# I'd hate to ask a stupid question.



## CannonFodder (Jun 29, 2011)

But what exactly are the forum requirements for a ban?
I'm looking at what the forum says constitutes a temp ban and what constitutes a perma ban and how it is in action are _waaayyyyy_ different.
The reason being that some users just do a minor infraction and they're  permanently out the door, whereas some users have like dozens of serious  infactions and they are still here.

I remember a mod saying there's like rules for how mods to handle rule breaking, but what does it _*actually*_ say?


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 29, 2011)

I'm pretty sure if you get temp banned like 3-4 times you get perma? or if you like.. idk talk about how you're a serial murderer and your next victim is on fa or something like that


----------



## Xenke (Jun 29, 2011)

The number of times a user has been banned previously comes into account when considering a perma-ban.

That should answer your question.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jun 29, 2011)

Clayton said:


> I'm pretty sure if you get temp banned like 3-4 times you get perma? or if you like.. idk talk about how you're a serial murderer and your next victim is on fa or something like that


 Yeah, that's what it says on the forum rules, but not in practice.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 29, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Yeah, that's what it says on the forum rules, but not in practice.


 Ohh I don't have any idea  

BEEP BLOOP BEEP BOOP BEEP BOOP
IM DERAILING A THREAD

There. I have laid down some mod-bait to attract a mod to answer your question


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Jun 29, 2011)

Why is everyone so nosy- it should be obvious.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jun 29, 2011)

dinosaurdammit said:


> it should be obvious.


Not really.
What the rules say.<fillerr>r><filler>How they're enforced.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 29, 2011)

dinosaurdammit said:


> Why is everyone so nosy- it should be obvious.


<u< my trap worked

Why is it nosy that someone wants to know the rules?


----------



## Holsety (Jun 29, 2011)

dinosaurdammit said:


> Why is everyone so nosy- it should be obvious.


 Honestly even if the topic is dumb as shit and obviously has ulterior motives, saying "Why are you so nosey" when someone asks about how a rule or board system works is pretty lame.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jun 29, 2011)

Clayton said:


> <u< my trap worked
> 
> Why is it nosy that someone wants to know the rules?


 This is Fa remember.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Jun 29, 2011)

Clayton said:


> <u< my trap worked
> 
> Why is it nosy that someone wants to know the rules?


 
Not to know the rules but you guys have no idea how many infractions a user has on our side. YES the rules are normally applied but in the end it is up to a mod vote or digression on how it is handled.



Holsety said:


> Honestly even if the topic is dumb as shit and obviously has ulterior motives, saying "Why are you so nosey" when someone asks about how a rule or board system works is pretty lame.


 
Also I say its nosy because it is a high profile incident, had it happened to a random user you guys would look the other way. Mods follow the point system yes but sometimes it has to be thought in depth.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jun 29, 2011)

dinosaurdammit said:


> Not to know the rules but you guys have no idea how many infractions a user has on our side. YES the rules are normally applied but in the end it is up to a mod vote or digression on how it is handled.


 We had this thread before asking how many infractions people have had.
A couple of users were pushing past 20 infractions.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Jun 29, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> We had this thread before asking how many infractions people have had.
> A couple of users were pushing past 20 infractions, some never even temp banned.


 
It matters the point level- wether it was a custom point infraction, the actual infraction reason and I suppose other factors such as history and level of "bad" the infraction was assigned to.


----------



## Browder (Jun 29, 2011)

Having witnessed the process of only one perma-ban I'll do my best to fill y'all in. Keep in mind I am posting from my phone so my answers may be summarized.

Users incurr a temp-ban if they accumulate three infractions or if the moderator, in concert with more moderator or admin approval, decide they need a break. Users can be perma banned point blank only if they're actions and history have shown them to be unabsolvable (often if they've incurred a temp ban or two). Especially if they act in such a way to threaten either the forums, it's users, or it's management system. Before perma-banning anyone the issue is talked over although an admin always has the final say.

Helpful?


----------



## Holsety (Jun 29, 2011)

dinosaurdammit said:


> Also I say its nosy because it is a high profile incident, had it happened to a random user you guys would look the other way. Mods follow the point system yes but sometimes it has to be thought in depth.


