Citizens On Patrol Poll...are we too hard or too soft?

[SpooPoker]

Originally Posted by deadly7

I will now start reporting all your posts in the hopes you get the banstick.

 

[indesertum]

compared to purseforum you guys are superb. scratch that. you guys are superb in general

 

[Douglas]

All recent bannings I've seen lately have been richly deserved.

Potential exception is the quick timeout for Blackfyre, but frankly he deserved some time in the cooler for just being dumb (see worst poaster thread for evidence). And it was just a timeout. Every once in a while you have to take out the trash. Frankly, you've gone too easy on some. (MS)

 

[Baron]

If anything you're a tad too soft. The douchebags generally get enough rope to hang themselves 2 or 3 times, when once would suffice.

 

[Blackfyre]

Originally Posted by Douglas

All recent bannings I've seen lately have been richly deserved.

Potential exception is the quick timeout for Blackfyre, but frankly he deserved some time in the cooler for just being dumb (see worst poaster thread for evidence). And it was just a timeout. Every once in a while you have to take out the trash. Frankly, you've gone too easy on some. (MS)

i thought jon had already been nominated
my bad son

 

[Rambo]

Originally Posted by Baron

If anything you're a tad too soft. The douchebags generally get enough rope to hang themselves 2 or 3 times, when once would suffice.
+1. Also, too soft on the senior members. The SF Cognoscenti get away with WAY too much.

 

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Baron

The douchebags generally get enough rope to hang themselves 2 or 3 times, when once would suffice.
I don't mind giving people enough rope to hang themselves generally. It's pretty rare we deliver a banning to someone who has never done hole-time, then, when the ban-hammer strikes, no one is really surprised. We've pretty much always been like that.

Originally Posted by Rambo

+1. Also, too soft on the senior members. The SF Cognoscenti get away with WAY too much.
As for the cognoscenti...i am increasing scrutiny on all with above 9000 posts effective immediately. Nice move dipshit!

 

[Rambo]

Originally Posted by Matt

As for the cognoscenti...i am increasing scrutiny on all with above 9000 posts effective immediately. Nice move dipshit!
View Profile: Matt Total Posts: 9,856

 

[Matt]

I am drastically increasing scrutiny on both of us. Guess who comes off better in that exchange.

 

[Rambo]

Originally Posted by Matt

I am drastically increasing scrutiny on both of us. Guess who comes off better in that exchange.

 

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Douglas

All recent bannings I've seen lately have been richly deserved. Potential exception is the quick timeout for Blackfyre, but frankly he deserved some time in the cooler for just being dumb (see worst poaster thread for evidence). And it was just a timeout. Every once in a while you have to take out the trash. Frankly, you've gone too easy on some. (MS)

Originally Posted by Baron

If anything you're a tad too soft. The douchebags generally get enough rope to hang themselves 2 or 3 times, when once would suffice.
iirc, douchiness hasn't typically been a tipping point for banning. Generally the douche gets called out and then starts melting down in public, at which time banning is inevitable (See vanity, bris). That said, Manton and I (respectfully) disagreed a while back as to how the douchiness ought to be dealt with - I felt that the ignore function should be used (liberally), while he considered ignore to be a waste of time, since the attitude tends to be pervasive across the whole forum. I'm coming around to his way of thinking, though, and started to wonder just how many decent members sunk down to the db level because that's what they were reading. I do think that timeouts ought to be handed out more liberally to those who just flame and snark and add nothing of interest or value.

Originally Posted by Rambo

+1. Also, too soft on the senior members. The SF Cognoscenti get away with WAY too much.
YEAH - I agree. wait, what?

 

[Piobaire]

+1 on giving people over 9k in posts some higher level of scrutiny.

 

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Piobaire

+1 on giving people over 9k in posts some higher level of scrutiny.

Agree, and to add to that I would like to advocate that those over 20k poasts should be exempt from any sort of scrutiny, at all, whatsoever.

 

[Matt]

back to work for a second...so my takeaway from this is that we are perceived as a little left of center.

Far from being a fully representative sample as yet, but about half of you saying 'basically right' and about half saying 'too lenient'...work out some kind of median, and we are sitting a little left of center. I think I can live with that, and thanks for the feedback.

I'm interested in the perception of 'inconsistent'.

Five people have clicked on it - and in some ways I can see an argument for it...it's an anon poll, and I would understand why you would not want to speak up...but I'm interested, and feel free to PM me if you'd rather not post.

Do you think we play favorites with certain members who may or may not be deserving?
Do you think that we have priorities out of whack for punitive measures?
Other areas of inconsistency?

FWIW if I wasnt In The Know, it's probably what I would vote as an outsider looking in. I could particularly see a case for the second there - instant ban-hammer for an SF bump, vs reasonable tolerance for smut...you say '****' in a thread title, you get a week, you talk about punching some ***** in the mouth in a thread, you get 'lol'...so I can see areas of inconsistency over working out which is the greater sin.

I tend to think we go on rampages on various areas of the board at various times (although we do typically give fair warning in trans mod, and i consider trans mod the only thread that every single member should read)...but I could see a case being made there.

Open to other thoughts on it.

 

[acidboy]

sf mods are the most level headed and fair mods around, seriously.

and I still plan to go to saigon soon so I say you're fair.