nightprowler10
Global Moderator
I'll tell you when your mafia game finishes.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Question on ban announcements
- Thread starter honestbharani
- Start date
Magrat Garlick
Rather Mad Witch
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I genuinely fail to see the problem here, If you guys are going to make the decision-making personal, hand it over to a professional decision-maker who'll get it right. Every time.
Last edited:
nightprowler10
Global Moderator
I can see how my post came off as mods taking it personally but that wasn't my point (also not happened). This is rehashing old ground but he's been told multiple times not to go on crusades against ****s who will eventually be banned anyway. He thinks he's helping somehow but that's not the case and it's been communicated to him several times that it only gets him into more unnecessary trouble. So his original email says to me he still doesn't get it and just wants to be back. Mods have consistently allowed people back earlier than their ban was due and it's usually when they feel that at least the poster in question understands why they were banned and understand the expectation is that it won't happen again.
Magrat Garlick
Rather Mad Witch
a CW patreon might actually work as a crowdfunding method these days
I'll see if McHugh is available.
nightprowler10
Global Moderator
Or just a $100 expedition fee for faster decision making.
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I appreciate your sentiment, but you can't tell me that episodes like the targeting of TNT and D/L to fast track their inevitable permabans don't help the site and aren't in the best interests of its members.
In these troubled times, the people need these woeful cretins weeded out asap. Never mind this due process crap. Let's get on with it.
Spark
Global Moderator
Said targeting likely made it much more difficult to ban said members - and D/L isn't banned - by significantly muddying the waters and making us hard to tell the difference between actual trolling and posting in self-defence because everyone has ganged up on you for no reason. So in terms of "fast tracking" - no, the opposite, tbh.
It really, really, really doesn't help. Calling out nonsense is fine, but targeting members in unrelated discussions and threads and trying to get a rise out of them so they lash out just gives them a legitimate out that they can point to. Obviously TNT's trolling reached a zenith over the past day or so and it's obvious that he's just trying to get a rise out of everyone with reflexive anti-anti-Trumpism, but it's easier to moderate if the waters aren't muddied.
Last edited:
Spark
Global Moderator
Yes, but creating a multi was not exactly something that gave me hope that he would indeed stop trying to bully people he didn't like off the forum.
GoodAreasShane
Cricketer Of The Year
TNT going full alt right neckbeard was a strange, if not entirely unexpected, sight
cnerd123
likes this
the multi-ban is a bit unfair on Shri tho. You all knew from Day 1 that it was him. You allowed him to post with it instead of banning him off the bat. That was just encouraging his bully behavior rather than punishing him for it. If you wanted genuine repent and understanding on his end, you shouldn't have let him get away with the multi to begin with.
He's also sent me the following screenshot
He's also sent me the following screenshot
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Yeah I'm gonna lay it out straight here.
When he first copped the really long ban, before anyone had even complained about it, my instinct was to revist it after the length of the initial ban (three months) and have a chat to him then, thinking we'd probably agree to cut it short. Based on the massive public backlash asking us to deal with it sooner I floated the idea of talking to Shri at the time to formalise the idea that we'd let him back after roughly three months, but the combination of his email and his CricSim post made me think that actually trying to talk to him at that time wouldn't have actually got us that result. It was too hot - he was angry, the mods were stubborn at least about the initial ban, and I reckon talking to him then to negotiate a shorter ban would've just resulted in some abuse and no reduction. We decided to put it off until after three months after all, mainly because we thought we had a better shot at getting a result most people didn't hate if we let things simmer down more. Plus, after three months out we'd miss him more and he'd miss the forum more.
The date we're working on in May 27, which I think Dan worked out as three months (the initial ban) and an extra week (for the multi), excluding the time he used the multi. We might have formalised this earlier if I thought discussions were going to go well, but we didn't think that. I think putting them off for a bit has probably increased the chances of it going well.
It's not just a matter of us saying "okay we're gonna reduce your ban" and him saying "ok cool". If we're going to reduce his ban on account on it being harsh for a productive member of the forum and well-liked member of the community -- which we're on board with -- we need him to actually be a productive member of the forum and accept that he needs to change his behaviour slightly in terms of how he deals with unpopular members. If we wants to play the "did my time, it was worth it, not gonna change" game, he can do the actual time. If he wants us to reduce it he needs to accept that we don't think being a forum clique attack dog is a public service and that he needs to can it. He also needs to accept that he's gonna be on a lot of infraction points when he comes back, so if he so much as gets a five pointer he'll trigger another really long ban.
We're working on an email to send out to him today with some terms that we think are reasonable (he basically needs to accept that he'll be on a lot of points, agree to to stop baiting ****s he doesn't like, and try not to start a revolution in this thread when he gets back). We'll let him back in on May 27 if he agrees to them, but if he tells us to **** off he'll be back in six months. I don't think that's a hard thing to agree to, but maybe it is for him.
Spark
Global Moderator
I really did mean it when I said the heir of Ikki had appeared in that thread. Pretending for days on end that the evidence of our own eyes and ears was wrong, that the nakedly obviously true was actually false, and 2+2=5 was the sort of relentless troll-gaslighting that really should have gotten Ikki formally booted off the forum IMO (though, I hasten to add, strictly IMO, not the opinion of the mod team etc etc).