 Yeah, I know. I even said that in my post, regardless of possible ulterior motives you shouldn't answer it like you're chastising small children, just give a straight reply to the question (like you did in your second post) because it just makes you look like an ass otherwise.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jun 29, 2011)

Browder said:


> Having witnessed the process of only one perma-ban I'll do my best to fill y'all in. Keep in mind I am posting from my phone so my answers may be summarized.
> 
> Users incurr a temp-ban if they accumulate three infractions or if the moderator, in concert with more moderator or admin approval, decide they need a break. Users can be perma banned point blank only if they're actions and history have shown them to be unabsolvable (often if they've incurred a temp ban or two). Especially if they act in such a way to threaten either the forums, it's users, or it's management system. Before perma-banning anyone the issue is talked over although an admin always has the final say.
> 
> Helpful?


 But what about users that wait until their infractions expire and then behave like the rules don't exist?


----------



## Holsety (Jun 29, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> But what about users that wait until their infractions expire and then behave like the rules don't exist?


 He answered that, the infraction system is a guideline to punishment, not a strict system that cannot be broken. Admins/Mods are allowed to temp-ban users if it's deemed that the infractions aren't working or not appropriate to the situation. Do you even read?

Here I will even quote it for you.



> *Users incurr a temp-ban if* they accumulate three infractions or if* the  moderator, in concert with more moderator or admin approval, decide they  need a break.*


----------



## CannonFodder (Jun 29, 2011)

Holsety said:


> He answered that, the infraction system is a guideline to punishment, not a strict system that cannot be broken. Admins/Mods are allowed to temp-ban users if it's deemed that the infractions aren't working or not appropriate to the situation. Do you even read?
> 
> Here I will even quote it for you.


 But that's if the infractions are still active.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Jun 29, 2011)

Holsety said:


> Yeah, I know. I even said that in my post, regardless of possible ulterior motives you shouldn't answer it like you're chastising small children, just give a straight reply to the question (like you did in your second post) because it just makes you look like an ass otherwise.


 
I didn't even mean to come off as an ass. The internet does not convey emotions well :/


----------



## Xenke (Jun 29, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> But that's if the infractions are still active.


 
Did you read? Did you see the "or" in that sentence?


----------



## CannonFodder (Jun 29, 2011)

Xenke said:


> Did you read? Did you see the "or" in that sentence?


 That part is very vague though.


----------



## Browder (Jun 29, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> But what about users that wait until their infractions expire and then behave like the rules don't exist?


 I think I addressed this in my post. They are dealt with.  We make a thread and discuss whether or not they get another temp-ban or a perma-ban.


----------



## LizardKing (Jun 29, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> That part is very vague though.


 
It's probably as specific as you're likely to get. 

Long story short: Yes there are rules, but there are also exceptions, and it works both ways.


----------



## BRN (Jun 29, 2011)

I think the truthful answer is "It's subjective".


----------



## Browder (Jun 29, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> That part is very vague though.


 What I mean is that if they have no active infractions, but are doing something that's a serious offense or destabilizes the forum we discuss it, and how best to handle it. It doesn't even always result in a banning but it can. Less leeway is given the more egregious a user's history is.



SIX said:


> I think the truthful answer is "It's subjective".


 In the sense that we look at users on a case by case basis, yeah.


----------



## Cyanide_tiger (Jun 29, 2011)

Summary of what the mods said: Stay either on their good sides or at least off their radar and you won't get banned; infractions don't really matter. :V


----------



## Fay V (Jun 29, 2011)

It's all pretty much been said. The infraction point system makes a good guideline and for 90% of the users that is what we use. However, people are not ideal robots and sometimes things need to be subjective. Sometimes there is the user that started by being a shitposter, then spends 3 years acting nicely. Sometimes there is the user that is fucking batshit and needs to be banned before all the steps because their presence is toxic. 

As said before users can not tell how many infractions and warnings a person has received. And because People are people and can move around rules, we have to be subjective. I know it makes it look like everything is willy nilly, I remember being on that side, but to be honest seeing all the stuff now that I couldn't see before, I think the mod team does a good job with what they have. 
Some steps may need to be taken to handle that "just be good time infraction time wears off" but in things like bans the extensive discussion is enlightening.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jun 29, 2011)

*edit*
ninja'd


Fay V said:


> Some steps may need to be taken to handle that  "just be good time infraction time wears off" but in things like bans  the extensive discussion is enlightening.


 If someone acts like this though, they deserve longer infractions IMO.


----------



## Fay V (Jun 29, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> *edit*
> ninja'd
> 
> If someone acts like this though, they deserve longer infractions IMO.


