A re-think on the permanent status of 'Banned'?
I know this has been discussed before and dismissed.
However, I think it is quite unjust to permanently ban a long-term poster who has contributed well and evenly for most of their TPF travels.
There has to be a fairer method before any permanent staining of a character.
Time out for a re-think and for calm to prevail.
Even if the poster wants to leave at that point of crisis, and basically gets thrown out, a door could be left open for peace-making and a return.
What do others think?
What 'status' other than 'Banned' would be appropriate?
Suspended account?
Edit: the question was prompted by recent events and decision by @Jamal:
However, I think it is quite unjust to permanently ban a long-term poster who has contributed well and evenly for most of their TPF travels.
There has to be a fairer method before any permanent staining of a character.
Time out for a re-think and for calm to prevail.
Even if the poster wants to leave at that point of crisis, and basically gets thrown out, a door could be left open for peace-making and a return.
What do others think?
What 'status' other than 'Banned' would be appropriate?
Suspended account?
Edit: the question was prompted by recent events and decision by @Jamal:
Jamal:Banned @Olivier5 for persistently attempting to derail a thread with accusations of trolling and so on, refusing to stop when I asked, calling me an idiot and refusing to take it back, and then suggesting I ban him and saying he wouldn't care if I did.
He would disagree with parts of that, but those are my reasons.
Comments (87)
I think you are right. Even if it doesn't come up as 'status' in the profile.
Used for less serious 'crimes' or wrong behaviour.
It is a questionable area and it probably depends on the basis for bans. I do use another philosophy site on which there don't seem to be bans. The moderators don't see the purpose and see it as a form of censorship. In some ways I agree with that but on the whole the quality is better here because on the other one, which I won't name, people write pages and pages of insults to others and often it means that there is little in the way of genuine depth discussion.
I know that you wrote this thread because you were upset about the banning of a recent member. As it happens I don't think that I had interacted with him, and it can be a shock when someone you know gets banned. The ban which did affect me was 3017Amen because he was someone who I used to communicate with a lot.
Another thing which I wonder a lot about is how would I feel is if I got banned. Some people may see it as a moment of fame or notoriety. I think that I would be extremely devastated and see it as a form of rejection and even 'failure'.
As far as time out goes, I believe that there are suspensions here as well and far less extreme. If they became common they may have little meaning. If anything I wonder more about bans being permanent and wonder if there could be something like a 1 or 2 year allowance for reconsideration. That is because as it is, a definite one seems like a form of eternal damnation to the TFP hell of burning flames, as a lost soul beyond redemption.
Then again, why would we want to bring back old trouble with anyone else as well, when we know banning is not a correctional service, only a cutting out of rotting catalysts.
What I mean is that for what someone was banned will always come back, people don't change that much. So if it has been demonstrated that the person is incompatible with TPF why try it once again if he or she REALLY is? A wise man said, a sign of stupidity is to do the same process over and over to the same thing, and expect a result different from what we already got.
This is the reason I think it's futile to bring back banned members.
These members don't get banned.
So... what would be the real benefit to bring back banned members, Amity?
Sounds more suitable for kindergarten than a grown up discussion.
If you are thinking about justice, I would suggest you are misconstruing the situation. Think of tpf as a magazine or philosophical daily paper, staffed by volunteer contributors and volunteer editors. Because of the volume of work, editors do not edit before publication but afterwards.
Nobody thinks it a great injustice if the Times does not publish an article they send in, or indeed if they decide having published some, to stop publishing any more. Folks get banned because they make too much work for the mods; they get warned and have the opportunity to adjust. Those that do not heed the warnings are unlikely to heed them next week, or next month. Those that get angry about the house style, or the quality of the editing need to find a publication more to their taste, not keep coming back to one they do not respect.
