Neocolours

Please read the discussion in this thread before making a decision:
viewtopic.php?t=6831

The only posts on this thread should be stating how long it would last for, if the probation or open-ended banning options are chosen. All other discussion should go on the other thread; if it's here, the posts will simply be deleted.

A clear majority will be required for any decision, not simply 50% +1 vote. Voting will remain open indefinitely for the moment.

I chose the probation option. I do want a permanent probation, though. A couple months doesn't cut it.

I know most people want a ban, but for me, it isn't the solution. First, the IP Ban is unthinkable, due to the fact we have Adi on the same IP, but also because of sockpuppetry.


I know than a permanent probation will cause trouble to our benevolent moderators, but I do believe it's the safest solution at the moment.

I chose yes, but for a different length of time. I think banning him for six weeks is a bit much, going by the things I've read... but maybe a couple of weeks might help and then on probation after? Just my two cents anyway.

I voted for the ban for a different length. Two or three weeks, I think, would be okay, maybe. But then a harsh probation afterwards. So if he breaks the rules just once during that, it'd be like...a longer ban, or something harsher than the first time.

I think he should be banned for three weeks or so, but we should watch him slightly more carefully when the ban's over. Basically, I agree with Kari.

I've ignored (or attempted to ignore)a few users from time to time because they're irritating to me personally. Unfortunately, checkers is one.

I voted for a different length of time, perhaps three weeks and then a probationary period where his behavior will be more heavily weighed. I basically "fourth" the above opinions.

I agree an IP ban would be unfair to Adi, who has become pretty nice to have around, for the most part. Maybe NOT having checkers around, to put a different spin on it, may give Adi a "break" too (I know I would be all wrung about if my sister were to post in a forum I frequent, especially if arguments erupt on notable occasion, as we are prone to argue even though we are well into adulthood).

"For a specified length of time". I think a couple of weeks' suspension may be all that is needed here. Make sure he is told kindly, if certainly, why this is happening, and emphasise that we have no dislike towards him as a person.

IP banning would be unfair on Adi_Gallia and could be got around fairly easily. So, not the best move.

I don't like the idea of alienating anyone from our community, even for a couple of weeks, but I think in this one case, for this ONE time, it might help as long as we handle it right.

Checkers, if you are reading this: this is nothing personal. I do hope you can stay and become a well-loved NCer just as many others have. That's been the aim I've had in mind when posting this.

Edit: If possible, can we allow him back in time for WW14? He seems very excited about it, and it would be a shame.

I haven't made a decision, so I'm not voting, but letting checkers in the ww game would kind of defeat the purpose of a punishment. It's like sending someone to their room without dessert, and then giving them a chocolate bar because you felt sorry for them.

I agree with Spivsy that he can't be allowed to play Werewolf while there is a general consensus in favour of a ban. For a start, there is no way I am banning him for a single week, to enable him to play; that's not a punishment. He's either banned properly or not banned at all.

An IP ban is out of the question, and I've already said that on another thread. There are other methods of banning a person, anyway. In the past, the IP ban has almost never been used because it's got far too many loopholes.

I, too, echo those above me with a lesser ban than 6 weeks. If WW is something he is looking forward to, and one week will cover his ability to enter in that, I think a 3-4 week ban would be sufficient. Perhaps as a secondary thing to this is to just ban his user, but if he is found frequenting NC despite the punishment laid out, then the more severe punishment (of 2-3 months or permanent) be set in place.

Perhaps as a secondary thing to this is to just ban his user

Er, that's what we're going to be doing if we ban him. It's the standard way to ban someone on phpBB without going the route of IP bans. I don't think relying on the honour system of just making him not post is going to work, and that's the only other option.

I would also like to say that I am personally against a three or four week ban because I won't be here in four weeks' time (or five, for that matter) and it seems a little impractical to schedule a ban expiring when I know I won't be here at all. I should have said that that was why I didn't include them in the poll: because I can't enforce them.

Right. I've just added it up and there's a 96% majority in favour of a ban. This means that I will be banning checkers.

Currently, I plan to ban him for two months, because:
a) two months is the single most popular option
b) 2/3 of people support a ban of two months or longer
b) if I weight it so that each vote also includes a weaker vote in favour of the option one higher and one lower (since there's only a month, max, in it) it's still the most popular.

You now have a day to change my mind as to the length of the ban, if necessary.

A day has elapsed and no-one's posted, and the poll hasn't changed. Checkers has now been banned, and the ban will expire on August 28th.

A vote followed by a decision within 3 days? That was all very quick, some of us only log in once or twice a week and this whole banning idea seems to have been discussed and decided upon in a very short period of time.

Then again, I'll admit, the people that log in less tend to get involved in these issues less and it probably wouldn't have changed the outcome anyway...

Though it was only three days, over seventy people voted, which is a significant enough number to assume that the outcome wouldn't be changed much by the few more that would be added throughout a longer duration.