New Rule Proposal Thread for Dealing with Problem Guests

[Lisa0315]

I would like to propose the following rule to deal with Problem Guests: It is called the Strike Three Rule and is only applicable to non-members.


If a guest is cited for 3 rule violations, that guest will receive a FSB (Forum Specific Ban) from CCC. The period of the FSB will be no less than 24 hours and can extend up to a Permanant ban.
A one day poll will be used to determine the length of the ban. The first 24 hours of the ban will be up to moderators,but an extension of that ban will be up to membership.
This rule may be retroactive for guests who have already been cited for 3 rule violations since the creation of CCC forums.
Retroactive polls to ban members must be set up by a member. Staff may not participate in the set up of this poll, nor recommend the retroactive poll.
Current violations from the date this rule becomes effective will have a poll set up by staff to find out if membership wants to extend the ban for longer than a 24 hour period.Please feel free to tweak this or discuss the effectiveness of these rules.

Lisa

[Addicted2~Jesus]

Hi, is there currently a wiki for this an if so could you post a link? Er do you discuss thins here? There's one thin that would concern me bout your proposal but not much, I actually think it's a pretty good idea.

[Lisa0315]

Hi, is there currently a wiki for this an if so could you post a link? Er do you discuss thins here? There's one thin that would concern me bout your proposal but not much, I actually think it's a pretty good idea.

Nah, I hate wikis. We discuss here, and then, go to poll once we have the rule like we want it.

Your concern is our concern. Fire away! :clap:

Lisa

[Macrina]

I like it, except the retroactive part. I understand why it's in there, but I think it's more important to start fresh, not responding to "strikes" that occurred before this rule was enacted.

[Jim47]

I see a few problems




If a guest is cited for 3 rule violations, that guest will receive a FSB (Forum Specific Ban) from CCC. The period of the FSB will be no less than 24 hours and can extend up to a Permanant ban.This would have to be an fsb only, unless it went through the sites ban process.

A one day poll will be used to determine the length of the ban. The first 24 hours of the ban will be up to moderators,but an extension of that ban will be up to membership.
Membership never has a say in a ban, the reason for that is that staffers are required to follow site rules to enact a ban. Its not a popularity contest or a unpopularity contest which is what that would turn out to be.

This rule may be retroactive for guests who have already been cited for 3 rule violations since the creation of CCC forums.
Rules can not be retro active

Retroactive polls to ban members must be set up by a member. Staff may not participate in the set up of this poll, nor recommend the retroactive poll.
Current violations from the date this rule becomes effective will have a poll set up by staff to find out if membership wants to extend the ban for longer than a 24 hour period
If any of these changes were to be make they would have to go through the sites wiki and be turned into actual rules. Trying to set up this through CC only will not make it to first base.

As I said above, staff currently handles bans and that if following the sites guidelines not a membership vote. The memebership has a say by voting for staff that apply the rules correctly and fairly.

May I suggest that you close this thread and open up a disucssion thread in ET staff HQ. I think there are some things we need to explain. :)

[Addicted2~Jesus]

I would like to propose the following rule to deal with Problem Guests: It is called the Strike Three Rule and is only applicable to non-members.


If a guest is cited for 3 rule violations, that guest will receive a FSB (Forum Specific Ban) from CCC. The period of the FSB will be no less than 24 hours and can extend up to a Permanant ban.
A one day poll will be used to determine the length of the ban. The first 24 hours of the ban will be up to moderators,but an extension of that ban will be up to membership.
This rule may be retroactive for guests who have already been cited for 3 rule violations since the creation of CCC forums.
Retroactive polls to ban members must be set up by a member. Staff may not participate in the set up of this poll, nor recommend the retroactive poll.
Current violations from the date this rule becomes effective will have a poll set up by staff to find out if membership wants to extend the ban for longer than a 24 hour period.Please feel free to tweak this or discuss the effectiveness of these rules.

Lisa


Cool, the part I bolded would be the only thin I'm concerned bout, I don't have a good answer for round it however, sorry. But this part of the rule *could* allow for this forum to git rid of someone they "jes don't want around". Forgittin the great commision for the moment, perhaps this should be tweaked a bit as to not 'appear' that this forum is simply tryin to kick out of the church anyone they wish. It's not our jobs as christians to do that anyway. Althoguh I fully understand the desire to jes put a problem away.

They way it's currently worded, this would allow any member of CC to open a poll an decide to 'try' an git another user in this subforum banned permanately. I support the idea of staff not bein the ones to start the poll but I'm not sure allowin a small group of reglaurs to dictate that so an so can be banned. Instead of permanat bans, maybe sumthin more along the lines of fsb's, those I believe are currently allowed up to 2 weeks I think. Maybe apply the three strike rule to that as well, so that after 3 fsb's where staff could show wit proof they have tried to concil a user who is jes hell bent on causin troubles that there was at least an attempt.

So, maybe instead of permanant bans, fsb's could be used for 3 days, then 10, then 14 an if they come back after the experation of the 3rd fsb, staff er members could start a poll for a permant ban.

The thin I'd be concerned wit is a particular problem user could run off into appeals, er higher ups, er supprt er whatever an create such a stink an then this subforum wouldn't have much evdence to say we tried this that an the other an the user contiuned.

Some folks have real fits round the forums if the i's aren't dotted an the t's aren't crossed, if the membership went wit your proposal then it would benefit this sub forum to have as much backin as possible if an when a user went runnin off cryin fowl later.

[Hentenza]

There also this wiki already in progress.

http://foru.ms/t5965634-wiki-et-ban-protocol.html

[Addicted2~Jesus]

I see a few problems




If a guest is cited for 3 rule violations, that guest will receive a FSB (Forum Specific Ban) from CCC. The period of the FSB will be no less than 24 hours and can extend up to a Permanant ban.This would have to be an fsb only, unless it went through the sites ban process.

A one day poll will be used to determine the length of the ban. The first 24 hours of the ban will be up to moderators,but an extension of that ban will be up to membership.
Membership never has a say in a ban, the reason for that is that staffers are required to follow site rules to enact a ban. Its not a popularity contest or a unpopularity contest which is what that would turn out to be.

This rule may be retroactive for guests who have already been cited for 3 rule violations since the creation of CCC forums.
Rules can not be retro active

Retroactive polls to ban members must be set up by a member. Staff may not participate in the set up of this poll, nor recommend the retroactive poll.
Current violations from the date this rule becomes effective will have a poll set up by staff to find out if membership wants to extend the ban for longer than a 24 hour period
If any of these changes were to be make they would have to go through the sites wiki and be turned into actual rules. Trying to set up this through CC only will not make it to first base.

As I said above, staff currently handles bans and that if following the sites guidelines not a membership vote. The memebership has a say by voting for staff that apply the rules correctly and fairly.

