OG proposal #1 (June 09) - Cull worthless members?

Should we go ahead and remove useless members?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 10 38.5%

  • No.

    Votes: 9 34.6%

  • Abstain.

    Votes: 7 26.9%
  • Total voters
    26
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
James R said:
I would like to gauge the opinions of the general membership as to whether sciforums currently has any members that do not contribute anything useful, and who should therefore be banned from the forum.
Click to expand...

Yes, there are some (perhaps including me..!). And yes, I would like to see them banned, temporararily (like 7 days or 1 month). Anyone who post too much useless thing should be banned temporarily, so everyone (including me) will be feel motivated to increase their quality of posts. I am all for improvement!


In this thread, you are free to speak your mind about other members, so please feel free to list any you think do not belong here.

Provisos:

1. You MUST give reasons why you believe the named member(s) should be banned.
2. This is NOT a thread for free insulting of other members who you don't like. No name-calling. No calls for bans not backed by any argument. No personal sniping. Or I will close the thread and assume that members are not mature enough to discuss the issue.

This cull of members, if it goes ahead, will be a once-off event, for now. The current thread is essentially for nominations of who should go. We will have a formal VOTE in a separate thread for any member who gets five or more nominations by different posters here.

This process is a suggested one, also open for discussion in the current thread.
Click to expand...


I do not agree with the "do not belong here" if that means permanent ban. And I sincerely hope that permaban be removed. Means, please bring back Roman and Kadark. If they should be banned, temporary 1 month ban is sufficient, even if they should be banned 10 times a year (which means a total of 10 months per 12 months). This is not pointless, this is about giving chance for each individual (and hence sciforums as a whole) to improve. Also, when posters are banned temporarily, I think their IP address should be banned temporarily, too, to avoid sock puppets. I hope that is not too much work, though.

Also, why just once-off event? I think improvement should be a continues process.

As for the list of nominees of people that should be banned (not just for useless thing, if we talk about improvement, but also other unhealthy things), I have no one in mind yet, I have to check people' posting history first. :eek: Oh wait:

  1. Scott3x --> 7 days or 1 month for sending obscene PM to takandjive. Sorry Scott, but you deserve it.
    icon13.gif
    . Scott, please be a gentleman by admitting sending such inappropriate PM.
  2. ...
Will be back later if I remember it.

p.s.: James, you are too democratic! Too good is not good, people will take advantage from you :itold:
 
Last edited:
takandjive said:
I'm hoping so.
Click to expand...

Mods are not bound to the 200 max PM's so there is a good possibility that he still has it.
Do you still have James's response ? You can at least use that to indicate to Plazma that there really was such a PM.
 
No. If the admin dismisses something, saving it seems pointless.

I don't hate James. He essentially said that if I have a problem, report it. Which is what I thought I was doing.
 
takandjive said:
No. If the admin dismisses something, saving it seems pointless.

I don't hate James. He essentially said that if I have a problem, report it. Which is what I thought I was doing.
Click to expand...

Ok, next time save it. And if a mod is unresponsive to your complaint, send it to Plazma.
 
I'll be sending my complaints to Plazma in the future.

I already sent him a laundry list about you! :p
 
I would have no problem banning useless members so long as the term "useless members" was strictly defined as pure spammers (like people selling Viagra or advertising for porno sites) and people who join up, post once or twice and then never come back (for this, I'm talking about accounts that have been inactive for years).
 
I am continuing my list of posters that I wish to see be banned temporarily in the future:



inzomnia said:
  1. Scott3x --> 7 days or 1 month for sending obscene PM to takandjive. Sorry Scott, but you deserve it.
    icon13.gif
    . Scott, please be a gentleman by admitting sending such inappropriate PM.
Will be back later if I remember it.
Click to expand...