The bar is low. You don't have to be especially literate, especially polite, especially learned or clever. A child of eleven could survive, as can many non native English speakers and uneducated in philosophy. As someone who has banned many on the predecessor site to this, I can say that one gets a deal of abuse from folks, up to and including attempts to hack the site and destroy it, and personal threats. It's not much fun moderating, and bans are no fun at all. Mods agonise over decent posters gone rogue, and even listen to criticism in threads like this. And they actually try to be fair, even to the extent that mods get fired and ex mods get banned. Temporary bans have been tried, and found to be troublesome, possibly because they foster the idea that bans are a punishment that might be just or more likely unjust, rather than the site protecting its reputation and integrity.
And there are other forums to go to.
It would seem like it. But is it ageism to think that way?
You don't think adults need time out from an escalation of conflict?
It's about prevention of a downward spiral in relationships where arguing is destructive.
You would think that would be possible or even desirable in a philosophy forum.
To reflect and be more constructive.
Quoting unenlightened
No, I am not.
Quoting unenlightened
Yes. Nobody is saying otherwise. However, I think that some judgements are questionable due to some bias creeping in. Even mods can have rogue moments in the heat of a to and fro.
Quoting unenlightened
When were they tried? What consituted 'temporary'?
Bans are indeed a punishment with varying degrees of 'crime' and individual levels of commitment and participation. One label to fit all. Unfair. In my opinion.
Why would this make temporary bans or a suspension 'troublesome'?
I appreciate the opportunity to talk things through.
However, I am under no illusion that it will make one iota of difference.
Will limit my replies accordingly.
You make good points.
As I've said before, out of 3 philo forums I've frequented, TPF is the best.
There is always room for change and improvement.
Admin and team do an exceptional job. Listening and responding with care to any feedback/suggestions.
:clap: :sparkle:
There have been a few exceptions in the past. But mostly yes.
Hopefully not. Take care :pray:
It's not about bringing back banned members but re-imagining a better justice system.
Perhaps that's too difficult...
Yes they do.
Yes. Some do that. Others who are not of that ilk do not.
Yes there are. But long-term posters have built up a body of discussions/comments and have been part of a community. TPF is the best of the bunch in my opinion.
Quoting Bylaw
It is only a concern when it is related to the 'status' of a forum member.
If you see the label 'Banned' on someone's profile, what is your first impression?
Unworthy of being read or thoughts considered?
People often see them that way, but I prefer to see them more as self-defence on behalf of the community, the way I ban goats from my garden. They may see it as punishment, but I like the goats elsewhere, just not amongst my vegetables.
Quoting Amity
A long time ago in a site far far away. I think a week and then a month, but they failed to make any friends, but rather increased the conflict. This site being still smaller, is a little more easy-going, but I imagine there are still bans for low quality, and lack of language skills, which of course are not punishments at all, but simple disqualifications. The principle of moderation back then was to act for the benefit of a theoretical non-posting reader - whose opinions are never heard by definition, but might be measured by site traffic and rate of increase of membership.
Quoting Amity
That is a valid point, I think. It would be better to find a neutral term - "account closed" or some such. Not sure if the software can be tweaked?
Thanks to you and others for your considered thoughts and responses.
Later... :flower:
Edit: Quoting unenlightened
Yes. But I think that could also apply to those accounts closed voluntarily by members.
I think that term much better than e.g. 'deletedmemberbcc'. Apparently @busycuttingcrap's decision to cut his time short as member/moderator?
'Deletedmember' - sounds painful :scream:
Interesting question, Amity. To be honest, I don't have negative thoughts on some users who have the label Banned. I personally had that experience in other forum and I remember that the mods didn't even warned me...
In the other hand: The mods explain the facts of why they ban someone in the thread "Bannings", and such thread is opened for discussion few hours if you want to complain. I complained on the banning of @Bartricks but I understand that this site has rules and it is healthy for the forum to not treat with privilige "long-term users" because that would be unfair.
If they warn an user and he/she maintains the same behaviour, it is understandable the consequential banning.
I am aware of your situation and I would be extremely sorry to see you go, even though I am sure you would resurrect in glory on some site, as a great loss for this one.