 
I agree. I dunno all of what Smods can do, unfortunately I am personally stuck on the point system with no ability to customize. If I could I would make infraction times last longer. In a sense temp bans are like that. If you have a lot of temp bans recently, our guide is to make the time last longer. 

It's all a matter of a case by case thing. What the person is doing, how frequently, and what should be done. People that really are troublemakers are getting more harsh punishments, just most of the time you don't get to see that.


----------



## Takun (Jun 29, 2011)

Cyanide_tiger said:


> Summary of what the mods said: Stay either on their good sides or at least off their radar and you won't get banned; infractions don't really matter. :V


 

You know, unless you get 3 before they expire and get temp banned.


----------



## Browder (Jun 29, 2011)

I would like to place a reminder to not bicker in this thread. Thank you kindly.


----------



## Cyanide_tiger (Jun 29, 2011)

Takun said:


> You know, unless you get 3 before they expire and get temp banned.


 
You know, unless you take my posts too seriously and don't realize it's sarcasm.



Browder said:


> I would like to place a reminder to not bicker in this thread. Thank you kindly.



I'd like to apologize for that. I was just about to edit my post to clear that response when you deleted it.


----------



## Holsety (Jun 29, 2011)

Cyanide_tiger said:


> You know, unless you take my posts too seriously and don't realize it's sarcasm.


 It's the internet, sarcasm doesn't translate to text. If you don't want to get infracted for mistaken SRSNEZES you should probably not use sarcasm in poor situations >_>;


----------



## Browder (Jun 29, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> If someone acts like this though, they deserve longer infractions IMO.


My (personal) reasoning against this is that Furaffinity Forums should not have to expect people to misbehave within an even longer time-frame. Infractions are relatively quick to expire because we'd rather give our users the benefit of the doubt and expect that they actually _learned_ from them.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jun 29, 2011)

Browder said:


> we'd rather give our users the benefit of the doubt and expect that they actually _learned_ from them.


 ....You have waaayyy to much faith in humanity.


----------



## Verin Asper (Jun 29, 2011)

Browder said:


> In the sense that we look at users on a case by case basis, yeah.


 Like how I'm too stupid to get a perma ban but I only been temp banned twice, havent hit 3 yet to enter the "Should we perma ban them" area


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 29, 2011)

dinosaurdammit said:


> Also I say its nosy because it is a high profile incident, had it happened to a random user you guys would look the other way. Mods follow the point system yes but sometimes it has to be thought in depth.


 
Wait, what? I thought we were talking in general, not about a specific user


----------



## Browder (Jun 29, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> ....You have waaayyy to much faith in humanity.


I've been told this or some variant of this a lot. I've learned to take it as a compliment. 



Clayton said:


> Wait, what? I thought we were talking in general, not about a specific user


 We're not. >_<


----------



## Jashwa (Jun 29, 2011)

CF said:
			
		

> I'd hate to ask a stupid question.


We all know this is a lie, CF. You make "What if" threads every other day.


Also, this is totally a Brace thread, isn't it? 

I look forward to a day on FAF where there are no more Brace threads.


----------



## CerbrusNL (Jun 29, 2011)

Crysix Fousen said:


> Like how I'm too stupid to get a perma ban but I only been temp banned twice, havent hit 3 yet to enter the "Should we perma ban them" area


 
Not to threathen you or anything, but 2 temp bans is not something to take lightly, imo.
I mean, if you'd suddenly go apeshit, you'd be gone faster than someone thathas no temp bans, but acts the same.
Just to illustrate a situation, of course.


----------



## Browder (Jun 29, 2011)

Jashwa said:


> We all know this is a lie, CF. You make "What if" threads every other day.
> 
> 
> Also, this is totally a Brace thread, isn't it?
> ...



It isn't. >_<

Discussing specific the banning or the specific reasons behind a banning of an individual user are forbidden and won't be tolerated in thread. This is a thread discussing general banning and infraction procedure.


----------



## Jashwa (Jun 29, 2011)

Browder said:


> It isn't. >_<
> 
> Discussing specific the banning or the specific reasons behind a banning of an individual user are forbidden and won't be tolerated in thread. This is a thread discussing general banning and infraction procedure.


 I know your moderator response aren't specifically about Brace, but this thread was totally prompted by that. 

Also, I suggested that the Infraction system is flawed by how much it depends on points as well in the past. I know, personally, I used to just wait until points expired, misbehaved, rinse, and repeat.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jun 29, 2011)

Jashwa said:


> Also, I suggested that the Infraction system is flawed by how much it depends on points as well in the past. I know, personally, I used to just wait until points expired, misbehaved, rinse, and repeat.