May I suggest that you close this thread and open up a disucssion thread in ET staff HQ. I think there are some things we need to explain. :)


Mmmm I didn't read it as permant site wide bans. It's been discussed before an no sub-forum is allowed to issue a permant site wide ban, er even a limited site wide ban, sub-forums do not have the power to issue such thins outside of thier own forums. Sorry I don't currently knwo where the link is. Though, sub-forums may issue fsb's for any length up to 2 weeks that I know of currently. This might be expounded a bit more, I'd havta look it up agin, I think it's under the faq but cain't swear to it.

I agree the membership cain't decide to ban a user period. But in a sub-forum the users could approve er disapprove of no longer wishin to deal wit a certain user. Wether that would be allowin the users to issue the ban er not I donno, but it would be by user vote an then the staff could do wit the results as they wished. Kind of like our electrial colledge thin here in the states, we vote, the staff then takes what the people want an enforces it.

I also agree that retroactive enforcement of rules will probly blow up in folks faces, so oughta start from the time this was snap shotted.

I think the three strike rule is a good idea though, espically when there is a histroy that is verfible an it doesn't come back to haunt staff later.

[Lisa0315]

Jim,
There is just no way to win. MNPhysicist said that forums may set up their own rules and warning systems. This falls within those guidelines.

I understand that perhaps it should not be retroactive, nor should it be based on a membership poll, but can we keep the Strike 3 Rule? Perhaps, have it stacked and call it Strike 3 with Innings.

Try this instead:


Inning 1: Strike 3, FSB for 24 hours
Inning 2: Strike 3, FSB for 1 week
Inning 3: Strike 3, FSB for 1 month
Inning 4: Strike 3, Permanant ban from forumThis is not a site wide ban but specific to CCC only.

Lisa

[Macrina]

Jim,
There is just no way to win. MNPhysicist said that forums may set up their own rules and warning systems. This falls within those guidelines.

I understand that perhaps it should not be retroactive, nor should it be based on a membership poll, but can we keep the Strike 3 Rule? Perhaps, have it stacked and call it Strike 3 with Innings.

Try this instead:


Inning 1: Strike 3, FSB for 24 hours
Inning 2: Strike 3, FSB for 1 week
Inning 3: Strike 3, FSB for 1 month
Inning 4: Strike 3, Permanant ban from forumThis is not a site wide ban but specific to CCC only.

Lisa

That seems workable.

[Addicted2~Jesus]

I like that idea to.. only it does mean that staff will have to deal wit problem users longer, for months at a time type thin. But I agree it's sumthin that should be allowed for sub-forums, maybe stick a clause in that instead of a permant ban that a year long ban is in place an after 6 months can be appealed to this forum for good behavior type thin.

The idea shouldn't be to cast folks out the door on their backsides but to show them the love of Christ, an staff could do this by showin as much grace as possible up until that's enough of that type thin. But make sure it's an easy protocal to follow so that won't bite anyone either.

One other thin... as I already seen a user who jes isn't up to much good at the top of this thread when I came in. How could staff handle other staff members who are guests here? I'm not sure membership can mandate any rules that will affect staff from other teams an the like?

btw I realize I am jes a guest here as well, I've lurked through here over the years but this is the first time I've posted, so please feel free to disregard anythin I have to say, I'm jes throwin some ideas out.

[Lisa0315]

I like that idea to.. only it does mean that staff will have to deal wit problem users longer, for months at a time type thin. But I agree it's sumthin that should be allowed for sub-forums, maybe stick a clause in that instead of a permant ban that a year long ban is in place an after 6 months can be appealed to this forum for good behavior type thin.

The idea shouldn't be to cast folks out the door on their backsides but to show them the love of Christ, an staff could do this by showin as much grace as possible up until that's enough of that type thin. But make sure it's an easy protocal to follow so that won't bite anyone either.

One other thin... as I already seen a user who jes isn't up to much good at the top of this thread when I came in. How could staff handle other staff members who are guests here? I'm not sure membership can mandate any rules that will affect staff from other teams an the like?

btw I realize I am jes a guest here as well, I've lurked through here over the years but this is the first time I've posted, so please feel free to disregard anythin I have to say, I'm jes throwin some ideas out.

Oops, I could have sworn you were a member. If you aren't, then, it is probably a good idea for you to not participate in this. I am going to go check the roster. Are you sure you didn't sign in at one time?

Lisa

[Criada]

Jim,
There is just no way to win. MNPhysicist said that forums may set up their own rules and warning systems. This falls within those guidelines.

I understand that perhaps it should not be retroactive, nor should it be based on a membership poll, but can we keep the Strike 3 Rule? Perhaps, have it stacked and call it Strike 3 with Innings.

Try this instead:


Inning 1: Strike 3, FSB for 24 hours
Inning 2: Strike 3, FSB for 1 week
Inning 3: Strike 3, FSB for 1 month
Inning 4: Strike 3, Permanant ban from forumThis is not a site wide ban but specific to CCC only.

Lisa
Sounds OK - still not happy with the idea of banning someone permanantly, tho... :sigh:

[Lisa0315]

I like that idea to.. only it does mean that staff will have to deal wit problem users longer, for months at a time type thin. But I agree it's sumthin that should be allowed for sub-forums, maybe stick a clause in that instead of a permant ban that a year long ban is in place an after 6 months can be appealed to this forum for good behavior type thin.

The idea shouldn't be to cast folks out the door on their backsides but to show them the love of Christ, an staff could do this by showin as much grace as possible up until that's enough of that type thin. But make sure it's an easy protocal to follow so that won't bite anyone either.

One other thin... as I already seen a user who jes isn't up to much good at the top of this thread when I came in. How could staff handle other staff members who are guests here? I'm not sure membership can mandate any rules that will affect staff from other teams an the like?

btw I realize I am jes a guest here as well, I've lurked through here over the years but this is the first time I've posted, so please feel free to disregard anythin I have to say, I'm jes throwin some ideas out.

Nope, definitely not a member. However, if you would like to be, all you have to do is read our Statement of Beliefs and if you agree, go to the Sign In thread that is stickied in the same place. That's it. We are really not that hard to get along with. :)

Lisa

[Macrina]

Sounds OK - still not happy with the idea of banning someone permanantly, tho... :sigh:

Could we make that a one-year ban instead of a permanent ban? Thus leave the door open a crack for reconciliation?

[Criada]

Also - could we include the idea that the reports have to be by different members...
Otherwise it would be very easy for a member to get someone banned for reasons of personal dislike.
I don't think any of our members would do that - but tis as well to be prepared!

[Lisa0315]

Also - could we include the idea that the reports have to be by different members...
Otherwise it would be very easy for a member to get someone banned for reasons of personal dislike.
I don't think any of our members would do that - but tis as well to be prepared!