2. Tnerb, IF he would post something like this again:

I think he wasn't in healthy condition when made that type of posts. Perhaps 1 or 3 days ban will cool him off. He should make more thread like this:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=93765

See Tnerb, you can do much better like that...!​


3. Q , IF he wouldn't stop being hostile to SAM. From his posting history, I think > 75% of his posts are being hostile to SAM or other theists. Some 20% perhaps is ok, but >75% is too much, which makes me wonder of his motive coming to sci :bugeye:

4. Prolific poster: anyone who posts more than 100 posts or so a day (not statistically, but if it happens occasionally in the future). I think this means:
* the posters forgetting their real life responsibilities (such as job), which isn't healthy for himself
* the posters doesn't have real life responsibilities (like losing job), which isn't healthy either (that you prefer to post on forum rather than looking new job for your betterment...)​

5. Anyone who are encouraging unhealthy activities such as drugs, suicide, abnormal / repugnant sexual act without guilt like it is casual thing, etc.

Edit: James, you also wrote:

We will have a formal VOTE in a separate thread for any member who gets five or more nominations by different posters here.
Click to expand...

Since I don't have specific names for my list #4 and #5, if this would be put in vote, I would like the #4 and #5 to be written as criteria such as above (prolific, unhealthy/obscene, etc).

However, those are just MY PERSONAL opinion. And as I said again, I am AGAINST permanent ban.

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
takandjive said:
We KNOW who the problem people are. Why the hell are you asking forum members to do what admins and mods should have the spines to do? It's a new and interesting way to shirk responsibility.
Click to expand...

takandjive said:
We KNOW who the problem people are. Why the hell are you asking forum members to do what admins and mods should have the spines to do? It's a new and interesting way to shirk responsibility.
Click to expand...


I disagree. After observing the numerous threads posted by James in these sections (the "open govt. subforums) over the years, I'd say that the motives are democratic. There is always a strong appeal towards open discussion by the membership and consensus.

-----

As for the topic itself - it's very easy to identify "problem" members in my opinion because they clearly cross the "line" with their behavior. Someone that goes around threatening other users (for example) is a clear cut case. It's definitely not the same for the hypothetical "useless-member".

I can't think of anyone right off who I would ever label as totally useless to the point of being worthy of banishment.
 
inzomnia said:
I am continuing my list of posters that I wish to see be banned temporarily in the future:

<snip>

<snip>
Since I don't have specific names for my list #4 and #5, if this would be put in vote, I would like the #4 and #5 to be written as criteria such as above (prolific, unhealthy/obscene, etc).

However, those are just MY PERSONAL opinion. And as I said again, I am AGAINST permanent ban.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

I agree with Inzomnia in so much as to the specific posters.

I would also say that Scott3x should probably be as he has a very unhealthy habit of promoting things that are not legal. Also because he cannot understand when people disagree with him and will beat a dead horse into prehistoric times.

And Tnerb as well. But because he needs to seek out people in his life that can help him with his issues instead of constantly spamming the board with every thing no matter how major or minor that pops into his head.

The same goes for Draqon, and he's also creeped out a lot of women on this board and he derails a LOT of other peoples threads.

Ripleofdeath because of the colours thing, but because he's unable to have a conversation with anyone that doesn't conclude in why the other person is such an idiot/moron/egotist/elitist... etc. He's unable to have a common interaction and he derails a lot of threads, consistantly.

But I disagree on the temporary bans. I think all of the posters that are in my list have already had several temp bans.
 
Last edited:
And I've said all that I wish to say for this thread, save for one thing.

Mods and admins: It's your personal responsibility to define how you want things ran. Until recently, I thought that we were to ignore things that weren't personal attacks despite how morally offensive/stupid they might be. When you arbitrarily enforce things and have no consistent rules, you look foolish and bring out the worst in this community.

I kept my mouth shut until I saw this because the OP was an insult to my intelligence, but maybe it's a sign that it's understood that things aren't working as is, and I can appreciate constructive efforts to improve things.
 
Acid Cowboy said:
I would have no problem banning useless members so long as the term "useless members" was strictly defined as pure spammers (like people selling Viagra or advertising for porno sites)
Click to expand...
Already happens.
and people who join up, post once or twice and then never come back (for this, I'm talking about accounts that have been inactive for years).
Click to expand...
I'd agree with that too, there's thousands of people registered here, I haven't ever seen the vast majority of them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top