker but longer.

[Kitarii]

So the usual crowd was actually yourself.
And the point was that it wasn't just the one incident, it was the build up of a series of similar situations.

[Kobold]

I need to find a right smilie for this. Yep...

[Battler]

- Ricochet: What? If you're referring to the whole "OBrasilo for MBN Moderator/Administrator", then that was actually started by Gustav Sweden, Anakin, and the other guys, and of course, they wouldn't admit, that they started it.
By summer, I was behaving properly, the Wrestlefest thing WAS an isolated incident. As for the "usual crowd" - I was referring to those, who made a big scandal out of it.

[Double-J]

I have to admit, the summary of the Obras incident is slanted. I think, if anything would be changed, that certainly should be.

Again, I don't find anything inherently wrong with the system. I know some cases have links to their respective threads, so all I can recommend is that this is done whenever possible, and that a general summary is given for each that is appropriate.

[CiB]

Ok, this actualy started with a simple question I'm yet to see an answer for:

Can someone please explain to me what is achieved by keeping records of years old bannings in the public area? Especialy as the Moderators seem to have access to info the rest of us don't- why isn't this 'banning archive' kept there?

[Kobold]

Originally Posted by CiB

Ok, this actualy started with a simple question I'm yet to see an answer for:

Can someone please explain to me what is achieved by keeping records of years old bannings in the public area? Especialy as the Moderators seem to have access to info the rest of us don't- why isn't this 'banning archive' kept there?

It was answered already:

Originally Posted by Atresica

Actually, that was for clarity since people complained that they didn't know who or what was really warned or banned.

This still applies.

[CiB]

See, meaning I took from Atresica there was that it so we could see who was currnetly banned and why, which is not and never has been what I'm asking about.

Who is banned and warned is something it makes sense for us to know. Why do non-moderators need to know who is no longer banned and what they're no longer banned for? That has yet to be answered- at least as far as I can see.

[Kitarii]

So that people know those people aren't banned anymore.
Because when someone gets banned and then unbanned, someone else might forget they are unbanned and think they are still banned.
Leading to some confusion!

[CiB]

Originally Posted by Ricochet

So that people know those people aren't banned anymore.
Because when someone gets banned and then unbanned, someone else might forget they are unbanned and think they are still banned.
Leading to some confusion!

At which point they can check the banned list, find they're no longer there, and thus come to the conclusion that they're no longer banned.

No, seriously, do you really think there'd be any confusion over people not knowing by now that certain people are no longer banned? As said, in most cases on the 'was banned but isn't anymore' list it all happened years ago. I don't think in any of the cases I'm talking about any potential for confusion is left.

As pointed out in my first post, that would be a good reason to keep people on such a list for about a month.

[Kitarii]

What banned list?
I believe only the moderators can see that.

[Battler]

- Ricochet: He means the list of the Banned people in the Evil-do'ers thread.

[morshem]

Moderators also have a list of all people currently banned in their moderator panel. I believe this is what caused Atresica to create that thread on the first place.