Excellent point! I agree! :thumbsup:

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

Inning 1: Strike 3, FSB for 24 hours
Inning 2: Strike 3, FSB for 1 week
Inning 3: Strike 3, FSB for 1 month
Inning 4: Strike 3, FSB for 1 year, but can appeal in 6 months.
This is not a site wide ban but specific to CCC only.
In each inning, each strike must be reported by a different CCC member to avoid personal vendettas against a guest.Better? More tweaking? :)

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

I wish MrJim was here. He would have liked this macho approach to a new rule. :(

Lisa

[Macrina]

Inning 1: Strike 3, FSB for 24 hours
Inning 2: Strike 3, FSB for 1 week
Inning 3: Strike 3, FSB for 1 month
Inning 4: Strike 3, FSB for 1 year, but can appeal in 6 months.
This is not a site wide ban but specific to CCC only.
In each inning, each strike must be reported by a different CCC member to avoid personal vendettas against a guest.Better? More tweaking? :)

Lisa

I'm with ya. Thanks for tweaking it.

[FriendsFellowship]

Also - could we include the idea that the reports have to be by different members...
Otherwise it would be very easy for a member to get someone banned for reasons of personal dislike.
I don't think any of our members would do that - but tis as well to be prepared!

I'm assuming that the reports would be legitimate reports acted on by more than one staff member. If the report are all legit, I don't think it matters if they are all originated be the some person. :)

One concern that I would have is that commonly a person may have multiple reports against them at one time. If they have 3 concurrent reports would that mean an instant permanent ban?

[Lisa0315]

He would have said something funny about my curlers too. :cry:

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

I'm assuming that the reports would be legitimate reports acted on by more than one staff member. If the report are all legit, I don't think it matters if they are all originated be the some person. :)

One concern that I would have is that commonly a person may have multiple reports against them at one time. If they have 3 concurrent reports would that mean an instant permanent ban?

Good thoughts. We should write in something about reports that are violations, not just spite reports. (Not that we would EVER spite report anyone.:D )

The same post cannot be reported twice. Erwin just coded that a couple weeks ago.

I am not sure about the different members and the time frame. What do you propose?

Lisa

[FriendsFellowship]

He would have said something funny about my curlers too. :cry:

Lisa

You mean those are curlers???? :cool:

[Lisa0315]

You mean those are curlers???? :cool:

Yeah, I am a nurse late for work today...:)

See my siggy? Wanna be in my contest? We need more contestants.

Lisa

[FriendsFellowship]

Good thoughts. We should write in something about reports that are violations, not just spite reports. (Not that we would EVER spite report anyone.:D )

The same post cannot be reported twice. Erwin just coded that a couple weeks ago.

I am not sure about the different members and the time frame. What do you propose?

Lisa

I've seem people wake up on the wrong side of bed and just wreak havoc in several forums all at once.

I don't want to see anyone get the worst just because they've had one bad day!

I don't know how I'd word that into a rule....

[FriendsFellowship]

Yeah, I am a nurse late for work today...:)

See my siggy? Wanna be in my contest? We need more contestants.

Lisa

Fashion contest eh? In that getup you'd be a sure winner! :P

[Lisa0315]

Fashion contest eh? In that getup you'd be a sure winner! :P

I'm a judge, silly. I am the judge for "So Ugly, It's Cute!". We have five other categories as well. Check it out!

BTW, thanks for making me feel a little better.

Lisa

[Miss Shelby]

Well the problem poster seems to have let up at least for the time being. Who knows, perhaps the problem with solve itself.

[Criada]

Inning 1: Strike 3, FSB for 24 hours
Inning 2: Strike 3, FSB for 1 week
Inning 3: Strike 3, FSB for 1 month
Inning 4: Strike 3, FSB for 1 year, but can appeal in 6 months.
This is not a site wide ban but specific to CCC only.
In each inning, each strike must be reported by a different CCC member to avoid personal vendettas against a guest.Better? More tweaking? :)

Lisa
Seems OK.
Thanks for all the work you're putting in on this, Lisa! :hug:

[Lisa0315]

Well the problem poster seems to have let up at least for the time being. Who knows, perhaps the problem with solve itself.

Perhaps...But like I said to another poster, she has played her hand now in public. Any violation here now will prove that she has a different motive than the one she is projecting. As I said to Greenie, "trying to look like a rose, but smelling like xxxx"

You a'int the only one who can tell it like it is.

Lisa

[Addicted2~Jesus]

I've seem people wake up on the wrong side of bed and just wreak havoc in several forums all at once.

I don't want to see anyone get the worst just because they've had one bad day!

I don't know how I'd word that into a rule....

I'll member up in a minute, I know this is off topic of sorts, but I don't typically member up to much of anythin, I disagree wit segragation an sorta feel that's what mans 'religion' has done. I am a non-denominational christian an I am conservative in my views, but wit all the fancy terms folks throw round I cain't never keep up wit em anyways :P

Back to the topic, from the way I read this current rule set, it would need to be three consecutive rule violations/reports that were deemed violation to receive a 24 hour ban, an thus goin up from there. I personnaly would pray that no one would rack up three violations all in one mornin type thin, but I'm sure it's possible.

The one thin I would caution would be to K.I.S.S. Keep it simple stupid, (no offense to anyone hehe) the more complicated one makes a set of rules er policies the harder it is to keep track of what's what.

I don't know, someone wit more of an idea of the reports here could say I'm sure, I haven't even looked, but are there that many reports on the same person that often? By that, I mean are folks goin to wind up banned for a year jes after one week of silliness in here? Could they rack up that much trouble for themsefs that quickly?

[Lisa0315]

I'll member up in a minute, I know this is off topic of sorts, but I don't typically member up to much of anythin, I disagree wit segragation an sorta feel that's what mans 'religion' has done. I am a non-denominational christian an I am conservative in my views, but wit all the fancy terms folks throw round I cain't never keep up wit em anyways :P

Back to the topic, from the way I read this current rule set, it would need to be three consecutive rule violations/reports that were deemed violation to receive a 24 hour ban, an thus goin up from there. I personnaly would pray that no one would rack up three violations all in one mornin type thin, but I'm sure it's possible.

The one thin I would caution would be to K.I.S.S. Keep it simple stupid, (no offense to anyone hehe) the more complicated one makes a set of rules er policies the harder it is to keep track of what's what.

I don't know, someone wit more of an idea of the reports here could say I'm sure, I haven't even looked, but are there that many reports on the same person that often? By that, I mean are folks goin to wind up banned for a year jes after one week of silliness in here? Could they rack up that much trouble for themsefs that quickly?