 Yeah we know, you used to wear your infractions like a badge of honor.


----------



## Jashwa (Jun 29, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Yeah we know, you used to wear your infractions like a badge of honor.


 Exactly, and that's what's wrong with the current system. I'm not creative enough to come up with a better one, however. You _need_ the objectiveness of the points in a system, but defining the limits so rigidly lets people abuse the system and no one really does anything about it because people FLIP OUT when exceptions are made to the system.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jun 29, 2011)

Jashwa said:


> Exactly, and that's what's wrong with the current system. I'm not creative enough to come up with a better one, however. You _need_ the objectiveness of the points in a system, but defining the limits so rigidly lets people abuse the system and no one really does anything about it because people FLIP OUT when exceptions are made to the system.


 What about if you get another infraction within x amount of time after coming back from a temp ban the infraction lasts longer and/or if you get another temp ban within x amount of of your last temp ban this temp ban is longer considering how close they are together.

Like if person a off the bat of coming back from a temp ban and gets another infraction within 10 minutes the next infraction is considerably longer.


----------



## Xenke (Jun 29, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> What about if you get another infraction within x amount of time after coming back from a temp ban the infraction lasts longer and if you get another temp ban within x amount of of your last temp ban this temp ban is longer considering how close they are together.
> 
> Like if person a off the bat of coming back from a temp ban and gets another infraction within 10 minutes the next infraction is considerably longer.


 
How about we stop trying to set a strict guideline for how mods deal with users and leave it up to their discretion? The stricter a system is, the easier it is to manipulate, at least in my experience.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 29, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> What about if you get another infraction within x amount of time after coming back from a temp ban the infraction lasts longer and/or if you get another temp ban within x amount of of your last temp ban this temp ban is longer considering how close they are together.
> 
> Like if person a off the bat of coming back from a temp ban and gets another infraction within 10 minutes the next infraction is considerably longer.


p sure that's how it works
some infractions last longer than otehrs


----------



## ramsay_baggins (Jun 29, 2011)

I'd just like to throw in my experience here:

Banning someone permanently is not taken lightly. Many different things are taken into consideration and discussed at length. It is not as 'random' or 'whimsical' as many people seem to think it is. Far from it, in fact.


----------



## ArielMT (Jun 29, 2011)

Browder said:


> Having witnessed the process of only one perma-ban I'll do my best to fill y'all in. Keep in mind I am posting from my phone so my answers may be summarized.
> 
> Users incurr a temp-ban if they accumulate three infractions or if the moderator, in concert with more moderator or admin approval, decide they need a break. Users can be perma banned point blank only if they're actions and history have shown them to be unabsolvable (often if they've incurred a temp ban or two). Especially if they act in such a way to threaten either the forums, it's users, or it's management system. Before perma-banning anyone the issue is talked over although an admin always has the final say.
> 
> Helpful?



Usually, more than one admin and a lot of mods have a say.



CannonFodder said:


> But what about users that wait until their infractions expire and then behave like the rules don't exist?



That's what we had before we instituted the general three temp-bans rule: we'd just infract and infract, and the only thing that happened as a result of infractions was moderated posting status.  It used to be that 3 points meant you couldn't post a new thread and 5 points meant you couldn't post at all without going through the moderated post queue.  Under that system, every single ban, temporary or otherwise, was like an act of Congress.

The current system lets us automate temporary bans so that we don't have to dig through a user's ban history when considering permanent bans.  Our memory as a whole is usually good enough.



SIX said:


> I think the truthful answer is "It's subjective".



As objective as we try to be, this is pretty much it.


----------



## Jashwa (Jun 29, 2011)

Personally, I think if you're going to consider permanently banning someone than you should be going through their ban history anyways and not just going off of memory, just sayin. It's kind of a big deal, like you said, and you shouldn't just leave it up to "Yeah, I remember them being bad" and banning.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Jun 29, 2011)

Jashwa said:


> Personally, I think if you're going to consider permanently banning someone than you should be going through their ban history anyways and not just going off of memory, just sayin. It's kind of a big deal, like you said, and you shouldn't just leave it up to "Yeah, I remember them being bad" and banning.


