post here if you favor replacing our Suggest Ban system with a Killfile system

FUCK ALL Y'ALL MOTHERFUCKERS I'LL KILL YOU I'LL KILL YOU ALL

http://cache.dealbreaker.com/uploads/2010/09/drudge-siren1.gif

i call dibs on the first ban l0u1s jagg3r thread

^ a fresh new idea

that was an xpost but it works for that too

Hang forks said give it 10 minutes, wd like to point out I wd not like to kill anybody on this board.

it's too SBad

itt edward iii: unimpressed

free whiney, dom, ethan, jw, deej, et al

I guess WGW especially has developed a livelihood that necessarily involves broadcasting every time a synapse fires in his head. What a horrible way to live, frankly.

― Groovy Goulet (pixel farmer), Tuesday, 8 February 2011 08:45 (21 minutes ago)

lol, otm.

SB system =

http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/cuba/1952batista.jpg

doesnt ethan just not post by choice. im not really sure who ethan is tbh

ethan could post today if he wanted to, his ban was reverted ages ago

ethan = and what

i just realized i have no idea how to code.
my bad.

HAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

― the most revered deity in the universe (history mayne)

lol

i remember the kerfuffle over ethan getting sbed incl jordan s gettin all "UNION" but at the time i was kindof like "im not sure who this guy is?"

oops didnt mean to called a dude out by his real name sorry

well he was SBed initially due to image-flooding a thread with Biggie Smalls lyrics after Dom got banned...but they reversed it, yet he decided not to come back due to the Dom thing I think.

ethan chose not to come back because "if 51 people actually didnt want me around i dont wanna be around" or something to that effect

"took one for the team"

dom like murdered some1 right?

he murdered the mods feelings

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_q5KlmdfTujo/R8ghl9Jz5WI/AAAAAAAAAVU/Kp-qOy8ALfg/s400/Oswald+Murder.jpg

i just realized i have no idea how to code.
my bad.

― الله basedأكبر (forksclovetofu), Monday, February 7, 2011 5:35 PM (1 hour ago)
Bookmark

lol

if you wanted to temp disable it, you could rename confirmbanrequest.jsp to confirmbanrequest.xxx

no coding necessary

does that send everyone porno when they hit 51?

please do not do anything to the suggest ban system

it is awesome and i love it

with all sincerity

confirmbangrequest.xxx

no but it will give you some hot 404 action

xp

a subboard for the sugbanned would just be hundreds of posts of "to so-and-so on such-and-such ILE thread: you're so wrong, and i had a great zing for that i would've posted if i could"

― some dude, Monday, February 7, 2011 4:14 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

otm it would be mostly sad kind of pointless

― gr8080, Monday, February 7, 2011 4:16 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

no no no u guys this is the thing that would be funny

only I LOVE CRICKET: THE CHINATOWN OF ILX: THE CHINATOWN OF ILX is brave enough to provide a home for the exile

otm

i would read that avidly.

dom like murdered some1 right?

― plax (ico), Monday, February 7, 2011 5:43 PM Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

he murdered the mods feelings

― door to door legume salesman (San Te), Monday, February 7, 2011 5:44 PM Bookmark

Dom wrote a ton of slanderous shit that had solicitors writing the site mods threatening legal action. This is why the mods decided to never unban him.

um, in that case...

MODS OTM

besides MOD is DOM spelled backwards which means he = evil

makes you think

also anagram of "asston mod pain"

solicit ban

what about the subset of posters who never saw the offending posts though? you'd be setting the bar really high considering there's a lot of active users who only read certain rolling threads or subforums. if someone's being a dick on ILM and only 40% of active users read ILM, they'd have immunity.

Why not make SBs board specific then? For example, I think most of Deej's irritatimg behaviour was confined to ILM. I don't read ILM that much, so I only noticed it in the 2010 albums poll thread. AFAIK Deej wasn't doing anything bad on ILE. So if more than 50% of regular ILM posters SB him, he's banned from ILM but not ILE (unless he gets an equal amount of SBs from ILE too).

Whether it's half or a quarter of whatever is defined as an active user is irrelevant. Let's do one of those annoying and pointless irl analogies:

A man is having a seriously noisy party with loud music, shouting, fighting, people throwing up in the street and lots of generally antisocial and dickish behaviour. He is really annoying several (say 5) of his neighbours. Should their complaints carry any weight at all when like 50 people live in that street and 25 of them are at the party getting mashed and don't give a shit?

Your analogy is flawed. Irritating behaviour on message board is confined to specific threads, and doesn't "bleed" into the whole board, unlike the noise and antisocial behaviour in your example. For example, it seems Deej's irritating behaviour was mostly in ILM rap threads, and since I don't usually read them, he didn't really bother me. A proper analogy would be a case where someone posted some bullshit into every single thread on ILX - and I'm pretty sure more than 50% of regular posters would want this person banned then.

This party was confined to a specific street and didn't bleed into the whole town. However, many people in neighbouring streets were in agreement that that sort of behaviour was unacceptable in their town.

Also, see where I said "annoying and pointless irl analogies"? - I was entirely serious there. People are always coming up with "if it was in a bar/wedding/workplace" examples which never make any sense as the rules of social engagement are already well established in those places and most people know what is acceptable behaviour (unless they work with San Te).

lol

This party was confined to a specific street and didn't bleed into the whole town. However, many people in neighbouring streets were in agreement that that sort of behaviour was unacceptable in their town.

But even if "many people in the neighbouring streets" were in agreement, what if this "many people" isn't the majority? Would it be fair that "many people" can make a decision to evict the unacceptable neighbour instead of it being a majority decision?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCbfMkh940Q

The idea that the SB threshold was ever intended to represent "majority opinion" needs to be nixxed really, Keith merely coded it as representing a high number.

It is pretty high - there are only about four people above 30 at any given time and only about 15 users (out of hundreds) above 15 or so. Most posters barely get suggest banned at all. So for anyone to get to 50 in a six-month period they have to be doing *something* to bother a sizeable number of people.

If you're going to raise the threshold to represent 51% of all users you might as well not have it at all (although it might still take Whiney out the rate he accumulates them).

I didn't mean to say it was "intended to" represent the majority opinion, but if it doesn't, it has no proper moral validity. If it's supposed to represent the voice of many posters, but every time someone gets SBed many people say that he shouldn't have been banned, or that SB shouldn't exist at all, whose opinion counts more? With some technique of measuring the amount of regular posters you could actually justify the bans. Now it's just a random number (51) against an undetermined number of people in opposition.

We need a stay or go poll every time someone hits 51.

51 isn't random. It was actually chosen because it's the maximum number of people before a fap becomes a rave.

We could have a rabid white supremacist posting dozens of messages a day and I doubt we'd get to 51% of all posters asking for him to be banned. I mean obviously in that case it'd be a no-brainer for the mods but it doesn't mean that everyone else is opposed to his ban.