I don't know. Do me a favor, though. Go sign in first, then, we will discuss. You have some very good ideas here and I want you to enjoy full membership. At the same time, I can't allow you to do what people were upset for Rochir for doing.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

Inning 1: Strike 3, FSB for 24 hours
Inning 2: Strike 3, FSB for 1 week
Inning 3: Strike 3, FSB for 1 month
Inning 4: Strike 3, FSB for 1 year, but can appeal in 6 months.
This is not a site wide ban but specific to CCC only.
In each inning, each strike must be reported by a different CCC member to avoid personal vendettas against a guest.
No more than one strike can be given in a 24 hour period.
Each strike must be accompanied with a PM from staff warning them of the potential FSB. (Site wide protocol)Better? More tweaking? :)

[GreenMunchkin]

k. At least this would give us some teeth. Thanks, Lisa :hug:

[Criada]

Inning 1: Strike 3, FSB for 24 hours
Inning 2: Strike 3, FSB for 1 week
Inning 3: Strike 3, FSB for 1 month
Inning 4: Strike 3, FSB for 1 year, but can appeal in 6 months.
This is not a site wide ban but specific to CCC only.
In each inning, each strike must be reported by a different CCC member to avoid personal vendettas against a guest.
No more than one strike can be given in a 24 hour period.
Each strike must be accompanied with a PM from staff warning them of the potential FSB. (Site wide protocol)Better? More tweaking? :)
:)
:hug:

[Lisa0315]

k. At least this would give us some teeth. Thanks, Lisa :hug:

Are you going to make us the happiest forum in the world and rejoin us? Not that we accepted your resignation to begin with...:D

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

Just received permission to post this...From MNPhysicist:

Re: lets clarify via PM first so we are on the same page


Sure, go ahead and use this if you want.

The 3 strikes thing makes a lot more sense imho. Good idea
Ron
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisa0315
Quote:
Originally Posted by mnphysicist
You asked for clarification and application. I don't follow...

This is what I am thinking.

You make a rule that allows for discussion as to A being sinful, which is fine.

Some folks who don't find A to be sinful, cause trouble, and report every application.

Thus, you prevent folks other than members from reporting, to ease the staff burden.

Overtime, the forum starts allowing flaming of folks who disagree. Your staff doesn't take action. A super or admin from another team can step in and make a report. If it doesn't get handled, and it is a violation, they can request disciplinary proceedings, for failing to enfore the rules etc.

Does this make sense?
Ron

Yes, it does. Do I have your permission to put this PM in the CCC forum rule proposal? I can link you up if you like.

As it is, the members have decided that this is a bad idea already. We are looking at a Strike 3 You are Out kind of rule for guests now.

Lisa

[Tonks]

Good thoughts. We should write in something about reports that are violations, not just spite reports. (Not that we would EVER spite report anyone.:D )

The same post cannot be reported twice. Erwin just coded that a couple weeks ago.

I am not sure about the different members and the time frame. What do you propose?

Lisa

This needs to be based on violations...not reports. I could have 10 reports on my from CCC and every single one of them could be ruled no violation. In the absence of doing anything against the rules there is no need for a ban merely because someone knows where the report button is.

I'm thinking that this is what you mean by the three strike rule but I think that it needs to be explicit (I was somewhat confused).

To extend the logic if this came up on appeals and I was sitting on the panel I'd vote to overturn the ban if this was simply based on reports and not violations. I think that the other Admins would as well.

Again, I may be misreading this entirely and we're probably on the same page.

[Lisa0315]

This needs to be based on violations...not reports. I could have 10 reports on my from CCC and every single one of them could be ruled no violation. In the absence of doing anything against the rules there is no need for a ban merely because someone knows where the report button is.

I'm thinking that this is what you mean by the three strike rule but I think that it needs to be explicit (I was somewhat confused).

To extend the logic if this came up on appeals and I was sitting on the panel I'd vote to overturn the ban if this was simply based on reports and not violations. I think that the other Admins would as well.

Again, I may be misreading this entirely and we're probably on the same page.

Yes, it is rule violations, not just reports, but I can add that in so there is no possible way to misunderstand it or abuse it.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

Inning 1: Strike 3, FSB for 24 hours
Inning 2: Strike 3, FSB for 1 week
Inning 3: Strike 3, FSB for 1 month
Inning 4: Strike 3, FSB for 1 year, but can appeal in 6 months.
This is not a site wide ban but specific to CCC only.
In each inning, each strike must be reported by a different CCC member to avoid personal vendettas against a guest.
No more than one strike can be given in a 24 hour period.
Each strike must be accompanied with a PM from staff warning them of the potential FSB. (Site wide protocol)
Strike means a documented rule violation agreed upon by at least three CCC mods or ET SuperMods.Better? More tweaking? :)

[Tonks]

Cool. Then we're on the same page. I think that this will work well for the forum.

ETA: sounds like the beginnings of a CCC Moderation Protocol wiki.

[Lisa0315]

Cool. Then we're on the same page. I think that this will work well for the forum.

ETA: sounds like the beginnings of a CCC Moderation Protocol wiki.

Nah, we don't like wikis. We like discussion threads. Then, we go to poll once we have it written exactly the way we want it.

Lisa

[Tonks]

I should have just said protocol, not wiki.

[ContentInHim]

I like that idea to.. only it does mean that staff will have to deal wit problem users longer, for months at a time type thin. But I agree it's sumthin that should be allowed for sub-forums, maybe stick a clause in that instead of a permant ban that a year long ban is in place an after 6 months can be appealed to this forum for good behavior type thin.

The idea shouldn't be to cast folks out the door on their backsides but to show them the love of Christ, an staff could do this by showin as much grace as possible up until that's enough of that type thin. But make sure it's an easy protocal to follow so that won't bite anyone either.

One other thin... as I already seen a user who jes isn't up to much good at the top of this thread when I came in. How could staff handle other staff members who are guests here? I'm not sure membership can mandate any rules that will affect staff from other teams an the like?

btw I realize I am jes a guest here as well, I've lurked through here over the years but this is the first time I've posted, so please feel free to disregard anythin I have to say, I'm jes throwin some ideas out.
These are the kinds of helpful posts we look forward to from our guests! :hug:

[Lisa0315]

These are the kinds of helpful posts we look forward to from our guests! :hug:

Not a guest anymore. He joined us!!! :clap:

Lisa

[ContentInHim]

Well, good for CCC - he's a welcome addition!