 
Their history IS looked at though. It is like an act of god to get someone banned. The only way I have seen someone get banned ASAP is when they were banned from main site and to prevent overwhelming shit storm they were severed. IMO it was a good call. Their history is reviewed and re-reviewed and all the mods seem to take this step.


----------



## ArielMT (Jun 29, 2011)

Well, in fairness, we _are_ very quick to banhammer obvious trolls, almost as quick as we are on the unsolicited advertisement kind of spammers.


----------



## Jashwa (Jun 29, 2011)

dinosaurdammit said:


> Their history IS looked at though. It is like an act of god to get someone banned. The only way I have seen someone get banned ASAP is when they were banned from main site and to prevent overwhelming shit storm they were severed. IMO it was a good call. Their history is reviewed and re-reviewed and all the mods seem to take this step.


 Yeah, but Ariel said:


ArielMT said:


> The current system lets us automate temporary bans so that we don't have to dig through a user's ban history when considering permanent bans.  Our memory as a whole is usually good enough.


 
That's the opposite of what you're claiming happens. 

Maybe Ariel meant something more along the lines of "lets us automate temporary bans so we have a clearer indication of when a user should be considered for a permanent ban", which would make sense. If you're considering someone for a permaban already, though, the least you can do is take 5 minutes to go through their history.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Jun 29, 2011)

Jashwa said:


> Yeah, but Ariel said:
> 
> 
> That's the opposite of what you're claiming happens.
> ...


 
Banning someone isn't something that is just done though, the mods discuss it and reach consensus. Everything is taken into account. Unless it's obvious troll or spambots or someone using an alt to harass and ban evade.


----------



## Lobar (Jun 29, 2011)

FAF does have an long, ugly track record of permabanning some of the community's best contributing posters for very, very minor slipups just for having an old track record of infractions, even when they've put a lot of effort into improving and went issue-free for quite some time.  No less than four examples immediately come to mind, and there are probably more if I think about it, but mentioning names is verboten so :\.

If an example that has not actually happened yet is okay, Deo (sorry for using you as an example) is exactly the kind of user that would tend to get permabanned for something extremely minor and silly a year or so from now: long infraction history, yes, but has completely desisted from doing the sorts of things that earned those infractions because _she wants to be here_.

Not saying the most recent ban here is part of this pattern, in fact, I'd disagree that it is, but I just wanted to mention it because I really don't want to see it continue.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 29, 2011)

Deo doesn't do nothin wrong. Nothing batshit like tohers have done


----------



## Lobar (Jun 29, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Deo doesn't do nothin wrong. Nothing batshit like tohers have done


 
Yeah she doesn't now, that's my point.  She had two tempbans around when she first reg'd and has been clean since.  There have been many users in the past with similar records that ended up getting permabanned for extremely minor offenses well after their last infraction.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jun 30, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Yeah she doesn't now, that's my point.  She had two tempbans around when she first reg'd and has been clean since.  There have been many users in the past with similar records that ended up getting permabanned for extremely minor offenses well after their last infraction.


 
How exactly do you know other people's records and stuff? Again this isn't publicly viewable you know.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jun 30, 2011)

Trpdwarf said:


> How exactly do you know other people's records and stuff? Again this isn't publicly viewable you know.


 We had a thread about this very subject.


----------



## Cyanide_tiger (Jun 30, 2011)

Trpdwarf said:


> How exactly do you know other people's records and stuff? Again this isn't publicly viewable you know.



There have been incidents in the past with screenshots from mod/admin-viewable-only forum threads getting leaked on other threads. Perhaps that has something to do with it?


----------



## Jashwa (Jun 30, 2011)

Trpdwarf said:


> How exactly do you know other people's records and stuff? Again this isn't publicly viewable you know.


 Not to be a buzz kill, but it's relatively easy to keep track of when people get _banned_. That is publicly viewable. 

Also, he could've asked her about it. 

You come off as really suspicious here when you really shouldn't be.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jun 30, 2011)

Jashwa said:


> Not to be a buzz kill, but it's relatively easy to keep track of when people get _banned_. That is publicly viewable.
> 
> Also, he could've asked her about it.
> 
> You come off as really suspicious here when you really shouldn't be.


 Yeah, it's not that hard to miss a name with a strike running through it colored yellow/red.
Well unless you're colorblind, but then you can still see the slash through the name.

You'd have to be blind to not notice it, then again if you were blind how would you be here in the first place?


----------



## Verin Asper (Jun 30, 2011)

Trpdwarf said:


> How exactly do you know other people's records and stuff? Again this isn't publicly viewable you know.


