When the core problem is a user evading a suspension, how do exactly call extending the suspension a suitable punishment? He's just going to evade the suspension again.
When you evade a suspension, via trading, gimmick posting, or having someone post for you, you negate the benefit of the extended suspension system. No matter if the member is Kroen or AoK, the only appropriate response to suspension evasion is a ban.
And this is why I suggest you revise your suspension system, and have it so that they cannot access the private message system.
Bad analogy. We're more talking about a guy on probation who's trying to play it straight.
He's doing good, not stealing anything. But... Then he sees something he -really- wants and steals it. There's a law against stealing. So he is punished.
But is this person put away for life? No. Instead he gets put on house arrest for a few months.
This is what I'm talking about. Extending the suspension would be a much better idea, especially if the proper precautions were taken so that this problem is not an issue anymore.
You see, I have a slight issue with that. We made the rule, so why should we be easy on those who break it? You say we are tempting them to use it, but with the consequences known, that temptation should be easy to resist if you know what's going to happen to you.
To be honest, and this might be kind of brutal: poor impulse control is not something that I am concerned with, at least not pertaining to this matter. If a user can't resist, then on their heads be it.
I would agree with this, except for after being on forums for a long time, I realize that all people don't think the same. Some people have weak willpower, and they should not be punished because of it. And they especially should not be banned because of it.
Its like a person on a diet, who been trying to eat well, but is having trouble doing so. If you stick a huge plate of food they love in front of them, what should you expect? Sure, if they have great willpower they can resist it, but if not, they shouldnt be punished. Thats like saying this hypothetical person deserves to be fat/unhealthy (for lack of a better word) because they cannot resist temptation.
Demetri - As the techy and admin said: We don't have the capability right now to limit who you can PM. It's all or nothing for the time being. And you -have- to have the ability to contact staff regarding things. Such as contesting your suspension, giving evidence that you didn't do something, etc. Most mods don't want out private email message given out, and we're not always on IM to be contacted.
Maybe you could brainstorm and find some kind of solution. For instance, you could create an email address specifically for MTG Salvation moderating, such as [moderator]MTGS@Email.com and that way you can communicate as needed, without having to deal with the current risks. I'm sure a better system can be put into place to eleiviate this problem.
As for agreeing that banning is the appropriate response... It's circumventing your suspension. We don't allow you to post on gimmicks. We don't allow you to make someone post for you. You should also not be allowed to continue your trading practices or holding conversations on our site after breaking the rules of our site.
I realize that you don't want people to have conversations and whatnot after breaking the rules, but your totally tempting a suspended member to do so. I think its wrong that you even give them the OPPORTUNITY to communicate using the forum software (AKA Private Messages).
When you're suspended, your privileges have been revoked. You aren't allowed to post. You're not allowed to make trades. You're allowed to finish trades (in order to not be a bad trader) and PM mods in order to discuss your suspension. That's -it-.
Starting new trades and the like circumvents your suspension. Thus, the rule.
I understand this, but do you really think a banning is the right solution to this? Especially in this case banning a very respected member of the community?
It's clear that your not supposed to have someone post for you whilst your suspended, as that's a direct post, and disallowed while suspended. But that has very little to do with this.
IMO, I think that as a community, we should give Stu55 another chance, just make the rules very clear to him, and give him a probationary period, but....I believe a second chance is in order.
Also, this can easily be made into a non-issue for many members: Don't get suspended and you will never have to worry about it.
I'm not going to go on a huge rant here, but you have to think - these are the most strict forums i know.
Look at places like MOTL and Pojo, they arent nearly as strict about what you say. Its not that simple to just avoid getting banned. I'm not a bad member, but I do get infractions sometimes, even though I know how to act.
I still don't see how you can justify banning one of the most respected users here for something that in reality is no a big deal.
Why not just extend the suspension? An outright banning seems slightly harsh.
I think the ban is very harsh... I mean, I've been on some major power trips in the time i've been a global, but nothing like banning someone for breaking a forum rule.
I mean, you'd think that he did something detrimental to MTG Salvation...
It seems like everyone agrees he was a good member, but yet you ban him forever for breaking a forum rule (Which in reality, really is not that big of a deal. its not like he was ripping or doing anything to hurt anyone else)?
Uhhh, if it says may, then how exactly is the banning justified? "We may ban you for this" is really unclear. I'm concerned about how a user can be safe when there vague rules such as this one.
You see, this is what I'm talking about.
I do not think that a permanent ban from MTGS is a viable solution to this problem.
If anything, this whole situation is something to learn from. You should have learned that suspending people and giving them access to Private Messaging is a bad idea in general. You should do more of a temporary ban, where they cannot access/view any of the trade forums, can view the regular forums, and cannot use private messages. This would solve all of this.