My own reflection on your situation and your creation of many threads, because I am inclined to create many too, is that it is best to slow down sometimes, to think before speaking. In some posts I wrote over a year ago, I just wrote my raw thoughts, unprocessed. It is difficult because thoughts whirl through the mind. Now, I try to slow down and think more carefully what I write, especially as these thoughts remain onsite unless they stand out as so questionable that moderators intervene.
Thanks for sharing your experience and thoughts.
I think the label 'Banned' has negative connotations and effects.
Quoting javi2541997
It is not about giving privilege to long-term members but weighing up years of steady commitment against a particular episode of escalation that might have been handled better on both sides.
After a period of calm reflection in 'suspension'.
But I've said enough already.
Time up :sparkle:
Not sure what a 'progressive banning' would look like :chin:
That said, TPF is famous for it's "everlasting bans". I suspect the silence from moderation is just them giving us a place to complain.
What needs to be remembered is I don't believe any recent bans were not the result of the poster flat out saying "I don't care if you ban me" or to "go ahead", etc. Granted one would hope moderation are not looking for challenges like this from posters but that seems to be the facts in most all (recent) cases.
Also it's just a website. One I vastly enjoy and at least visit nearly every day. There's some interesting people with interesting things to say. I'd feel a bit lost without it, to be quite honest. But that's my fault. If getting banned from an online forum has such dire consequences, well... it is an investment, can become a very large, intimate and personal part of one's life and routine. It'd probably get me upset if another user somehow got me banned or it was the result of literally just arguing in the same manner another user does all the time. Hard to say.
There's one exception I would probably be vocal in advocating for...
Heat of battle passion, when there is an active and ongoing global military conflict and the person is a relevant stakeholder in one or more sides and is thus no longer operating (arguing) from a reasonable and logical mindset as is intended for this forum, but is instead operating from fight or flight adrenaline and emotion as their life and everything and everyone in it could be severely impacted or killed as a result of said conflict being discussed.
That's what this last one was about, wasn't it?
To better understand the system, what happens, particularly so with long time posters, is that a complaint is made, or a mod notices a problem, and we then read through the poster's comments and try to contextualize it.
We also go back and see if this is an isolated instance in a particular transaction, whether there's been a sudden change in the poster's behavior that might point to some other issues we might consider, and whether there have been prior warnings.
We discuss all this among ourselves, and we don't always agree, but if we think it's an issue, we PM the offender and that discussion may be just to express concern, ask them to stop, or even issue a warning.
The person's response matters. We're not looking for groveling or even an apology, but really just an assurance the problem is taken care of.
As you might imagine, defiance is the worst response, not because it might be insulting, but because it's a refusal to play by the rules.
You guys don't see that, but only the final result, with complaints even arising when too many facts are revealed because it appears to be piling on after the person is gone and can't defend himself.
So, the best we can do is to be fair when modding, listening to the other mods, and being as transparent as we can, which is what hopefully threads like this do.
No. The last banning concerned another thread.
However, I believe the 'Ukraine Crisis' discussion was the start of the personal escalation between members who invested a lot of their time and energy there. I'll say no more on the subject.
Thank you, Hanover, for taking the time to clarify the process.
Quoting Hanover
Indeed. That's all anyone can do. Their best :100:
In my time on the forum you stand out as such an important contributor. That is probably why you have never been banned. If you got banned I would certainly question being a participant on the forum because your own thinking seems so important. I just think that all of us need to slow down a bit. As way of feedback; I am inclined to think that your use of equations in threads may not help because they are a little bit abstract for many, such as myself, who don't come from a background in mathematics.
Of course, it is difficult because life is pressured, often with so little outlet. I often feel that I am exploding or imploding, juggling so much as mental gymnastics. However, all of us probably need to watch our philosophy footprints; as real as carbon footprint in ecology, but it is a hard task.
If If everyone was so careful there may not be any philosophy threads and discussions at all. So, it is an ongoing area for thinking about ideas and free association, but I definitely value the contributions which you have made in many philosophy discussions, especially in various threads which I created. I would be devastated if you were ever banned, just as if I were banned. Of course, if banning does happen, it is probably best to rise above it, and see one's ideas and thinking as not being irreducible to the forum and others' perceptions of such ideas. This may be in line with the deepest understanding of what philosophy stands for, in the outer and inner credentials of meaning in life.