[GreenMunchkin]

Inning 1: Strike 3, FSB for 24 hours
Inning 2: Strike 3, FSB for 1 week
Inning 3: Strike 3, FSB for 1 month
Inning 4: Strike 3, FSB for 1 year, but can appeal in 6 months.
This is not a site wide ban but specific to CCC only.
In each inning, each strike must be reported by a different CCC member to avoid personal vendettas against a guest.
No more than one strike can be given in a 24 hour period.
Each strike must be accompanied with a PM from staff warning them of the potential FSB. (Site wide protocol)
Strike means a documented rule violation agreed upon by at least three CCC mods or ET SuperMods.Better? More tweaking? :)The only one I'm unsure about is 6... shouldn't matter who reports it, cos a violation is a violation is a violation, regardless of who reported it. And the inverse is also true. If a member has already reported someone, and sees another violation by that same person, they mustn't feel like their reporting it would invalidate the report. So am unsure as to why that's in there, slightly.

[Lisa0315]

The only one I'm unsure about is 6... shouldn't matter who reports it, cos a violation is a violation is a violation, regardless of who reported it. And the inverse is also true. If a member has already reported someone, and sees another violation by that same person, they mustn't feel like their reporting it would invalidate the report. So am unsure as to why that's in there, slightly.

Yeah, it was a suggestion by another member, but mods should be able to rule if it is a violation or not regardless of who reports it. Let me go see who suggested that and see if they will be okay with taking it out.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

Hey Criada,
Can we discuss the one report per member part? GM has some concerns about that.

Lisa

[Criada]

Yes - just saw this...
Can see your point, but...
It just seems very open to one member continually reporting someone they have a problem with..
On the other hand, i suppose that should be picked up by staff.
And it does seem stupid to make people feel they can't report an actual violation cos they've already reported that person.
But - if it is a violation, surely there are enough of us that someone else will report it anyway...

:scratch:
Don't know.
Sorry - not being very helpful...
Not really up to all this tonight, sis.
do what you think - i trust your judgement better than mine just now, anyway!
:hug:

[Lisa0315]

Okay, I think we have to trust our members to not spite report. I am going to remove the part about one report per member.

Lisa

[Criada]

k

[Lisa0315]

Inning 1: Strike 3, FSB for 24 hours
Inning 2: Strike 3, FSB for 1 week
Inning 3: Strike 3, FSB for 1 month
Inning 4: Strike 3, FSB for 1 year, but can appeal in 6 months.
This is not a site wide ban but specific to CCC only.
No more than one strike can be given in a 24 hour period.
Each strike must be accompanied with a PM from staff warning them of the potential FSB. (Site wide protocol)
Strike means a documented rule violation agreed upon by at least three CCC mods or ET SuperMods.Better? More tweaking? :)

[Lisa0315]

Okay, I went for a compromise. Read #6 and see if you think that should be included or struck out all the way.

Lisa

[GreenMunchkin]

I can't think of a single member who would indulge in spite reporting. This is a genuinely special group of people.

But if it was ever to become an issue, staff could gently approach the individual doing the reporting, and solve it that way :hug:

EDIT: Just saw your change, Lisa. I really hate it :( It just sounds so, like, threatening.

[Criada]

Don't think anyone here would do it, sis, was just thinking of future hypotheticals!
Is fine as it stands. :hug;

[Lisa0315]

I can't think of a single member who would indulge in spite reporting. This is a genuinely special group of people.

But if it was ever to become an issue, staff could gently approach the individual doing the reporting, and solve it that way :hug:

Do we want to leave that in the rule? Do you think that it may cause guests to cite that rule against a member? Let's try to think this all the way through so we have no regrets.

Lisa

[Criada]

Whatever.
:)

[GreenMunchkin]

Do we want to leave that in the rule? Do you think that it may cause guests to cite that rule against a member? Let's try to think this all the way through so we have no regrets.

LisaHey! Just got an M!! Ooh, everything looks different :eek:

I just don't want our rules to sound scary and threatening. Ya know?

[Lisa0315]

Hey! Just got an M!! Ooh, everything looks different :eek:

I just don't want our rules to sound scary and threatening. Ya know?

Let's all take a moment and say,
WOOT FOR GREEN MUNCHKIN!

[Lisa0315]

Okay, I took #6 out all the way.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

Hey! Just got an M!! Ooh, everything looks different :eek:

I just don't want our rules to sound scary and threatening. Ya know?

Just pay attention to all the red bracket thingies. That is the confidential stuff. :)

Lisa

[GreenMunchkin]

Let's all take a moment and say,
WOOT FOR GREEN MUNCHKIN!Hehehe! Nicely done. Subtle n stuff! :P :hug:

Cheers, luv :)

EDIT: Just seen you say you deleted #6 :) Ok, so what do we do next? Ohhhh nooooo... poll it? :D

[Criada]

Let's all take a moment and say,
WOOT FOR GREEN MUNCHKIN!
:clap: :clap: :clap:

[Tonks]

Just as a note for rules 3&4 (since the timeline is too short under 1 & 2)...members can initiate an appeal at any time so even if your rules don't allow for an appeal members are allowed to do so - staff chain of command trumps FSRs in this case.

Just thought you should be aware of it. One cannot make bans unappealable.

ETA: I'd just remove the bit about appealing FSBs in 6 months. Generally, 99.9% of FSBs are upheld. If they're overturned it is usually on a technicality. At that point we're really not judging whether the posts which led to an FSB are violations or not but whether the rules (whatever they may be) were followed.

[Lisa0315]

Inning 1: Strike 3, FSB for 24 hours
Inning 2: Strike 3, FSB for 1 week
Inning 3: Strike 3, FSB for 1 month
Inning 4: Strike 3, FSB for 1 year
This is not a site wide ban but specific to CCC only.
No more than one strike can be given in a 24 hour period.
Each strike must be accompanied with a PM from staff warning them of the potential FSB. (Site wide protocol)
Strike means a documented rule violation agreed upon by at least three CCC mods or ET SuperMods.Better? More tweaking? :)

[Lisa0315]

Just as a note for rules 3&4 (since the timeline is too short under 1 & 2)...members can initiate an appeal at any time so even if your rules don't allow for an appeal members are allowed to do so - staff chain of command trumps FSRs in this case.

Just thought you should be aware of it. One cannot make bans unappealable.

ETA: I'd just remove the bit about appealing FSBs in 6 months. Generally, 99.9% of FSBs are upheld. If they're overturned it is usually on a technicality. At that point we're really not judging whether the posts which led to an FSB are violations or not but whether the rules (whatever they may be) were followed.

Thanks for that tip, Tonks. Updated.

Lisa

[Tonks]

Yup. Looks good. Regarding point 6 (a very good rule, btw) here's how we'd generally - in the old days - deal with multiple actionable reports:

We give a warning (or an infraction depending on what was due) on a single post and then mention "by the way, these posts were also problematic (for whichever rule violations) etc."

That way we could clean out the report queue and not unnecessarily make someone have a terrible day.