Note the "in progress"? Maybe some of y'all should go and re-read (maybe the first read?) the rules?
And, before you even start, the date of the rules last edit was in August.
By the way, for the very few of you who keep coming and complaining about
other people (known or not) being banned, suspended or, whatnot there are many
others that have no problem with following the guidelines. If they mess up they
take it like a human and move on.
The rules do not specify that you cannot trade using PMs, IMs, Email, Etc.
Also, I fully agree with the people proposing a new system. Letting people PM while not letting them post while suspended doesnt seem like a good system. People need to get eachother's email addresses anyway.
By the way, its really not right of you talking the way you were about Stu. Your acting like he's a criminal ripper whos a danger to the community.
You're focusing on one person and I'm not. I thought I made that clear earlier.
My bad. Maybe, if you could please sir, take a step back and view the
community as a whole? That's what I've been trying to get across.
I believe now that everything I say is going to be misunderstood or perverted
for misinterpretation.
</my2cents>
No, I think you just have absolutely no idea what your talking about.
I have no idea how you can even think Stu is a danger to the entire community because of this. He has more references than anyone on this forum, and I bet he's safter to trade with than 95% of the people on this site.
I'm talking about the event of Stu getting banned, and if your talking about something different, then we are NOT on the same page.
And this is why I suggest you revise your suspension system, and have it so that they cannot access the private message system.
But is this person put away for life? No. Instead he gets put on house arrest for a few months.
This is what I'm talking about. Extending the suspension would be a much better idea, especially if the proper precautions were taken so that this problem is not an issue anymore.
I would agree with this, except for after being on forums for a long time, I realize that all people don't think the same. Some people have weak willpower, and they should not be punished because of it. And they especially should not be banned because of it.
Its like a person on a diet, who been trying to eat well, but is having trouble doing so. If you stick a huge plate of food they love in front of them, what should you expect? Sure, if they have great willpower they can resist it, but if not, they shouldnt be punished. Thats like saying this hypothetical person deserves to be fat/unhealthy (for lack of a better word) because they cannot resist temptation.
Maybe you could brainstorm and find some kind of solution. For instance, you could create an email address specifically for MTG Salvation moderating, such as [moderator]MTGS@Email.com and that way you can communicate as needed, without having to deal with the current risks. I'm sure a better system can be put into place to eleiviate this problem.
I realize that you don't want people to have conversations and whatnot after breaking the rules, but your totally tempting a suspended member to do so. I think its wrong that you even give them the OPPORTUNITY to communicate using the forum software (AKA Private Messages).
I agree, members should not be banned like that. It was absolutely the wrong decision, and I just would like to see it corrected - no harm no foul.
I understand this, but do you really think a banning is the right solution to this? Especially in this case banning a very respected member of the community?
Yes, Nai did mean suspended.
My goal has been accomplished for the most part, and I hope it sparked some ideas.
This is basically what I'm getting at here.
I'm not going to go on a huge rant here, but you have to think - these are the most strict forums i know.
Look at places like MOTL and Pojo, they arent nearly as strict about what you say. Its not that simple to just avoid getting banned. I'm not a bad member, but I do get infractions sometimes, even though I know how to act.
I still don't see how you can justify banning one of the most respected users here for something that in reality is no a big deal.
I think the ban is very harsh... I mean, I've been on some major power trips in the time i've been a global, but nothing like banning someone for breaking a forum rule.
I mean, you'd think that he did something detrimental to MTG Salvation...
It seems like everyone agrees he was a good member, but yet you ban him forever for breaking a forum rule (Which in reality, really is not that big of a deal. its not like he was ripping or doing anything to hurt anyone else)?
This whole situation seems unjust.
You see, this is what I'm talking about.
I do not think that a permanent ban from MTGS is a viable solution to this problem.
If anything, this whole situation is something to learn from. You should have learned that suspending people and giving them access to Private Messaging is a bad idea in general. You should do more of a temporary ban, where they cannot access/view any of the trade forums, can view the regular forums, and cannot use private messages. This would solve all of this.
Bottom line - Stu's ban is NOT justified.
The rules do not specify that you cannot trade using PMs, IMs, Email, Etc.
Also, I fully agree with the people proposing a new system. Letting people PM while not letting them post while suspended doesnt seem like a good system. People need to get eachother's email addresses anyway.
By the way, its really not right of you talking the way you were about Stu. Your acting like he's a criminal ripper whos a danger to the community.
No, I think you just have absolutely no idea what your talking about.
I have no idea how you can even think Stu is a danger to the entire community because of this. He has more references than anyone on this forum, and I bet he's safter to trade with than 95% of the people on this site.
I'm talking about the event of Stu getting banned, and if your talking about something different, then we are NOT on the same page.