As you can see, I am not banned. So we can take this evidence to show that the moderators do not ban people at first, but warn and reach out to show how to properly behave on these forums. Why would a moderator ban a person then? The only reason I can think of is despite repeated warnings and letting people know how to behave, they did not adjust their behavior or posting patterns.
Forgiveness should be given to those that try. Those that do not try are a drain of resources on the moderators time. They disturb other posters, and make the forums a less conducive place to genuine polite discussion and thought. While you see that they were suddenly banned one day, what you didn't see was likely the weeks and/or months of repeated warnings, requests, and second, third, etc. chances that were repeatedly ignored by the poster. Why would you allow such a person back? They obviously don't care for polite warnings. So we have to use a cudgel to get them to care? What happens if a moderator turns their back for a second? Or if the allowed person comes back and tries to take revenge before being kicked out again?
There is a truth that all forgiving people need to understand. There are people who will never change in the world. They will be unable to fit into certain social and written laws. The only solution after repeated attempts at allowing them to change is to remove them. In my experience, to be banned on this forum takes a great disregard for the moderators, the rules, and repeated violations. As such, as long as the moderators involved followed such a process, bans should not be allowed back.
One last thing.
If there are specific steps in the 'Banning' procedure, is this made clear to the member concerned?
Quoting Hanover
Is there a set period of time between the steps?
If not already in place, I think a slow progression might be what is required.
I'm not sure if the Banning procedure is stickied anywhere.
All the better for the sake of transparency and then there would be no need for a thread like this one.
Is that what happened in e.g. the last banning?
When I was warned for my posts or behavior, I was reached out to privately. Moderators generally do not air such issues publicly. No one knew when moderators contacted me, and I'm sure others on here who have been warned can confirm that. I see no reason why it would be different for the recently banned individual.
A new section (preferably one that includes an Arcade) that has a Guest shoutbox/rudimentary live chat... just to keep things interesting. When someone wants to learn something and improve their life, asking a master or expert is intimidating. You don't want to waste their time, seem like an idiot, yadda yadda, etcetera, etcetera, what have you. The improvement of one's self is the least of goals as far as philosophy is concerned, rather to empower one with wisdom and confidence behind said wisdom to improve the life of other's around oneself and thus society as a whole.
As philosophers we should take full advantage in every opportunity there is to do so.
Thank you.
Thanks for outlining what you meant by 'progressive banning'.
That makes sense. And wouldn't need to be spelled out each time, if part of a stickied procedure.
Quoting neomac
Agreed. But that doesn't seem to matter. Rules is rules.
Quoting Hanover
That being said, what bothers me most is that posters, often including moderators, use the Bannings thread to shit on those who have been kicked out. It is unnecessary, unbecoming, and un-philosophical. People just don't seem to be able to resist the opportunity to be petty and vindictive.
Very well said :clap: :up:
That really shouldnt be something a grown adult has trouble with, and everyone in support of the OP is acting like a child and shouldnt be indulged. Grow up people, accept that if someone gets banned its nobodies fault but their own.
Also, ask yourselves why his is the best philosophy forum? Might it have something to do the moderation?!
OP and friends want to bring a little more kindergarten to the forum policies. I think OP and friends should be put in with actual kindergartener's so they get another shot at that whole growing into an adult who accepts the consequences of their actions and others.
Not for the simple-minded, for sure.
Look at it this way. The average man (or woman) wakes up, sees his significant other. There are rules to follow. He or she goes to their job. There are rules to follow. You have to take a bathroom break, you guessed it, there are still rules to follow. You hang out with your friends/acquaintances after. Yup. Still rules to follow.
A man logs onto the Internet.. Suddenly. Freedom is found.
I don't know what happened. In any case, even if rules is rules, sanctions for transgression are discretionary. So admins can still reason on case by case basis, and proportion sanctions to the severity of the transgression, without denying a second chance for positive long-term contributors.
