(January 12, 2016 at 5:34 pm)Tiberius Wrote:(January 12, 2016 at 5:27 pm)Alex K Wrote: Serious question though:
- is there a MO how a potential nukee can get warned concretely that he or she might become subject to the new procedure before an actual vote and decision needs to take place? With clear rule violations, it seems more obvious that one can issue a warning after an initial violation, and then one can ban on repeat violations. But with this more ineffable criterion, how would that work? There should be a clearly defined "nuke warning" imho.
- Are we talking permanent and/or temp bans here? Will be voted on both, or will the first time always be temp?
Staff will discuss issues with certain members when they arise, and if we feel like a member is becoming a candidate for getting banned like this, we will reach out to them and ask them to consider changing their behavior. If they ignore us or continue their behavior despite our warnings, we will move to a vote on a ban.
Staff will ultimately decide on whether a temporary or permanent ban is required, which is why we didn't specify which type. If we feel a member would benefit from a week ban, we will give them that. If we feel that they nothing is going to change their behavior, and they haven't given us any reason to believe they will, we will use a permanent ban.
Hmm wonder who this person is lol.
*coughepcough*
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh