<p>So once again, we have issues with chat bans (surprise). While the moderators can currently decide bans in chat unanimously, multiple administrators can overrule that, which is fine. Now the issue is, there's no way for the community to truly voice their opinion if they don't like an admin decision. Since chat bans can be decided by a group larger than the administrators, which also takes into account what other users in chat say, I propose we make a board, similar to the block/unblock board, but only for chat bans/unbans. It would follow the same rules as the other petition boards, going to the admins afterwards and forcing them to actually review the situation.
</p><p>
Should we create a "Ban/Unban Users" board?
</p><p>
Yes: 7 Votes
</p><p>
No: 16 Votes
</p>
<h2><span class="mw-headline" id="Consensus">Consensus</span></h2>
<p>No.
</p>
5,988
pages
ALL POSTS
0
<div class="quote">
<p>Avalair wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">I'mDivergent wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Avalair wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">I'mDivergent wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Avalair wrote: I'm not making a vote just yet, but I do have a question... </p><p>What exactly does this statement mean: "...<span style="font-weight:normal;line-height:22px;">going to the admins afterwards and forcing them to actually review the situation.</span>" Are you implying that we make decisions without reviewing the situation at all?? Because that literally makes no sense and it feels like you are criticizing me, and the others, without having any idea what goes on. </p> </div>That's kind of the problem isn't it. That we don't know what's going on</div>Well according to the admin policy it is a requirement that we review the entire situation, and then re-review it if something changes. And if you dont think the current admins are capable of doing that, why did you vote for them in the first place?</div>I've supported like three of the current admins. Some of the ones I have the biggest problem with were here before me therefore I was powerless during their promotion. <p>Also as many of the admins aren't very active here I'm guessing the information they see about users regarding blocks/bans is very filtered and biased certain ways. I can't see any other logical reason for banning a user for six months when they only gotten five short bans in the past year. </p> </div>It's called a "chat log."
</div> <p>Which is a required form of evidence.
</p><noscript>
</noscript>
</div>
<p>All Ale has to do is link a chat log and say "they've been acting like this all the time and have an extensive ban log" and he can get anyone banned/blocked
</p>
<div class="quote">I'mDivergent wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Avalair wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">I'mDivergent wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Avalair wrote: I'm not making a vote just yet, but I do have a question... </p><p>What exactly does this statement mean: "...<span style="font-weight:normal;line-height:22px;">going to the admins afterwards and forcing them to actually review the situation.</span>" Are you implying that we make decisions without reviewing the situation at all?? Because that literally makes no sense and it feels like you are criticizing me, and the others, without having any idea what goes on. </p> </div>That's kind of the problem isn't it. That we don't know what's going on</div>Well according to the admin policy it is a requirement that we review the entire situation, and then re-review it if something changes. And if you dont think the current admins are capable of doing that, why did you vote for them in the first place?</div>I've supported like three of the current admins. Some of the ones I have the biggest problem with were here before me therefore I was powerless during their promotion. <p>Also as many of the admins aren't very active here I'm guessing the information they see about users regarding blocks/bans is very filtered and biased certain ways. I can't see any other logical reason for banning a user for six months when they only gotten five short bans in the past year. </p> </div>It's called a "chat log."
</div> <p>Which is a required form of evidence.
</p><noscript></noscript>
</div>
<p>All Ale has to do is link a chat log and say "they've been acting like this all the time and have an extensive ban log" and he can get anyone banned/blocked
</p>
(Edited by I'mDivergent)
0
<div class="quote">I'mDivergent wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Avalair wrote: </p> <div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">I'mDivergent wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Avalair wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">I'mDivergent wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Avalair wrote: I'm not making a vote just yet, but I do have a question... </p><p>What exactly does this statement mean: "...<span style="font-weight:normal;line-height:22px;">going to the admins afterwards and forcing them to actually review the situation.</span>" Are you implying that we make decisions without reviewing the situation at all?? Because that literally makes no sense and it feels like you are criticizing me, and the others, without having any idea what goes on. </p> </div>That's kind of the problem isn't it. That we don't know what's going on</div>Well according to the admin policy it is a requirement that we review the entire situation, and then re-review it if something changes. And if you dont think the current admins are capable of doing that, why did you vote for them in the first place?</div>I've supported like three of the current admins. Some of the ones I have the biggest problem with were here before me therefore I was powerless during their promotion. <p>Also as many of the admins aren't very active here I'm guessing the information they see about users regarding blocks/bans is very filtered and biased certain ways. I can't see any other logical reason for banning a user for six months when they only gotten five short bans in the past year. </p> </div>It's called a "chat log."
