Actually, Syna's system seems to be rather nice. Not perfect, but that idea works out wonderfully.
It's a bad idea to let the community think there is even a discussion over whether or not someone is to be shipped to the gauntlet. And I don't like post moderation on top of being sent to the gauntlet: the idea of being sent in the gauntlet is to redeem yourself... not to show only your non-ultra terrible posts. And a limit on how much one can post in the gauntlet also is not a good idea, as how can they respond adequately to everyone that replies in that case? And a time limit in the gauntlet until someone is banned is also a poor idea... what if a user isn't on to post every day of it? That would punish people who made an ass of themselves on their first 2 days here and took a much needed break from stress while their gauntlet time expired.
As for community responses that send people to the gauntlet... it should not be based on number. That grossly exaggerates the theist-atheist representation. It should be for *what* a person does, and how frequently. Perhaps it is sensible that a person might be sent temporarily to the gauntlet for cussing someone out several times in a row. I've done this, min has done this, a number of highly reputed members have done this. None of us are faultless or entirely innocent of it... but it seems completely rational to me to keep as much terrible stuff out of the main forum as is reasonably doable, without instantly resorting to heavy-handed temporary bans that often serve to only further infuriate people.
A simple vote to send someone to the gauntlet is not enough... there must also be reason for it. And frankly, I'd prefer to be sent to the gauntlet temporarily than to be warned/placed on moderation/especially temporarily banned. That feels more like walking over to a hardened corner of the room. Being given a warning with moderator tools feels like being slapped, and temp banning feels like being spit upon.
It's a bad idea to let the community think there is even a discussion over whether or not someone is to be shipped to the gauntlet. And I don't like post moderation on top of being sent to the gauntlet: the idea of being sent in the gauntlet is to redeem yourself... not to show only your non-ultra terrible posts. And a limit on how much one can post in the gauntlet also is not a good idea, as how can they respond adequately to everyone that replies in that case? And a time limit in the gauntlet until someone is banned is also a poor idea... what if a user isn't on to post every day of it? That would punish people who made an ass of themselves on their first 2 days here and took a much needed break from stress while their gauntlet time expired.
As for community responses that send people to the gauntlet... it should not be based on number. That grossly exaggerates the theist-atheist representation. It should be for *what* a person does, and how frequently. Perhaps it is sensible that a person might be sent temporarily to the gauntlet for cussing someone out several times in a row. I've done this, min has done this, a number of highly reputed members have done this. None of us are faultless or entirely innocent of it... but it seems completely rational to me to keep as much terrible stuff out of the main forum as is reasonably doable, without instantly resorting to heavy-handed temporary bans that often serve to only further infuriate people.
A simple vote to send someone to the gauntlet is not enough... there must also be reason for it. And frankly, I'd prefer to be sent to the gauntlet temporarily than to be warned/placed on moderation/especially temporarily banned. That feels more like walking over to a hardened corner of the room. Being given a warning with moderator tools feels like being slapped, and temp banning feels like being spit upon.
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
