Can I request a temp Ban for a month?

[robvalue]

I hate to be a pain, but could I get a temporary ban from 3:02AM to 3:09 AM every other Wednesday?

[Heywood]

Your initial question was answered on the first page.  Yeah, and actually that last question has been answered as well.

"We aren't interested in doing that."

You knowing that isn't going to assist you at all in changing a no to a yes, so I really don't see the point in further inquiry into the matter.

Oh wait, it's you.  You can't help but be an annoying fuck.

You're smart enough to know that "We aren't interested in doing that" doesn't answer the question "What is the downside of having a ban me thread?".  You should just lock this thread if you don't want this discussion to take place.

---

Nope; I didn't even imply it.  

Good thing you're not writing a dissertation, huh?

Except that you did imply it.  

This isn't about me or Rebeccarox.  This is about having a "ban me" thread because people like me or Rebeecarox might need or simply want to use it some day.  Is self abstinence hard?  It wasn't too hard for me, but I gotta admit, I was tempted once or twice to log on.  A temp ban would have made it easier.

 

---

I hate to be a pain, but could I get a temporary ban from 3:02AM to 3:09 AM every other Wednesday?

Usually temp bans are only granted in daily increments.  

[Jackalope]

You're smart enough to know that "We aren't interested in doing that" doesn't answer the question "What is the downside of having a ban me thread?".  You should just lock this thread if you don't want this discussion to take place.

---

And apparently you aren't smart enough to figure out that "We aren't interested in doing that" *is* a downside for, you know, the staff who would have to actually make all of this work.

And Heywood, you really should stop telling us how to do our jobs.  It's annoying, and it certainly isn't earning you any friends on the staff.

[Jackalope]

Usually temp bans are only granted in daily increments.  

No.

[Longhorn]

Can I request not to be banned...pls?

[Heywood]

You're smart enough to know that "We aren't interested in doing that" doesn't answer the question "What is the downside of having a ban me thread?".  You should just lock this thread if you don't want this discussion to take place.

---

And apparently you aren't smart enough to figure out that "We aren't interested in doing that" *is* a downside for, you know, the staff who would have to actually make all of this work.

And Heywood, you really should stop telling us how to do our jobs.  It's annoying, and it certainly isn't earning you any friends on the staff.

So every week, maybe every month on average someone posts in a sticky'd thread "ban me for 3 days....finals"....banning them for 3 days while they study for their finals would be too much work for the staff?

Sorry CD.....I have my doubts. 

---

Usually temp bans are only granted in daily increments.  

No.

I was talking about other forums where this service is offered to members.

[thesummerqueen]

The staff are not your parents. If you require a ban to keep yourself off of here, you have bigger problems. Grow the fuck up.

[c172]

I second Nei's request. Don't ban him.

[Jackalope]

And apparently you aren't smart enough to figure out that "We aren't interested in doing that" *is* a downside for, you know, the staff who would have to actually make all of this work.

And Heywood, you really should stop telling us how to do our jobs.  It's annoying, and it certainly isn't earning you any friends on the staff.

So every week, maybe every month on average someone posts in a sticky'd thread "ban me for 3 days....finals"....banning them for 3 days while they study for their finals would be too much work for the staff?

Sorry CD.....I have my doubts. 

You aren't listening.

"We aren't interested in doing that" != "too much work"

I'm done going back and forth with you on this.  The answer is an unequivocal no, you wheedling will not make it yes, and quite frankly, browbeating us over this is having the opposite of the desired effect, unless you're looking for negative attention.  Keep it up, and you'll get it.

Let me make this perfectly clear.  The *volunteer* staff is not interested in babysitting members who lack the self-control to stay away when they have other pressing life needs.  None of us volunteered for that, none of us wants to do it, and therefore, it isn't going to be done.  It doesn't matter how badly Heywood wants it, it doesn't matter how little work Heywood thinks it would be.

There is literally nothing further to discuss.  So exercise some of that self-discipline you claim to have and stop.

[Esquilax]

So every week, maybe every month on average someone posts in a sticky'd thread "ban me for 3 days....finals"....banning them for 3 days while they study for their finals would be too much work for the staff?

Sorry CD.....I have my doubts.

Good thing the doubts of an uninformed person don't count for much. If we were to implement the change that you said, either we'd have to find some way to create an entirely new ban category just to mark out the self-bans from the regular ones, or we'd have to spend time trawling our voluminous archive of previous bans just to research whether prior bans were on request or not, every time we need to deliberate on taking action on a member with prior actions against them.

That's added onto the three or so reports we get every day, by the way.

Oh, and also? We're fucking volunteers, not paid drones at your behest. Satisfying your ego by implementing a frivolous additional function is not sufficient reason to do so, and since you don't get to demand that we do extra work for you, we don't have to. Any amount of extra work is you being a demanding tool to people giving up their time so you get a nice forum to visit, so where exactly do you get off acting like it's something you're owed?