---

I think it is a bad idea bc what if their bad ways start again after they come back

---

We ban them again.

-------

From a distance you look like my friend,

even though we are at war.

So say this guy named xBanditx was banned. What if he was like l0l0l0l0l0l0l0l0l and just made a bunch of bullshit accounts because he thought that he wouldn't be unbanned. But on those accounts he got banned because it was like l0l0l0l0l0l0l I'm already banned.

Then what happens?

Cause rumor has it he would be oober supportive if he got his real account back.

---

No, the point of making this was that the moderation had agreed on a four-month-wait kind of deal, and so that people knew what they were dealing with rather than having the whole policy one big confusion.
And we are under no obligation to let a banned member repeatedly return to this site if they have proved that they are completely incapable of behaving appropriately.

---

Quote: from katyduck at 4:39 pm on May 28, 2008

---

Alternatively, if a banned member wishes to play a constructive role on the forums, we are more than happy to allow them to do so.

---

---

However, you quoted slightly out of context, the new account is under watch, and if still treated in a destructive manner will be rebanned. While we encourage them to be supportive. Not really much we can do besides encourage wmudude, we can't make people support each other, it's just impossible to make anyone do anything. Encouraging support actually would seem to promote what you're complaining about isn't happening anymore either, and if that can reform a previously banned member, all then better then, no?

---

Actually you can make them support each other. They have to be terms under which their accounts will be pardoned or that user allowed back on LiveWire and one of those terms should be they must make a certain about of Supportive replies in a certain time frame.

Also I think there should be a defined number of times. " •Members who have been banned a large number of times already shall be exempt from the policy."  Large number of times is entirely and completely subjective.

-------
Welcome to My World
They say blood is thicker than water
I say, cum is thicker than blood and water. Do the math.
There's an ice pump where my heart is supposed to be.

I like this revised policy, however I don't like the 7-day thing. I understand it was David's idea, I'm just saying. 7-days seems more like a warning rather than a ban. A ban should be for a month at least in my eyes.

-------
Intelligence is the ability to avoid doing work, yet getting the work done.

-------
Vote for REAL change.

---

Quote: from Rastafarian at 3:23 pm on May 28, 2008

---

 
 However, you quoted slightly out of context, the new account is under watch, and if still treated in a destructive manner will be rebanned. While we encourage them to be supportive. Not really much we can do besides encourage wmudude, we can't make people support each other, it's just impossible to make anyone do anything. Encouraging support actually would seem to promote what you're complaining about isn't happening anymore either, and if that can reform a previously banned member, all then better then, no?

---

 

 
Actually you can make them support each other. They have to be terms under which their accounts will be pardoned or that user allowed back on LiveWire and one of those terms should be they must make a certain about of Supportive replies in a certain time frame.  

---

That doesn't make people supportive inherently, it's on the underlying assumption that they actually want their original account pardoned, which if they don't they are free to do whatever they please as long as it abides by the guidelines.

And, may I ask, how can a person make supportive replies on LiveWire, if they aren't allowed on LiveWire?
You seem to state it's possible.
Any preempted agreements that a person can only have an account on LiveWire if they're going to be supportive, is absolutely ridiculous totalitarianism.

Reason for DoS: Previously banned members, in which their second chance they weren't supportive enough!
I hope you realize how much of a joke that looks like.
Banning people based on a 'not good enough' theory is absolutely terrible, in my opinion.

---

Also I think there should be a defined number of times. " •Members who have been banned a large number of times already shall be exempt from the policy."  Large number of times is entirely and completely subjective.

---

We're discussing it.

Post edited at 3:23 am on May 30, 2008 by Rastafarian

-------
Cunt

---

Is this retroactive, or are people like abspwnsyou/angrybellsprout/etc. still "above the law"?

---

They're always 'above the law' since they have friends on the Mod Team.

-------



Beautiful.

---

No, you can't.  
What you just suggested is incentive to be supportive, and it's exactly how we're running it -- be notably supportive for 4 months, and we'll decide whether you get your original account pardoned or not.  