Good point, Clarky.
For me, the forum is not just the internet. There is a community here.
You would think so.
To answer my previous question:
Quoting Amity
Here's what is written in TPF Guidelines:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/480/site-guidelines/p1
OK I missed that. Yet a more flexible approach concerning the banning policy might still be more beneficial than a rigid one to this forum.
I agree. It would seem to be a fairer approach.
However, it was suggested earlier that 'temporary bans' or a suspension might be troublesome.
Sometimes it's easier to apply rigid rules, I guess :chin:
The mods do the best they can on a voluntary basis.
Not everyone has the time or inclination to be flexible. Indeed, they might then stand accused of personal bias...
Enough. This time I'm out :sparkle:
How about losing the ability to create new discussions as phase one. Then limiting number of daily posts to 1 as phase two. Lots of simple but fun ways that could be done. Good way to illustrate the difference between a right and a privilege.
I thought I was done here but...cut-off point will be in 30 mins - 19.30hrs my time.
I am sure that Admin/mods are listening carefully and then will do exactly as they please :wink:
What intrigued me about the last banning was the way it was explained but yet left a lot of questions unanswered. I still don't know what happened because, of course, posts are deleted.
This is frustrating. It is open, then, to speculation.
My thoughts were that it was a relatively sudden ban with no time given for tempers to cool.
Also, it might have been the outcome of an extended personal escalation between 2 members.
Perhaps, the trolling complained of was a case of continual subtle trolling as described in your excellent thread:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13901/respectful-dialog
A reply from @Bylaw re your:
And:
Also from @Christoffer:
A real pity when this happens and not picked up on.
It's happened before and it will happen again.
Some expert, clever trollers are never banned...
Is this supposed to support or disprove my claim? (if you had to make a choice)
Either choice promotes my point.
I believe in second chances. People do change/acknowledge community guidelines after a ban has been employed causing them to re-evaluate their approach.
I agree that contributors can be 90% of the time within the guidelines for a long period of time and for that 10% of the time falter/make mishaps for which they are banned permanently.
Not sure if this is totally just. Perhaps a temporary ban followed by a probation period is more apt.
Having said that, if someone wants to create a new account with a new email address its not that difficult, sure they have lost their philosophical history but it allows them to participate once again. A fresh start.
It's not like anyone can be permanently banned from contributing, it's account specific.
Except it is not. It is a voluntary community, moderated ideally for that communities benefit. There was no benefit here afaict, rather the mere assuagement of the moderators' egos.
For new posters, and even someone like me, that is not that a big deal. But Olivier5 had thousands of posts, and more importantly, real relationships, mayhap even friendships. It seems cruel to sever those over this incident, which had multiple sides to it.
That's not an apt analogy. A magazine or a paper is not a place for discussion. Yes, sometimes a response to a published piece may be published, but for the most part it is a one-way broadcast to a silent and anonymous readership. An internet forum is a community and a discussion club. Quite a different dynamics and atmosphere.
This comment is not intended to argue for or against bannings. People get ostracized by their communities and banned from clubs just the same as here.
I don't disagree with what you wrote about the internet in general, but that doesn't mean it's not reasonable to hope for more here on the forum
Hang in there, buddy. You have a lot to offer beyond the goofiness at times. :cool:
That wither away to let others succeed;
So the multitude comes even those we behold,
To repeat every tale that hath often been told.
For we are the same things that our fathers have been,
We see the same sights that our fathers have seen,
We drink the same stream, and we feel the same sun,
And we run the same course that our fathers have run.
The thoughts we are thinking our fathers would think,
From the death we are shrinking from they too would shrink,
To the life we are clinging to, they too would cling
But it speeds from the earth like a bird on the wing.
They loved but their story we cannot unfold;
They scorned but the heart of the haughty is cold;
They grieved but no wail from their slumbers may come;
They joyed but the voice of their gladness is dumb.
They died ay, they died! and we, things that are now,
Who walk on the turf that lies over their brow,
Who make in their dwellings a transient abode,
Meet the changes they met on their pilgrimage road.