</div>Which is a required form of evidence.
</div>All Ale has to do is link a chat log and say "they've been acting like this all the time and have an extensive ban log" and he can get anyone banned/blocked
</div>
<p>You can't say "they've been acting like this all the time" without evidence backing that up, or else no one takes you seriously really. :P
</p>
<div class="quote"> <p>Avalair wrote: </p> <div class="quote">Michaelyoda wrote:
<div class="quote">I'mDivergent wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Avalair wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">I'mDivergent wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Avalair wrote: I'm not making a vote just yet, but I do have a question... </p><p>What exactly does this statement mean: "...<span style="font-weight:normal;line-height:22px;">going to the admins afterwards and forcing them to actually review the situation.</span>" Are you implying that we make decisions without reviewing the situation at all?? Because that literally makes no sense and it feels like you are criticizing me, and the others, without having any idea what goes on. </p> </div>That's kind of the problem isn't it. That we don't know what's going on</div>Well according to the admin policy it is a requirement that we review the entire situation, and then re-review it if something changes. And if you dont think the current admins are capable of doing that, why did you vote for them in the first place?</div>I've supported like three of the current admins. Some of the ones I have the biggest problem with were here before me therefore I was powerless during their promotion. <p>Also as many of the admins aren't very active here I'm guessing the information they see about users regarding blocks/bans is very filtered and biased certain ways. I can't see any other logical reason for banning a user for six months when they only gotten five short bans in the past year. </p> </div>It's called a "chat log."
</div>Which is a required form of evidence.
</div>All Ale has to do is link a chat log and say "they've been acting like this all the time and have an extensive ban log" and he can get anyone banned/blocked
</div>
<p>You can't say "they've been acting like this all the time" without evidence backing that up, or else no one takes you seriously really. :P
</p>
(Edited by Avalair)
0
<p>Why don't we just bin off CMs and admins while we are at it? Oppose,as per Knight at the start of the vote
</p>
(Edited by Man.city1)
1
<p>No.
This seems a bit silly to me. If a mod can't be trusted to ban appropriately, then they don't belong being a mod. Like seriously, that careful discretion is a big part of the job. If the admin team can't make a fair review and second ruling, then we really have other problems.
</p>
(Edited by BusyCityGirl)
A
(Edited by Slicer Vorzakh)
0
<p>Per Knight, and also, do we need a whole <i>forum</i> for it? Something tells me it won't be used very often. I feel like it could go under a more general board of discussion. If we need a forum for disciplinary action, we've done something wrong with the system.
</p>
(Edited by Herr keplers)
<p>Yes
</p><p>Just a note though, not sure exactly what problems people are having with the admins but you guys don't have all the information that admins do, we don't air banned users dirty laundry, so we do have way more info on each user we make a decision on than you guys.
</p>
(Edited by ZXSpidermanXZ)
0
<div class="quote">
<p>ZXSpidermanXZ wrote:
Yes
</p><p>Just a note though, not sure exactly what problems people are having with the admins but you guys don't have all the information that admins do, we don't air banned users dirty laundry, so we do have way more info on each user we make a decision on than you guys.
</p>
</div>
<p>^^ If we are going to just vote to overturn every decision the admins make, we may as well not have any.
</p>
(Edited by Herr keplers)
0
...no. Not this time.
(Edited by Alemas2005)
No.
(Edited by Legoanimals750)