DShiznit wrote:
People don't get caught pirating anymore anyway, I have more than two full harddrives of copyrighted works of all kinds(I'm a perv and I just got myself banned for 4 days) to prove that. Although maybe that's because I live near philly, and the police are too busy sitting on their collective asses to even stop the drug dealing that goes on, much less pirating and other equally heinous offenses like J-walking. Anyway, we should get back to talking about how youtube is facist for removing videos they don't like.
This is your second to last offense. We'll welcome you back on Tuesday at 12:40.
elfprince13 wrote:
This is your second to last offense. We'll welcome you back on Tuesday at 12:40.
That should be his final warning, if not already a perma ban. Come on, you and Kerm drew up formal rules about banning just for this guy. Stop giving him chances, it obviously doesn't do anything.
Kllrnohj wrote:
elfprince13 wrote:
This is your second to last offense. We'll welcome you back on Tuesday at 12:40.
That should be his final warning, if not already a perma ban. Come on, you and Kerm drew up formal rules about banning just for this guy. Stop giving him chances, it obviously doesn't do anything.
Indeed, it's his 4 day ban. And according to those rules the next is the permaban.
I had an idea, and then I decided that it should go away and never be spoken about again. A second later, I decided that there was no harm in putting it down here so future generations would not do it.
It involved giving each "non-moron" member the power to redact the messages of "moron" members. That way, mods wouldn't have to deal with constantly deleting messages and temp banning people (person, really). But then I realized that it would be like a backwards wikipedia, or maybe vetopedia. And it wouldn't really serve its purpose anyway, since the mods would still have to check logs to see which users were misusing their trusted status and should instead be designated "moron".
So yeah, let's not do that here. It was basically just my reaction to the thought of a permaban (which I realized was nothing to be upset about exactly as long after as it took me to think of that idea [non-linguistically, of course, or else that would mean that it took me about a full minute to realize that I have no reason to be upset about some pervert idiot being banned]).
What criterion or criteria would such a theoretical system use to distinguish the moron from non-moron members, though? Postcount? Average post-per-day? Words per post? Prose complexity?
That sounds a lot like just giving the forum more mods. It could work.
What if at a certain postcount users would become eligible for admins to grant non-moron status, and if two or three non-morons voted against a post, it would get deleted pending an admins undelete veto.
Then why not just make those people mods?
@Ult' Dev'r: because mods have other responsibilities like splitting, locking, and moving topics, etc. This is to help reduce the administrative/moderative workload.
KermMartian wrote:
What if at a certain postcount users would become eligible for admins to grant non-moron status, and if two or three non-morons voted against a post, it would get deleted pending an admins undelete veto.
If a post is voted moronic we could display a collapsed box with a "This post has been voted as inappropriate by the committee of non-morons" or something of the sort, and perhaps keep a "moron karma" rating that would show how many of a user's posts had been voted against.
Similar to voting on youtube's comments then? 5 thumbs down and the post becomes unviewable or something?
I vote that I be upgraded from mod to global mod
Kllrnohj wrote:
I vote that I be upgraded from mod to global mod
Can global mods wield the banhammer? That could be fun to watch. 
How about granting the power to delete posts to reliable members? That way they don't need to do mod's work but can delete useless posts. And maybe you should also add a "warning" button underneath posts so that admins get warned if people are constantly typing idiotic posts... and maybe even an IP ban to those who register as another user (or is that already in place?).
foamy3 wrote:
Kllrnohj wrote:
I vote that I be upgraded from mod to global mod
Can global mods wield the banhammer? That could be fun to watch.
That might be as bad as giving nikky the banhammer.
How about you just keep the rules like they are and not re-invent them just because this one pervert comes along? If he's violating rules on your forum, ban him and be done with it.
That's way too simple a solution
Ultimate Dev'r wrote:
That's way too simple a solution
just to throw in my two cents, I think the current system is fine...
of course, if someone REALLY feels the need, you could always implement the vote system which would simply hide posts deemed idiotic....
rthprog wrote:
just to throw in my two cents, I think the current system is fine...
of course, if someone REALLY feels the need, you could always implement the vote system which would simply hide posts deemed idiotic....
Or better yet, phpBB could add the "ignore" feature that are on some of the boards. Then people can choose to just not see posts from certain people.
that would be really easy to implement actually. some CRUD for the ignore table, and a one line change to the topic view + topic preview queries.
Code:
|--------|--------|
|ignorer |ignoree |
|--------|--------|
| 23 | 27 |
|--------|--------|
and change the select query to have
Code: " and user_id not in (SELECT ignoree FROM ignore_table WHERE ignorer=$USER_ID)"
