Ban Vote

[Cinjin]

This is unrelated to the edit box - but still a feedback/suggestion for the overall site.

I think it would be cool to have a Ban Vote button that could be placed on a user's profile who has been violating the rules.
Obviously the button could only be placed on there by administrators and the actual banning is still solely their option. But that would give members a chance to make their opinion known about particularly offensive users and also a way to let admins and mods know how the majority feels about the bantor of said members.


Anyway, just an idea.

[fr0d0]

Ban vote: I think that's a bad idea CC. Especially in this adversarial arena where 95% represent one view: it wouldn't be very balanced. We could've had a thumbs down rep for every post, but it encourages negativity. there's enough negativity without focusing on it any more than we need to.

[Cinjin]

Ban vote: I think that's a bad idea CC. Especially in this adversarial arena where 95% represent one view: it wouldn't be very balanced. We could've had a thumbs down rep for every post, but it encourages negativity. there's enough negativity without focusing on it any more than we need to.

I disagree. I have only wanted to ban one person since I joined and I have had debates with nearly everyone. I think the people on this forum are more intelligent than you give them credit for.

Besides, the actuall banning is still left to the admins. The Ban Vote would only be a way of letting them know how everyone feels. (and thats only if everyone was voting in that direction)

[fr0d0]

How do you differentiate between the usual negative vote against a naturally opposing view and a genuine reason to ban? You already have the Report button to alert staff to misdemeanors.

[Cinjin]

How do you differentiate between the usual negative vote against a naturally opposing view and a genuine reason to ban? You already have the Report button to alert staff to misdemeanors.

Thats what I was referring to when I mentioned that I think the members here are more intelligent than that and that they would not be randomly voting to ban someone they didn't happen to agree with at that particular moment.

Plus, it sounds like you are assuming that everyone has a Ban button at all times. A Ban Vote button would only be issued by an admin when a flagrant violation was made. Random voting because someone didn't agree with you wouldn't exist - or at least it would be very minimal.

---

I should add frodo that I have disagreed with you on many occassions and I have NEVER wanted you banned for those arguments. That would just be childish and ignorant ... you know .... like a christian forum.

[tackattack]

I agree that the ban vote is a bad idea. If you want to make your opinion known of someone, rate the user. If you have problem with what they posted, report it. A vote button to ban someone where the admin's have the final say, invites trouble. It gives the appearance that the community has the say so or influence on whether to ban someone. If admin's happen to disagree with the majority, that invites discord between forum community and it's administrators.

[Cinjin]

I agree that the ban vote is a bad idea.

well, just an idea - no big thing

still hoping the edit box could grow a bit though.

[fr0d0]

Get Chrome?

---

Apologies, I missed the detail.

[Violet]

I'm still irritated over not being able to negatively rate people. I still wouldn't do it unless donee to me, but it kind of defeats the idea of having a reputation if your negative reviews are not represented.

That said, democracy is horrid. Never, never, never democracy.

[Autumnlicious]

I agree that the ban vote is a bad idea. If you want to make your opinion known of someone, rate the user. If you have problem with what they posted, report it. A vote button to ban someone where the admin's have the final say, invites trouble. It gives the appearance that the community has the say so or influence on whether to ban someone. If admin's happen to disagree with the majority, that invites discord between forum community and it's administrators.

Solution - make it something that only mods and admins can see the results, adjust the software so that it appears after the user has been around a while (~2 weeks), and weigh the votes such that users with more rep and/or more post count have a slightly more valuable vote.

The consequence of this is a) people won't be able to see how others voted, preventing group think. However, appeals to ban a person, like in a thread would have to be censored, so as to prevent said group think. b)

In essence, one wants to make the voting system only represent the voter and not the interests of other members. In addition, by delaying the time for a ban-user button to appear allows for initially troublesome posters to redeem themselves.

Perhaps we should make it a "Vote to send <user> to Gauntlet" - this will allow for the community to exercise a little bit more power while participating in subforum "Gauntlet". Thus we can increase the chances for the community dealing with trollish posters in one place and remove the whole "ban this fucker" problem through controlled isolation. If a user in the gauntlet proves to be truly troublesome, the mods and admins can ban them. If not, they can be removed.

Additionally, making this vote system appear only once or twice in the lifetime of a user is advised, such that people may only be sent once or twice to the Gauntlet, but not more. This would prevent spamming the system past reason, would allow for mods to fight vote abuse only twice in a single sitting in theory. Not to mention, if the community sends a person to the Gauntlet twice, either the community is up to no good, or the poster is up to no good. Either way, further inquiry is needed.


And have that button appear in their profile.

Simples.