Yea, hope and despondence, and pleasure and pain,
Are mingled together like sunshine and rain:
And the smile and the tear, and the song and the dirge,
Still follow each other like surge upon surge.
Tis the twink of an eye, tis the draught of a breath,
From the blossom of health to the paleness of death,
From the gilded saloon to the bier and the shroud
O why should the spirit of mortal be proud!
William Knox
'Fings ain't what they used to be. It's less apt here than it was at the old site for 2 reasons: 1 the old was explicitly run to produce an archive of readable threads, whereas this is, as you say, more of a community discussion, and 2, there seems to be much less editing done here than on the previous site. We used to correct for spelling, grammar and punctuation - don't think that happens much here. Nevertheless, it is a form of publication, and copyright is assigned. Publishers are communities too. So it's not actually an inapt analogy, though you may not find it useful or agreeable to your understanding.
Quoting hypericin
Actually it is a privately owned site, run by the proprietor for his own purposes which obviously do not necessarily coincide with what anyone else thinks they are or should be. I suspect the community aspect is important to him, but also probably the philosophy.
:lol:
Quoting Banno
:lol:
Now that I think of it, I should really consider a reevaluation of me values and overall direction of my forum life. I'll treat the [s]suspensions[/s] hangings as NDEs. :smile:
It's a conspiracy to have me tarred and feathered I tell you. The mods are all working for Putin! :lol:
It has happened many times over the years, both on the old PF and on TPF. It normally doesn't happen without a lot of discussion first, as Hanover has described. But occasionally it does.
I know that this discussion was prompted by the recent banning of Olivier5. In that case I didn't take it to the rest of the staff for discussion. The refusal of moderation, the attitude it was received with, and his suggestion that he be banned for all he cared, are what led directly to the ban. Refusal of moderation has been a reason for such bannings before, e.g., The Great Whatever, who was a high-quality poster who refused to make a small change to his spelling habits.
Quoting Amity
As others have said, we do now have a Suspended user role, but it hasn't been used much.
Quoting unenlightened
I had a look and it seems that we can't change the word. We could assign the user to a custom user role that would prevent them from posting, but I don't think that would be equal to banning, since I think they'd still be able to log in, as I assume they can't do if they've been banned. Alternatively, we could delete the member, while retaining their posts.
Yes. And not only that.
@Olivier5's contribution and integrity can be had by searching his name under any discussion.
An example where he not only learned but supported the thread leader @Fooloso4 against @Apollodorus
112 results in the Euthyphro thread alone.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/search?Search=Olivier5&disc=RXV0aHlwaHJv
In this discussion, exchanges became increasingly unpleasant. To say the least.
I note on p4 of the search my departure and the reasons. The trolling so clear and yet not banned.
Thanks for that. I appreciate your honesty. It is as I thought.
It is not so much any original 'crime' in the thread but how the immediate, heated responses were dealt with. Without any space or time given, any consideration as to underlying reasons or circumstances, any thought other than he broke the moderation rule.
Good to know that it wasn't the result of the entire team's judgement so it wasn't their egos involved:
Quoting hypericin
Such a pity that there seems to be no way to resolve this.
Edit:
@Jamal thanks, I've edited the OP to clarify this for new readers.
My main point was that the person need not feel a stain on their character after the banning moment and
any short term emotional effects of that.
Yes. And I am not sure any process that would 'catch' them and ban them would be one I'd vote for. But I do think the issue should be thought about. There's a poster on another forum. He with regularity responds not quite to what you are saying. He dismisses critiques of parts of his posts as 'not solving issue X.' IOW he does not need to support any point made in his posts since he treats all responses as failing to solve his main interests. He does not state this openly and I think is not aware that he is doing this, but it happens with great regularity. He has trouble understanding many things and if he does he will more or less, label someone as a professional philosopher - which is just silly when aimed at me and most of the others - and a strange ad hom or insult. There's a quite a bit of labeling as argument. It tends not to be rude. There are some forays into psychologizing those he disagrees with, but mostly in general, not so much You think this because....type obvoious attacks.