That doesn't make people supportive inherently, it's on the underlying assumption that they actually want their original account pardoned, which if they don't they are free to do whatever they please as long as it abides by the guidelines.  

And, may I ask, how can a person make supportive replies on LiveWire, if they aren't allowed on LiveWire?  
You seem to state it's possible.  
Any preempted agreements that a person can only have an account on LiveWire if they're going to be supportive, is absolutely ridiculous totalitarianism.  

Reason for DoS: Previously banned members, in which their second chance they weren't supportive enough!  
I hope you realize how much of a joke that looks like.  
Banning people based on a 'not good enough' theory is absolutely terrible, in my opinion.  

---

The point of view I am looking at this from is that the banned member basically gave up their chance to be on LiveWire in the first place when their first account was banned, and basically being allowed back on any other account would be at the mercy of the Moderation Team.  

I never once stated or even implied that we would make banned member who are not allowed on LiveWire make supportive replies. If you read that properly you would realise that I said it would be in their terms of pardoning. That is to say that you and that banned member would discuss it over PM and decide, if they don't want to make the supportive replies, then they don't return as simple as that.  

That example of a DOS may look like a joke to you but if I saw it I wouldn't take it as one. They were  let back in on the mercy of you guys and they blew it, its not your fault. You did what you had to do.  

Banning people and letting back in a week later really defeats the purpose of banning them in the first place. "Cool I got banned, let me just wait a week and I'll be back", so basically that will be the mentality of some LiveWire members and it will just encourage more people to break the guidelines.  

This whole pardon policy defeats the purpose of denying members service. If you want, get David to make a suspension feature, because that is all this is doing. Let him give you something between warning and banning as a form of wake up call for members, because this entire policy is shaky. And reserve the banning feature and make it permanent as it was intended.

EDIT: BTW I am not saying that members should not be given a second chance. I believe and understand that people make mistakes and they should be given a chance to redeem themselves.

Post edited at 6:42 am on May 30, 2008 by Rhapsody

-------
Welcome to My World
They say blood is thicker than water
I say, cum is thicker than blood and water. Do the math.
There's an ice pump where my heart is supposed to be.

---

David stated the 7 day thing well over a year ago now. Everyone thought it was a crock of shite but what can you do. We've been going by it for roughly two years, so for you to say it's the most prepostorous thing ever is a pretty bad reflection on yourself really, seeing as the system's been working that way without you noticing for years.

We just take the stuff we've been ordered on and work around that to find something that's best on the whole. And to be honest, I think the team has done a pretty good job. You'd be amazed at how hard it is to get such an argumentative group of people to agree on anything.

---

Except that we had far less spamfests 2-3 years ago. In my memory, at least.

-------
Life is a breeze, we live it for fun!
No apologies, to anyone!
We live on the seas,
We do as we please!

Post edited at 7:35 pm on Aug. 1, 2008 by hithere

As for why we don't just use a seven day warning, we've learned that banned members generally wish they had their original account back (as is evidenced by the shitloads of requests we get), taking that away from them is a big enough punishment, additionally they aren't allowed to use the site for seven days, which is a lot more severe than a seven day warning. They lose all their points and their status and their donations when they're banned, when they come back in seven days they're cowed versions of their banned selves, if they aren't, they get banned again.

And that's incorrect, we had just as many spamfests, the difference is now we have far more active members. Proportionate to our size now vs our size two years ago, we have less spamfests now than we did then. We had one guy who kept creating new accounts on proxies and would take over the entire World News forums and Politics forums with topics attacking ABS and topics attacking anything that was anti-zionist/isreal, he stuck around for months even though we were auto-banning him no matter what.

If someone's motivated enough to do that kind of shit, then they'll do it regardless of our ban policy.

Post edited at 7:38 pm on Sep. 19, 2008 by medjai

-------
Who dares wins. - Special Air Service

---

Quote: from BlueAutomatic at 12:15 am on May 28, 2008

---

How is that different from the old policy?

---

what i was gonna ask...

---

but whatever