We should bring back the repeat offender auto-ban...

[Endangered Specie]

If anyone was around for the 2004 primaries, they were pretty heated, but frankly the vileness in this forum is a good deal worse than it was in 2004. Back then this site had a (short lived) policy that, when you got a post/thread deleted, you were 'banned' from posting until you agreed to abide by the rules (ie click a button). The idea was that if you racked up, I think, it was 20 deleted posts within a year span, you got an automatic tombstone.

Im not sure why the idea was dropped, but it seemed like an excellent idea. I think now, with the incredible number of Personal Attacks, flame bait, and calling-out posts (all against the rules) it all needs serious attention, as Im sure its so much that the mods cannot keep up with it! Also, this policy gets rid of any potential bias, its automated.

Comments, disagreements?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. Sounds like a good idea...

But perhaps it would be even better if you communicated directly with Skinner...

[Endangered Specie]

5. I figure if enough people see this thread, and agree to it...

the mods/admin will see it and weigh in.

If y'all want it, keep the thread bumped! :) I see no reason to bother the admins unless this thread gets a fair bit of support.

[Occam Bandage]

2. Agreed. Entirely.

[Cooley Hurd]

3. Although, tonight at least, I'd fall victim to it...

..I agree.:thumbsup:

[Flabbergasted]

4. Yes, excellent idea.

[paulk]

6. yes and no

there should be some mechanism to deal with disruptors, but I'm not sure that deleted posts are the way to do it. Not that I have a better idea - but the rules enforcement depends on alerts, which are arbitrary in themselves, not to mention the enforcement of the rules which seems to change with each new group of mods. I mean, I've had posts let stand which were clear violations (probably cause no one alerted them) while I've had posts deleted that were not in violation of any rule that I could find - point being that it's not a consistent system.

There are different levels of rule violations also. Sometimes a single post deserves a banning. Who decides?

[Endangered Specie]

17. A few points:

If a post is so flagrantly bad, there is nothing stopping the mods from banning that person on site, though that almost rarely happens... The point is, if you click "yes I will obey the rules" TWENTY times and still don't, well I actually dont think many people would be that stupid, its more about the 'threat of banning' than actually banning someone... If you are on number 19, youre probably gonna be on your best behavior, not reply "you are an asshole n/t" to a post.

If you have a question as to why a post was deleted, you should message the mod and they will tell you... The mods *do* have a check and balance system and cannot act as a rogue agent. Considering that this site gets hundreds of posts a minute, if no one alerts your post, it probably won't be seen.

[BootinUp]

7. There was nothing wrong with it since this is a moderated

forum. Bring it back Skinner! :)

[bridgit]

8. Well, self regulation is clearly not-doable with many so why not...

:thumbsup:

[MonkeyFunk]

9. we need a limit on the number of threads

you can start in any 24-hour period. 10 should be more than enough. Not every passing thought deserves a new thread.

At least no more than one new thread per hour - make people THINK before they start a thread if they wanna waste it on whatever gibberish passed through their brain.

[bigwillq]

15. I so agree on that one (nt)

[Endangered Specie]

18. I would suggest one per hour...

if you can get ten in a day, you can still blast the boards with 10 flagrant threads when the board heats up. One an hour will make you spend wisely, if thats too much, you can do one every half hour.

but there would need to be exceptions, people who do the "***OFFICIAL ______ THREAD #x" would be put in a bind in either system.

[MonkeyFunk]

20. good point

but people who post 40+ threads a day are just spamming the forum.

[ErnestoG]

10. I'm not so sure.

I am new here, but I was told that sometimes that "policy" you speak of got abused by the participants and some of the mods here. Maybe there is a better way to deal with the problem.

[in_cog_ni_to]

13. It did because mods are people too and support candidates.

Though we were told they never were biased.:)

[burythehatchet]

16. Yes.

[in_cog_ni_to]

11. NO! I hated that! Though I do agree with you about this being worse than 2004. NO COMPARISON.

I think Skinner decided to drop the repeat offender because it was really not a good thing for a DEMOCRATIC board.:)

[Endangered Specie]

19. why didn't you like it?

I don't see it as undemocratic, I mean, even during democratic debates they don't allow disruptors, why should we here?

[in_cog_ni_to]

21. Because it was left up to the mods to make the decisions about what someone said,

how they said, who they said it about and it was very subjective. You didn't know what you could and couldn't say. People were alerting on each other out of revenge. Threads were deleted by mods for suspect reasons. Members were banned for days for suspect reasons. You had to trust the mods. Were Howard Dean supporter mods having John Kerry supporters punished? Were Wes Clark supporter mods banning Howard Dean supporters? It was BAD all around. You would receive a warning...you had to answer the warning and promise to behave. It was not good. Big Brother on DU? I like the system we have now. alert and hide works well enough as long as people don't go crazy...like what happened here today.:)

[KennedyGuy]

12. I agree....

[tandot]

14. Agree and K & R.