[GreenMunchkin]

Inning 1: Strike 3, FSB for 24 hours
Inning 2: Strike 3, FSB for 1 week
Inning 3: Strike 3, FSB for 1 month
Inning 4: Strike 3, FSB for 1 year
This is not a site wide ban but specific to CCC only.
No more than one strike can be given in a 24 hour period.
Each strike must be accompanied with a PM from staff warning them of the potential FSB. (Site wide protocol)
Strike means a documented rule violation agreed upon by at least three CCC mods or ET SuperMods.Better? More tweaking? :)Yikes... ok, that no more than 1 strike in 24 hours. I know it probably makes a world of sense, but does that mean, hypothetically, that someone could go on an absolute 24-hour rampage and only incur one strike? That makes me a little nervous, somehow.

[Tonks]

^ In the past moderators had the ability to ban someone for 24 hours from the entire site. I believe that may have been removed from the current rules.

However, that is what I would call the "nuclear option." Before MezzaMorta a few weeks ago I had used that option exactly once. I've now used it twice in about a year.

You're still free to delete posts etc under Lisa's proposed protocol.

[FriendsFellowship]

Yikes... ok, that no more than 1 strike in 24 hours. I know it probably makes a world of sense, but does that mean, hypothetically, that someone could go on an absolute 24-hour rampage and only incur one strike? That makes me a little nervous, somehow.

Maybe it should be one inning every 24 hours?

[FriendsFellowship]

^ In the past moderators had the ability to ban someone for 24 hours from the entire site. I believe that may have been removed from the current rules.

However, that is what I would call the "nuclear option." Before MezzaMorta a few weeks ago I had used that option exactly once. I've now used it twice in about a year.

You're still free to delete posts etc under Lisa's proposed protocol.

Are you saying that you don't believe we can FSB anyone as being discussed?

[Addicted2~Jesus]

That was sorta the thin though bout the appeal after 6 months. I wasn't referrrin to the offical appeals process, jes a pm ordeal to the staff of the subforum. A year long ban is a long time, an I figured that after 6 months of time served on a one year FSB then if the user was actually really serious bout comin back that would allow the staff to grant it under their own power an remove the FSB for jes that forum of course.

I'd hate for someone who has had a really bad month er ya know out there circumstances to end up gittin slapped wit a one year FSB an no hope of havin it reversed, for example, say I'm banned for a year, I take it to the offical appeals an their descision is final, that was my one an only appeal over the ban, they up hold it. But 6 months down the road, I've been a good boy an genuinely wanna come back, I could fire off a pm to the admin askin them to review my case an see wether 6 months was worth the time served an lift the ban.

Le's be honest, no FSB er even site wide ban can be fully effective IF someone wants to cause trouble, there's any number of ways around bans, new accounts, new names, different style etc etc. So the only thin a one year ban would actually accomplish to anyone who is serious bout thier own integrity is goin to keep em on the outside lookin in for a year. I think there should be some way to allow a user that has gotten into THAT much trouble to earn a year long ban to 'throw themsefs on the mercy of the admins of the forum'.

Let it never be said that this staff team had no room for compassion an grace. These are qualities we all need to posess in abundeance.

[Tonks]

Are you saying that you don't believe we can FSB anyone as being discussed?

Whoops...I wasn't clear. In the past there was an option whereby moderators (Supervisors and Admins) could ban someone from the entire site (an actual software ban) for a period of 24 hours to keep the peace.

Regarding the current discussion...this is one of the better FSB protocols that I have seen.

[Lisa0315]

Yikes... ok, that no more than 1 strike in 24 hours. I know it probably makes a world of sense, but does that mean, hypothetically, that someone could go on an absolute 24-hour rampage and only incur one strike? That makes me a little nervous, somehow.

No, we still have e-bans which can be carried out by a moderator if needed. No rampages are going to be allowed on our watch, right? ;)

Lisa

[Tonks]

That was sorta the thin though bout the appeal after 6 months. I wasn't referrrin to the offical appeals process, jes a pm ordeal to the staff of the subforum. A year long ban is a long time, an I figured that after 6 months of time served on a one year FSB then if the user was actually really serious bout comin back that would allow the staff to grant it under their own power an remove the FSB for jes that forum of course.


Good point, A2J...I was thinking along the lines of official appeals. To extend your remarks I think that staff should have the ability to lift an FSB at any point they choose.

[Jim47]

Yikes... ok, that no more than 1 strike in 24 hours. I know it probably makes a world of sense, but does that mean, hypothetically, that someone could go on an absolute 24-hour rampage and only incur one strike? That makes me a little nervous, somehow.


This can be dealt with at any time with an emergency 24 hour ban of someone gets out of control.

I'm going to propose an addition to what you are writing here.

"Any FSB will have to be approved by at least 2 super mods or 1 supermod and 1 adminsitrator of ET." The fsb will also be given by only a supermod.

I think this is important as there are other steps that can be taken to restore peave then just go gang busters for a ban. Now if we have a troll thats a whole different story.

[GreenMunchkin]

Good point, A2J...I was thinking along the lines of official appeals. To extend your remarks I think that staff should have the ability to lift an FSB at any point they choose.Agreed. It's written into our wiki that violations are on a case by case basis if we think there's extenuating circumstances. Should be the same with an FSB.

[Lisa0315]

Inning 1: Strike 3, FSB for 24 hours
Inning 2: Strike 3, FSB for 1 week
Inning 3: Strike 3, FSB for 1 month
Inning 4: Strike 3, FSB for 1 year
This is not a site wide ban but specific to CCC only.
No more than one strike can be given in a 24 hour period.
Each strike must be accompanied with a PM from staff warning them of the potential FSB. (Site wide protocol)
Strike means a documented rule violation agreed upon by at least three CCC mods or ET SuperMods.
All bans may be appealed through the normal site wide appeals process. In additon, the Inning4/1 year FSB may be appealed directly in CCC forums after six months.Better? More tweaking? :)

[GreenMunchkin]

This can be dealt with at any time with an emergency 24 hour ban of someone gets out of control.Ah, gotcha. Ok. Coolio :)

[Lisa0315]

Not sure about #9. I just added that. I think some of the wording needs to be tweaked, but the idea from ATJ is there.

Lisa

[Tonks]

No, we still have e-bans which can be carried out by a moderator if needed. No rampages are going to be allowed on our watch, right? ;)

Lisa

100 posts and under...:P

In reality, however, if someone comes on to the site and starts spamming porn, etc etc etc there is still the overarching moderator responsiblity to protect the integrity of the site above the stated rules.

In cases in the past I generally let Alpha (or now the Review Committee) know that I did something which totally breached protocol for x, y, and z reasons and stand ready to face the music should TPTB feel that it is necessary.

If there is someone that is just being a general nusiance...well...that's when proper moderating comes in. It is not a perfect world but it does serve as an additional protection against capricious moderating.

[Tonks]

This can be dealt with at any time with an emergency 24 hour ban of someone gets out of control.