 I thought we could always see someone record, or at least their infractions to do the math to know how many times they been temp banned.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jun 30, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> We had a thread about this very subject.


 
Even then it's a little confusing to see people acting as though they know exactly what goes on behind the scenes when they don't. Even with the leaks, there is still a lot of stuff that gets spoken about on IRC before anything is done. All perm bans (with the exception of obvious bots and obvious trolls) go through major discussion and if possible we work through the infraction system fully to correct bad behavior. 

Sometimes we can work with a user to correct their behavior. Sometimes we can't because they refuse to work with us, or acknowledge the problem, or even try to change. When we try to work with a user and they show no incentive to change it becomes pointless to let them run rampant over the forum and users for the sake of going through the infraction system. But all this talk about "good users getting the kick after showing good change" is BS. Sorry but I'm saying it. I can't recall a single person who was permanently banned and didn't deserve it unless we want to bring up an X mod who abused his power and it hasn't happened since. Call this a general response to multiple posts here.



CannonFodder said:


> Yeah, it's not that hard to miss a name with a strike running through it colored yellow/red.
> Well unless you're colorblind, but then you can still see the slash through the name.
> 
> You'd have to be blind to not notice it, then again if you were blind how would you be here in the first place?


 
You may see a user suspended but you don't get to see the reason. You may see X got a temp ban. But you don't know why. It could be something they did publicly. Or it could have been a private conversation where they decided to harass a user via PM. Or it could be spamming the report thing which is against the rules. The point is you all, the general users don't always know why a user got suspended or banned. So don't talk like you know everything when you don't is all I'm saying.



Jashwa said:


> Not to be a buzz kill, but it's relatively easy to  keep track of when people get _banned_. That is publicly viewable.
> 
> Also, he could've asked her about it.
> 
> You come off as really suspicious here when you really shouldn't be.


 
Jashwa my experience as a forum mod and and admin has been thus: that when people ask other people why they got banned/suspended/ etc they tend to lie through their teeth to save face. I've seen it too many times recently with people banned from here, and going over to the main side and make stuff up in order to get attention and sympathy. It's kind of pathetic. You can't always trust just asking a person "why they got suspended" or "Why they got banned". There is nothing suspicious here, I just don't understand what entered some people's heads to be saying the things they have.


----------



## Verin Asper (Jun 30, 2011)

Trpdwarf said:


> Even then it's a little confusing to see people acting as though they know exactly what goes on behind the scenes when they don't. Even with the leaks, there is still a lot of stuff that gets spoken about on IRC before anything is done. All perm bans (with the exception of obvious bots and obvious trolls) go through major discussion and if possible we work through the infraction system fully to correct bad behavior.
> 
> Sometimes we can work with a user to correct their behavior. Sometimes we can't because they refuse to work with us, or acknowledge the problem, or even try to change. When we try to work with a user and they show no incentive to change it becomes pointless to let them run rampant over the forum and users for the sake of going through the infraction system. But all this talk about "good users getting the kick after showing good change" is BS. Sorry but I'm saying it. I can't recall a single person who was permanently banned and didn't deserve it unless we want to bring up an X mod who abused his power and it hasn't happened since. Call this a general response to multiple posts here.
> 
> ...


 so you saying not even the last of their infraction at the time would be the reason to temp ban, to which if they continue to be a problem the be the ultimate answer of why they got a perma ban?


----------



## Fay V (Jun 30, 2011)

Don't be dicks guys. 
It's true you can see that someone has been banned, but you're not taking into account that you can't see PMs and things. There are lots of times where the post itself is a minor issue that just get's a simple infraction, but then te user flips out and threatens staff or something else awful.
In reality the ban is legitimate and serious,  but you guys can only see the minor issue post. 

Again, the bans are not taken lightly and are discussed first.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jun 30, 2011)

Crysix Fousen said:


> so you saying not even the last of their infraction at the time would be the reason to temp ban, to which if they continue to be a problem the be the ultimate answer of why they got a perma ban?


 
Could you please rephrase your question? For some reason I am having a hard time understanding what you are asking.


----------



## Verin Asper (Jun 30, 2011)

Trpdwarf said:


> Could you please rephrase your question? For some reason I am having a hard time understanding what you are asking.


 forget it then since you probably wont still understand me


----------



## ArielMT (Jun 30, 2011)

I was a bit sunbaked when writing that one post.  DD clarified what I meant.  Sorry.


----------

