Missin U <3 - lamentations for those felled by the SB

maybe if mods want to keep him banned but would allow him to return to the nfl and mlb boards that would be a good compromise...

Cankles was sitting on 50 SBs during his temp ban, it did indeed only take one person to push him over the threshold.

He was accumulating SBs pretty consistently since the previous time we let him back in, and from a much wider cross-section of posters than the particularly thin-skinned ones. I think I've only ever seen Gabbneb accumulate SBs that quickly, which makes me think Cankles was either outright trolling for them, didn't care whether he got SB'ed or not, or was just a complete idiot. Leaning towards option 2.

sitting on 50 SBs during his temp ban

man that's cold

I don't think he was literally sitting on them.

we'll never know, cos it's not in the FAQ ;_;

the notion that a person returning from a ban does not do so with a clean slate opens up exciting stultifyingly dull avenues for discussion and more importantly questions

was he seriously felled by that burgerphone post?

no

John makes a pretty good point there.

Cankles was sitting on 50 SBs during his temp ban

this is actually kind of hilarious

I already said in the other thread that it seems kinda unfair if SB bans and mod bans can overlap in a way they seem to do in Cankles' case (I assume at least some of his SBs came from the same posts that the mods temp banned him for), because then you're essentially punishing a person twice for the same crime. I hope the mods are thinking of some way to deal with this problem.

maybe we should assign you as his buddy to keep him on the straight and narrow

I'm not talking about Cankles specifically, merely pointing out an inherent problem in a system where both suggest bans and mod bans exist simultaneously.

It's a bit sad if site mods deal with this like it's a joke instead of taking it into serious consideration.

I think they disagree with you.

But responding to your concerns is not their main job, iirc.

Who said it's just "my" concerns? I brought it up here because John and ENBB mentioned the problem too.

the notion that a person returning from a ban does not do so with a clean slate opens up exciting stultifyingly dull avenues for discussion and more importantly questions

Please let's not. Temp bans and SBs are totally different things. A temp ban is a time out/warning and nothing more.

I mean, if you actually think about it:

- Poster A is pretty obnoxious to lots of people, racks up lots of Suggest Bans
- Poster A then starts getting REALLY obnoxious, possibly several days later, picks up temp ban
- As a result, Poster A gets a load of SBs knocked off his total purely because he acted like an arse and got himself temp banned

Doesn't actually make an awful lot of sense.

Er, I'd say it's not merely a "warning". To the person who gets banned there's no difference between an SB and a mod ban, he's still banned. They're both punishments for non-tolerated behaviour.

(x-post)

A temp ban lasts two or three days. It's a totally different thing.

- Poster A is pretty obnoxious to lots of people, racks up lots of Suggest Bans
- Poster A then starts getting REALLY obnoxious, possibly several days later, picks up temp ban
- As a result, Poster A gets a load of SBs knocked off his total purely because he acted like an arse and got himself temp banned

Doesn't actually make an awful lot of sense.

It depends on how many SBs he got from the same post(s) that made mods ban him. If it's a significant amount, then he gets two bans as punishment for one "crime". I guess it's up to the mods to decide whether this is just or not.

A temp ban lasts two or three days. It's a totally different thing.

It's still a ban, and it's still a punishment.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but the length of a temp ban is not always the same, is it?

I think banning Ludo was a bit harsh. He made a tasteless remark, but took it back soon after. It's not like he's trolling all the time. Anyway, De Subjectivisten will miss him...

No, wait, just saw Ludo got a temp ban, not an sb. Soz...

can we start calling them 'banishments'? i don't think we take this issue seriously enough

I just need to say that Tuomas unrelenting quest for justice is pretty remarkable. You, my friend, are an inspiration.

i'll jump on the banishmentwagon

Nelson Bandela

The Long Walk To Fifty-one

Quick bleeding sprint to 51 in some cases.

Temp bans get longer the more times you get banned Tuomas. The first is two or three days.

Both temp bans and SBs are really intended as a deterrant rather than a punishment - and SBs are usually across a very broad range of posts, as in the case of Cankles. It's highly unlikely they're going to be banned twice for the same offence, because in one category there is no one "offence".

Okay, here's a simple arithmetic to determine the punishment in a case where someone gets both temp banned and SBed due to the same post(s):

* First count the percentage of SBs that came from the same post(s) that got this person temp banned. Let's say he has 51 SBs, and 17 of them came from the same post(s) the mods temp banned him for. In this case the percentage would be 33,3%.

* Using that percentage, count how many days of his temp ban overlaps with the suggest ban. In our example, let's say this person was temp banned for 18 days. 33,3% of 18 days would be 6 days.

* Subtract this overlap from the total length of his suggest ban. If the suggest ban is 30 days, you can subtract 6 days from it, making his actual suggest ban 24 days long.

Voila! A just punishment!

You, my friend, are an inSBiration.

can we also start referring to time off-board as 'exile'

in SiBeria

Thank you Tuomas, we will certainly bear that in mind when exercising moderator discretion in future. A graph would be nice though, if you have time.

it's like when you're arrested and put in jail (temp ban), your time in jail is applied to your eventual time in prison (suggest ban)

it's admittedly not a lot like that, though

http://dub-connection.net/images/BanduluDub_SpiritualEvolution.jpg

Thank you Tuomas, we will certainly bear that in mind when exercising moderator discretion in future. A graph would be nice though, if you have time.

I'm sure coding a program that automatically counts the number of days to subtract from the SB should be pretty easy. All it requires is that a mod marks the post(s) he's temp banning someone for, and the rest should happen automatically.

If no one has the time to program that sort of thing, I can volunteer to count the number myself every time a SB and a temp ban overlap. Just email me the relevant information, and I'll do it.

Matt I was actually just making a funny because it was clear that the whole "a person can still acquire SBs while banned" deal would almost surely be something that would inspire our leading researcher in the field of Suggest Ban Theory to possible new heights of accomplishment

if yr SBed & sum1 lands on 1 of ur properties do u still get rent

i must be completely worn down because i ghoulishly enjoyed the simple arithmetic and the voila! which i don't think i would normally.

your SBs are deposited in escrow and tallied upon your return

Okay, here's a simple arithmetic to determine the punishment in a case where someone gets both temp banned and SBed due to the same post(s):

I can't decide if this is self-parody, or if you're serious about Chapter XI Section 3 of the ILX Penal Code, and that we should do everything possible to ensure that people who have, in one way or another, been dickish enough to earn themselves bans don't have to spend a second more off the boards than required to mete out just enough "punishment" so that they'll never change.

dude, it's self-parody

more like self-parroty