I'm going to propose an addition to what you are writing here.

"Any FSB will have to be approved by at least 2 super mods or 1 supermod and 1 adminsitrator of ET." The fsb will also be given by only a supermod.

I think this is important as there are other steps that can be taken to restore peave then just go gang busters for a ban. Now if we have a troll thats a whole different story.

Yup...that's pretty standard fare.

[Lisa0315]

Inning 1: Strike 3, FSB for 24 hours
Inning 2: Strike 3, FSB for 1 week
Inning 3: Strike 3, FSB for 1 month
Inning 4: Strike 3, FSB for 1 year
This is not a site wide ban but specific to CCC only.
No more than one strike can be given in a 24 hour period.
Each strike must be accompanied with a PM from staff warning them of the potential FSB. (Site wide protocol)
Strike means a documented rule violation agreed upon by at least three CCC mods or ET SuperMods.
All bans longer than 24 hours must be approved by two ET Senior Staff members. (Supermods or Admins)
All bans may be appealed through the normal site wide appeals process. In additon, the Inning4/1 year FSB may be appealed directly in CCC forums after six months.
Better? More tweaking? :)

[GreenMunchkin]

Perfect! It's so pretty... :cry:

[Lisa0315]

Okay. See if I have addressed the Senior Staff concerns. Should I leave the greater than 24 hour period in there? I would like to have that option simply to grant a cooling down period. If we had three consecutive days of report violations, I think it would be wise to have that option. That's just me, though. Experience has the wisdom on this. You tell me if this is not a good move.

Lisa

[Addicted2~Jesus]

This can be dealt with at any time with an emergency 24 hour ban of someone gets out of control.

I'm going to propose an addition to what you are writing here.

"Any FSB will have to be approved by at least 2 super mods or 1 supermod and 1 adminsitrator of ET." The fsb will also be given by only a supermod.

I think this is important as there are other steps that can be taken to restore peave then just go gang busters for a ban. Now if we have a troll thats a whole different story.

I'm not to sure I agree, it's obvious that moderators on thier own can not issue such thins as laid out in staff protocal.. er least the last time I read it, job duties etc. The best the moderators can do is keep track of a situation an then advise a supervisor of a ban that is needed. I'm jes not sure this specifically needs to be listed in the rule. This rule encompasses the out come of continued misbehaviour, but perhaps a bit of staff protocal to be added, more like a guideline that says any ban needs to have approval.

I'm not to sure bout it, will havta think some bout this one really. Jes, is it needed to be in the rule? To say that there needs to be a supervisor involved? Right now, an even the older ways, supervisors were the ones that had to actually perform any of the work when a staff team requested a ban er an infraction that type of thin.

I guess it should be noted that since moderators handle the reports, they can not on thier own decide to enact a ban on anyone anyways. I might jes be takin it for granted that it doesn't need to be spelled out is all.

[Tonks]

I still think that all FSBs need to flow through the supermoderator level. As they're responsible for knowing what is going on in all the forums they cover they should probably sign off on bans. That is sort of the way that it has always been done...it provides for some accountability in the system.

ETA: and some of the other reasoning behind that is we (Theology) will generally convert a FSB to a site-wide (software-based) ban if there are repeated violations of an FSB.

[Lisa0315]

Perfect! It's so pretty... :cry:

Why are you crying? :scratch:

Lisa

[£amb]

Inning 1: Strike 3, FSB for 24 hours
Inning 2: Strike 3, FSB for 1 week
Inning 3: Strike 3, FSB for 1 month
Inning 4: Strike 3, FSB for 1 year
This is not a site wide ban but specific to CCC only.
No more than one strike can be given in a 24 hour period.
Each strike must be accompanied with a PM from staff warning them of the potential FSB. (Site wide protocol)
Strike means a documented rule violation agreed upon by at least three CCC mods or ET SuperMods.
All bans longer than 24 hours must be approved by two ET Senior Staff members. (Supermods or Admins)
All bans may be appealed through the normal site wide appeals process. In additon, the Inning4/1 year FSB may be appealed directly in CCC forums after six months.Better? More tweaking? :)

It's lookin' good so far...:)

[Jim47]

I'm not to sure I agree, it's obvious that moderators on thier own can not issue such thins as laid out in staff protocal.. er least the last time I read it, job duties etc. The best the moderators can do is keep track of a situation an then advise a supervisor of a ban that is needed. I'm jes not sure this specifically needs to be listed in the rule. This rule encompasses the out come of continued misbehaviour, but perhaps a bit of staff protocal to be added, more like a guideline that says any ban needs to have approval.

I'm not to sure bout it, will havta think some bout this one really. Jes, is it needed to be in the rule? To say that there needs to be a supervisor involved? Right now, an even the older ways, supervisors were the ones that had to actually perform any of the work when a staff team requested a ban er an infraction that type of thin.

I guess it should be noted that since moderators handle the reports, they can not on thier own decide to enact a ban on anyone anyways. I might jes be takin it for granted that it doesn't need to be spelled out is all.



Yes you are right, its kind of a double safety, but one that I think it is important. First of it tells everyone that this won't be a rush job and will be done fairly and according to protocal.

I've had to ban a lot of people during my time on staff. I don't believe any of them were a mistake as the only ones that were done quickly were trolls which even junior staff can take care of.

1: Permanent immediate ban for members with less than 100 posts,who troll/spam the chat room, or post messages/pictures in pm, or open forums with sexual, violent, illegal content. Any staff member with access to CP can issue this ban, and file a report.

[Jim47]

I see a need for yet one more stipulation and that is if someone is repentant of their posting style we should grant forgiveness, but I'm so tired right now I can't figure out how to word into the proposed rule.

Tonks of Lisa, Can you help with that please?

[Tonks]

As above, I think that this is something that the moderators of the forum should have discretion on. I have no idea how Lisa would like to word it (even if she agreed).

[Lisa0315]

I see a need for yet one more stipulation and that is if someone is repentant of their posting style we should grant forgiveness, but I'm so tired right now I can't figure out how to word into the proposed rule.

Tonks of Lisa, Can you help with that please?

Go to bed, Jim. This is not going to get added to the rules before you get back. Let it go. Stop worrying about it. When you get back, we will talk about grace. I need more information of what you are thinking and why.

Lisa

[No Swansong]

I'm assuming that the reports would be legitimate reports acted on by more than one staff member. If the report are all legit, I don't think it matters if they are all originated be the some person. :)

One concern that I would have is that commonly a person may have multiple reports against them at one time. If they have 3 concurrent reports would that mean an instant permanent ban?
I would also add that it we should be sure that they are not reports that are overturned by higher ranking members of staff, either pro or con.

[No Swansong]

I see a need for yet one more stipulation and that is if someone is repentant of their posting style we should grant forgiveness, but I'm so tired right now I can't figure out how to word into the proposed rule.