You can find yourself, if you engage with him, chasing down responses to points raised much earlier and finding the whole thing spinning in a slow circle.
I wouldn't ban him. He can produce interesting things. But engaging with him is pointless, but it can take pages and for some years to realize this.
On the other hand I think it is worse than anything a traditional troll does.
Starting a thread with Democrats are weak men and men hating women...
or All repulicans and psychopaths and closeted gays.
or some other blunt smash, I mean, how many pages are you going to keep talking to that kind of posting?
But the seemingly-around-the-next-corner might concede or clarify something slow-burn poster can really suck the life out of thread after thread.
Yes. Bans are not always what is required. An extreme and opposing viewpoint is useful to stimulate discussion. Things are brought out that wouldn't if everyone was in a cosy exchange or agreement. It can help clarify your own position by making you reflect carefully before responding. However:
Quoting Bylaw
It can reach the point where discussions become ego-centric attacks with knee-jerk responses. Increasing and continuing hostility over a number of threads can wear people down.
The life being sucked out of not just a thread...
I've spoken about this before but time to give it a rest now, I think.
Thanks for your contribution.
Thanks to Admin and team for doing the best they can :sparkle:
Uh-oh, does my refusal to accept the Americanism of my spell-check subject me to the possibility of banning? I always thought "practice" is a noun and "practise" is a verb. But the spell-check doesn't look at it that way.
Thanks for clarification. I am sure that in @Olivier5's case, at least, he would not see the banning as a stain on his character. His good character remains intact.
However, others might...
Sorry I missed this. I'm pretty much done now but yes, there have been a few suggestions like:
Quoting Benj96
It seems that the system is unwieldy and that there is no easy solution.
Thanks again :sparkle:
Are you admins considering the possibility of revising the banning policy by any chance?
The man is a reflection of a depraved world, not a source of it. I don't believe, at least. One could argue to not be impacted by the various goings on of this world is what should call a man's sanity to question.
Still, I'm sure many wish they had real life friends with the adamant loyalty and fervent determination to see things through as the online friends of some. What a testament to the good of humanity this thread is, if nothing else.
"Unclean"? Then the member would be untouchable, but there would be the hope of a cure.
!!CRASH!! - SYSTEM FAILURE - NO CAN DO - OVER AND OUT - *White Noise*
Nice try, hunnikins :kiss:
Thank you for considering all points and questions [*] raised in this helpful discussion. Most constructive feedback.
@Baden @Jamal- I've returned to edit:
[*]
Look forward to the progress on:
Quoting Jamal
To all who contributed their time, thoughts and energy. Good talkin' with ya'.
Take care. :hearts: :sparkle:
Apparently, I've been here for 4yrs with 3968 posts.
Other interests beckon. Thanks to TPF, members and friends for all the good times :flower:
To @Olivier5 with 3yrs and 6168 posts - "Au revoir, mon ami!" :cool:
Edit to add:
Quoting Baden
I disagree. It is a judgement about the person and behaviour. But even if were the case...
The arising of a sudden 'incompatibility' issue could/should be easy enough to resolve.
Where there is a will, there is a way...
But there is no will. Therefore there is no way.
As in reply to @neomac:
Quoting Jamal
Permanent bans do not stop people returning in another guise. If they return and change the way they engage with people then the ban worked.
:D Yes, many would disagree!
This guy and Streetlight are literally the two people who have been on this forum I had almost completely given up on.
You should perhaps check how they engage with others rather than assume because they agree with you and are reasonable to you that they are the same to others they have different opinions too.
Do not get me wrong lots of people act up sometimes (including myself). Generally though 90% of people can simply step away, rethink their approach or just avoid derailing threads lately this forum has seemed pretty poor on the quality front maybe that frustrates some so much they just start taking it out on others? I have lost patience here for the most part lately due to people being plain lazy and simply voicing blind opinions as if they count for something.
Anyway, rant over :) Have fun here if you can.