Tonks of Lisa, Can you help with that please?
How would you determine such "repentance"? My response would be I am glad that you have come to repentance, when your FSB is up you are more than welcome to come back and let us know of it. I have seen far too many "false" apologies and promises to change behavior.

[JimfromOhio]

This is tough. I am not sure what is best. All I can say, by THEIR FRUITS, you will know what kind of Christians they are and move on.

[No Swansong]

This is tough. I am not sure what is best. All I can say, by THEIR FRUITS, you will know what kind of Christians they are and move on.
A good point my fellow Buckeye but how do we judge their fruits? This is after all a message board.

[JimfromOhio]

A good point my fellow Buckeye but how do we judge their fruits? This is after all a message board.

It's been jokingly said, "I love Christians but it's people I can't stand." Christians continue to manifest childish behavior instead of growing to spiritual adulthood is a sign of spiritual weakness. In 1 Corinthians 13:5 says "Love does not act unbecomingly". There are Christians who are zealous for their "beliefs" and forget the sensitivity of others. Be zealous for God but at the same time, you have to understand that being zealous without sensitivity can cause strife.

[Hentenza]

If the person repents, then they should be given a chance. Their fruits will be a lack of violations for the same problem. They should be accepted back with the understanding that the next step in the banning process will be implemented if they have additional reports for the same issue.

[JimfromOhio]

If the person repents, then they should be given a chance. Their fruits will be a lack of violations for the same problem. They should be accepted back with the understanding that the next step in the banning process will be implemented if they have additional reports for the same issue.

Even when they repent, we are to forgive 7 times 70 (unlimited). How do we draw the line?

[No Swansong]

If the person repents, then they should be given a chance. Their fruits will be a lack of violations for the same problem. They should be accepted back with the understanding that the next step in the banning process will be implemented if they have additional reports for the same issue.
But the problem here is that if they were flaming on the CC forum and receive a FSB for doing so how can we determine that they are not going to do so again during their FSB? Does that make sense. It is like saying that you know a man will not hold up liquor stores because he hasn't held one up while he was in prison.

[No Swansong]

Even when they repent, we are to forgive 7 times 70 (unlimited). How do we draw the line?
Forgiving is one thing and most certainly we are called to forgive but what about those who it makes no difference how many warnings they have been given they continue their behavior. Do we not have a responsibility to keep them from being disruptive to the rest of the board?

It's kind of like saying we shouldn't have prisons because Christians are called to forgive. (I know it's not a perfect analogy)

[JimfromOhio]

Forgiving is one thing and most certainly we are called to forgive but what about those who it makes no difference how many warnings they have been given they continue their behavior. Do we not have a responsibility to keep them from being disruptive to the rest of the board?

It's kind of like saying we shouldn't have prisons because Christians are called to forgive. (I know it's not a perfect analogy)

Only the Lord can handle this. We will endure however we can with God's grace.

By their fruit, Proverbs 13:10 Pride only breeds quarrels, but wisdom is found in those who take advice. We will know who they are.

[Hentenza]

Even when they repent, we are to forgive 7 times 70 (unlimited). How do we draw the line?

The person comes back but their record stands for a yet to be determined amount of time. If they re-offend then the next level of the banning process goes into effect.
Jesus also said that He would forgive the repentant but whatever temporal earthly punishment would still happen.:wave:

[No Swansong]

There is a reason for a progressive length in time for a ban. One of those reasons is to give the person who does truly repent an opportunity to return and prove themselves. Letting an individual back before their length of ban has expired undermines this process and it may end up being unjust to others.

[JimfromOhio]

Christians in "spirit" can work together even when they differ on issues however, their flesh do not allow them to work together. This is more a flesh issue than spiritual.

[No Swansong]

Remember please that we are only discussing the privilege of posting on a message board. Paul allowed people to be put out of the Church. I think there is precedent to say that we have the right to defend the integrity of the subforum.

[JimfromOhio]

How do you handle when a moderator is doing the "problem" around here?

[No Swansong]

How do you handle when a moderator is doing the "problem" around here?
That is a good question. I am not sure what the current protocol is or if there even is one.

[Lisa0315]

There was a post from an Admin somewhere in here that said that staff can be FSB'd just like anyone else.

Lisa

[Tonks]

There was a post from an Admin somewhere in here that said that staff can be FSB'd just like anyone else.

Lisa

Yup.

[Lisa0315]

Inning 1: Strike 3, FSB for 24 hours
Inning 2: Strike 3, FSB for 1 week
Inning 3: Strike 3, FSB for 1 month
Inning 4: Strike 3, FSB for 1 year
This is not a site wide ban but specific to CCC only.
No more than one strike can be given in a 24 hour period.
Each strike must be accompanied with a PM from staff warning them of the potential FSB. (Site wide protocol)
Strike means a documented rule violation agreed upon by at least three CCC mods or ET SuperMods.
All bans longer than 24 hours must be approved by two ET Senior Staff members. (Supermods or Admins)
All bans may be appealed through the normal site wide appeals process. In additon, the Inning4/1 year FSB may be appealed directly in CCC forums after six months.Better? More tweaking? :)

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Inning 1: Strike 3, FSB for 24 hours
Inning 2: Strike 3, FSB for 1 week
Inning 3: Strike 3, FSB for 1 month
Inning 4: Strike 3, FSB for 1 year
This is not a site wide ban but specific to CCC only.
No more than one strike can be given in a 24 hour period.
Each strike must be accompanied with a PM from staff warning them of the potential FSB. (Site wide protocol)
Strike means a documented rule violation agreed upon by at least three CCC mods or ET SuperMods.
All bans longer than 24 hours must be approved by two ET Senior Staff members. (Supermods or Admins)
All bans may be appealed through the normal site wide appeals process. In additon, the Inning4/1 year FSB may be appealed directly in CCC forums after six months.Better? More tweaking? :)
I think you've covered all the bases. :thumbsup:

[Criada]

Inning 1: Strike 3, FSB for 24 hours
Inning 2: Strike 3, FSB for 1 week
Inning 3: Strike 3, FSB for 1 month
Inning 4: Strike 3, FSB for 1 year
This is not a site wide ban but specific to CCC only.
No more than one strike can be given in a 24 hour period.
Each strike must be accompanied with a PM from staff warning them of the potential FSB. (Site wide protocol)
Strike means a documented rule violation agreed upon by at least three CCC mods or ET SuperMods.
All bans longer than 24 hours must be approved by two ET Senior Staff members. (Supermods or Admins)
All bans may be appealed through the normal site wide appeals process. In additon, the Inning4/1 year FSB may be appealed directly in CCC forums after six months.Better? More tweaking? :)
Looks good, sis!
Just hope we don't need it! :sigh: