Recently banned

[skcin]

Just wanted to know everyone's opinions on whether or not those recently banned should be allowed to return. I mean, it's not really up to us, but maybe if enough people felt the same way the new owner (welcome & congrats, btw) would consider reinstating some, if not all of them? I'll do a poll, but if you'd like to explain your vote, please do.

[Gypsy-Rhiannon]

New owner, clean slate. I don't think it would bge fair to let some back and not others... even though I do think some were banned unnecessarily. The people worthy of banning will probably show their true colours anyway if they are allowed back and would end up getting banned again! JMO

[DrummerDeanna]

New owner, clean slate. I don't think it would bge fair to let some back and not others... even though I do think some were banned unnecessarily. The people worthy of banning will probably show their true colours anyway if they are allowed back and would end up getting banned again! JMO

That is a good point, I voted for the second option though...before reading your post.

But I think there is a difference in bannings. Some were banned unnecessarily -some with no previous record of trouble-making or anything, after being provoked or for one little slip up in a long history.

It seems like there were some others who made it their goal in life to taunt and poke at people on this board all the time and who were contantly starting things...

So anyway. Bottom line: I'd like to see some of the banning reversed :)

[Sarah]

I also have to go with some and not others.

If all the bannings were "created equally", I'd be for treating them like they're the same.. but they aren't.

Trolls happen from time to time. When you finally get rid of it, don't let it back in for Christ's sake.

As for people who get banned over difference of opinion or grudge or whatever else... if they weren't a ruckus on the board, let 'em back.

[HejiraNYC]

If all the bannings were "created equally", I'd be for treating them like they're the same.. but they aren't.



We also have to keep in mind that the most recent, tragic round of bannings was under the "zero tolerance" policy of one-strike-and-yer-out, whereas in the past it was a three-strike rule. I think the three-strike policy should be reinstated and, accordingly, those previously banned after one strike should be reinstated. However, the reinstatees would have one strike on their permanent record.

Also, perhaps there should be a petition process in which a bannee could be reinstated if, say, 100 Ledgies recommended his/her reinstatement.

Just my $0.02.

[Sarah]

Your point is a good one, Hejira. But I'm a bit biased... there might be one or two people whom I don't want to see back.

Where is that puking icon when I really need it?

[ontheEdgeof17]

Democracy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[skcin]

We also have to keep in mind that the most recent, tragic round of bannings was under the "zero tolerance" policy of one-strike-and-yer-out, whereas in the past it was a three-strike rule. I think the three-strike policy should be reinstated and, accordingly, those previously banned after one strike should be reinstated. However, the reinstatees would have one strike on their permanent record.

Also, perhaps there should be a petition process in which a bannee could be reinstated if, say, 100 Ledgies recommended his/her reinstatement.

Just my $0.02.

Good idea. I like the idea of a petition too, but it should probably be private, maybe through PM to the new owner or a mod. This way there won't be arguments over who wants who back, or who has is out for who. etc. And I don't know if 100 would work, there's not many people around here these days. :laugh: Maybe 50?

Your point is a good one, Hejira. But I'm a bit biased... there might be one or two people whom I don't want to see back.

Where is that puking icon when I really need it?

I agree, but I'm willing to bet most would agree with you on those 1 or 2 people. :cool: In theory, if there was a petition or vote of some kind, majority rules.

[Gypsy-Rhiannon]

I also have to go with some and not others.

If all the bannings were "created equally", I'd be for treating them like they're the same.. but they aren't.

Trolls happen from time to time. When you finally get rid of it, don't let it back in for Christ's sake.

As for people who get banned over difference of opinion or grudge or whatever else... if they weren't a ruckus on the board, let 'em back.

That's a good point!

[Gypsy-Rhiannon]

We also have to keep in mind that the most recent, tragic round of bannings was under the "zero tolerance" policy of one-strike-and-yer-out, whereas in the past it was a three-strike rule. I think the three-strike policy should be reinstated and, accordingly, those previously banned after one strike should be reinstated. However, the reinstatees would have one strike on their permanent record.

Also, perhaps there should be a petition process in which a bannee could be reinstated if, say, 100 Ledgies recommended his/her reinstatement.

Just my $0.02.

This sounds like a fair solution

[BTFLCHLD]

Some should be allowed back, but not others.

IMO those that were banned, and want to be considered for reinstatement, should themselves send a request for reconsideration to [email protected] and then a final decision, perhaps after consultation with mods, be made by the new owner. :shrug:

[Gypsy-Rhiannon]

IMO those that were banned, and want to be considered for reinstatement, should themselves send a request for reconsideration to [email protected] and then a final decision, perhaps after consultation with mods, be made by the new owner. :shrug:

As long as this works better than trying to get bans lifted on a certain other board! ;)

[Sarah]

a certain other board! ;)

hereafter referred to as that which shall not be named. ;)

[carrie721]

We also have to keep in mind that the most recent, tragic round of bannings was under the "zero tolerance" policy of one-strike-and-yer-out, whereas in the past it was a three-strike rule. I think the three-strike policy should be reinstated and, accordingly, those previously banned after one strike should be reinstated. However, the reinstatees would have one strike on their permanent record.

i completely agree with this. the zero tolerance policy is bull****.

[Serrart]

We also have to keep in mind that the most recent, tragic round of bannings was under the "zero tolerance" policy of one-strike-and-yer-out, whereas in the past it was a three-strike rule. I think the three-strike policy should be reinstated and, accordingly, those previously banned after one strike should be reinstated. However, the reinstatees would have one strike on their permanent record.

Also, perhaps there should be a petition process in which a bannee could be reinstated if, say, 100 Ledgies recommended his/her reinstatement.

Just my $0.02.

I agree, the one strike policy should give to all the recently banned the benefit of doubt. About the petition for every bannee I disagree, Ledgies who have more interaction would have far more chances to get back in than the less known ones. Popularity shouldn't make the difference.
I would like though if there was a kind of last chance after the third ban.

Romy

[vivfox]

In the song IMPERIAL HOTEL Stevie sings,"she probably goes under another name, well that's a good idea."
I too have gone under other names. My name is Mark(demo lover). I've also used the name Jack and recently Nicholas(Karat24). The reason for these alias's was because I was trying to start over, presenting myself positively. As demo lover I seemed to irk a lot of good people and that was never my intention. As Nicholas I was kind and respectful and a contributor. Here I'm using the name vivfox and I intend to ALWAYS be respectful and considerate of others. I do not wish to argue with anyone over past mistakes. I would hope that you too can forgive and forget and move on with me, looking forward to the future of this website with a wonderful new owner.
It's unfortunate to me that I have been permanently banned from 7 Wonders. As Karat24 over there, you will see proof that I can coexist kindly.

[sasja]

We also have to keep in mind that the most recent, tragic round of bannings was under the "zero tolerance" policy of one-strike-and-yer-out, whereas in the past it was a three-strike rule. I think the three-strike policy should be reinstated and, accordingly, those previously banned after one strike should be reinstated. However, the reinstatees would have one strike on their permanent record.



Completely behind this suggestion! Good one!!

[Miss Vicky]

I agree, the one strike policy should give to all the recently banned the benefit of doubt. About the petition for every bannee I disagree, Ledgies who have more interaction would have far more chances to get back in than the less known ones. Popularity shouldn't make the difference.
I would like though if there was a kind of last chance after the third ban.

Romy

Stupid Question: Were there "less known" Ledgies that got banned under the one strike policy?

Of all the banned folks I'm aware of, they all were pretty active members of the board. Perhaps I've overlooked some?

[Serrart]

Stupid Question: Were there "less known" Ledgies that got banned under the one strike policy?

Of all the banned folks I'm aware of, they all were pretty active members of the board. Perhaps I've overlooked some?

Sorry, I thought HejiraNYC's idea about a petition process for the bannees was meant in general not for the people banned under the one strike policy. IMO all of those should be allowed back in because I don 't find correct to change rules without a valid explanation (the one that was given sounded pretty weak to me). Just my opinion.

Romy

[Moony]

I say ban more people. Always.

[Steviefan49]

As long as this works better than trying to get bans lifted on a certain other board! ;)

:thumbsup:LOL.. Exactly!:blob2:

[Moz]

I think a select few should be let back. I can't remember who was all banned, but those who were for absurd reasons, should be allowed back.

[Richard B]

If I was banned, I wouldn't want to come back. Just principle.

But then, when someone does get banned, can they just come back as a new member? Does it block IP's or something? Even if it did, most IP's are dynamic and can change.

I think if you let anyone back in, you should let everyone in. Seems a bit fascist otherwise. Hell, what do I know? .

[Gypsy-Rhiannon]

In the song IMPERIAL HOTEL Stevie sings,"she probably goes under another name, well that's a good idea."
I too have gone under other names. My name is Mark(demo lover). I've also used the name Jack and recently Nicholas(Karat24). The reason for these alias's was because I was trying to start over, presenting myself positively. As demo lover I seemed to irk a lot of good people and that was never my intention. As Nicholas I was kind and respectful and a contributor. Here I'm using the name vivfox and I intend to ALWAYS be respectful and considerate of others. I do not wish to argue with anyone over past mistakes. I would hope that you too can forgive and forget and move on with me, looking forward to the future of this website with a wonderful new owner.
It's unfortunate to me that I have been permanently banned from 7 Wonders. As Karat24 over there, you will see proof that I can coexist kindly.

How did having a different name make you act differently?

[mylittledemon]

If I was banned, I wouldn't want to come back. Just principle.

But then, when someone does get banned, can they just come back as a new member? Does it block IP's or something? Even if it did, most IP's are dynamic and can change.

I think if you let anyone back in, you should let everyone in. Seems a bit fascist otherwise. Hell, what do I know? .

Yeah I feel generally the same way. I like the 3 strikes rule too though. But I also feel that personally attacking someone openly warrants you a final warning and the next time you should be gone.

[Richard B]

Yeah I feel generally the same way. I like the 3 strikes rule too though. But I also feel that personally attacking someone openly warrants you a final warning and the next time you should be gone.

I think a 3 strike is cool too, but in regards to peeps already banned, all of them should be let in that were under the no strike, no tolerance, Gestapo rule. As for the ones banned long ago under the 3 strike rule, well, I still say bring them back too. See what happens. Most of them probably wouldn't come back anyway. Which brings me to my earlier post, can't banned peeps just come back under another name anyway?

[David]

If it gets too complicated, michele is likely to put the whole place up for sale again.

[skcin]

In the song IMPERIAL HOTEL Stevie sings,"she probably goes under another name, well that's a good idea."
I too have gone under other names. My name is Mark(demo lover). I've also used the name Jack and recently Nicholas(Karat24). The reason for these alias's was because I was trying to start over, presenting myself positively. As demo lover I seemed to irk a lot of good people and that was never my intention. As Nicholas I was kind and respectful and a contributor. Here I'm using the name vivfox and I intend to ALWAYS be respectful and considerate of others. I do not wish to argue with anyone over past mistakes. I would hope that you too can forgive and forget and move on with me, looking forward to the future of this website with a wonderful new owner.
It's unfortunate to me that I have been permanently banned from 7 Wonders. As Karat24 over there, you will see proof that I can coexist kindly.


Ummmmmmm.....huh? :confused: What does this have to do with those recently banned from the Ledge because of the 1 strike rule?

If it gets too complicated, michele is likely to put the whole place up for sale again.


I'm hoping she'll see this thread & let us know how she plans to proceed. If she doesn't intend to let any of the banned back, then we can stop discussing it. :shrug: If there's a chance she'll hear people out, then we could tell those we're in touch with through other means to contact her.

I personally feel that some members should be allowed back - but not all. Quite frankly, there were some members who seemed to only be here to stir the **** pot, then cry that they were being attacked when people called them on it or disagreed with what they had to say. Has nothing to do with popularity either - there are plenty of members here that I don't like a whole lot, but I appreciate the fact that they can have a rational conversation. JMO. This place is boring as hell lately with so many of our frequent posters gone, whether they were banned or voluntarily jumped ship.

[David]

I personally feel that some members should be allowed back - but not all. Quite frankly, there were some members who seemed to only be here to stir the **** pot, then cry that they were being attacked when people called them on it or disagreed with what they had to say. Has nothing to do with popularity either - there are plenty of members here that I don't like a whole lot, but I appreciate the fact that they can have a rational conversation. JMO. This place is boring as hell lately with so many of our frequent posters gone, whether they were banned or voluntarily jumped ship.I wish Les would come back. But I fear she is long gone. :(

[vivfox]

This is the first time I've been a Ledggie. I was never banned from here. 7wonders banned me and Becky banned me from her site when she realized it was me on there. She banned me for what she called"forum harassment." But I never harassed anyone on her site. I was very courteous on there and very courteous as Karat24 on 7 wonders.
Like I mentioned b4, I'd like to put the past to rest and start over with a clean slate. We all have to learn lessons from mistakes we've made. If I break the rules here then please ban me but in the meantime would you please give me another chance to redeem myself? I have a lot to contribute to this site, and I'm asking all of you to please give me the oppurtunity to do so.

[rbs3676]

If I was banned, I wouldn't want to come back. Just principle.


my thoughts exactly. It's boring here, anyway. :shrug:

rbs

[buckymcnix]

my thoughts exactly. It's boring here, anyway. :shrug:

rbs

have you met riki-tiki-tavi yet?
:wavey:

[mylittledemon]

If it gets too complicated, michele is likely to put the whole place up for sale again.

Thats a weird thing to say.

[Gypsy-Rhiannon]

This is the first time I've been a Ledggie. I was never banned from here. 7wonders banned me and Becky banned me from her site when she realized it was me on there. She banned me for what she called"forum harassment." But I never harassed anyone on her site. I was very courteous on there and very courteous as Karat24 on 7 wonders.
Like I mentioned b4, I'd like to put the past to rest and start over with a clean slate. We all have to learn lessons from mistakes we've made. If I break the rules here then please ban me but in the meantime would you please give me another chance to redeem myself? I have a lot to contribute to this site, and I'm asking all of you to please give me the oppurtunity to do so.

This thread is about people that are already banhned from the ledge, not about you being banned on other sites

[David]

Thats a weird thing to say.You're too literal-minded. It was an attempt at comic hyperbole in order to get my point across that the new owner -- or any owner, for that matter -- might not want to create a terribly complex, byzantine new system to deal with these matters.

We shall see. . . .

[WildInTheWind]

This is the first time I've been a Ledggie. I was never banned from here. 7wonders banned me and Becky banned me from her site when she realized it was me on there. She banned me for what she called"forum harassment." But I never harassed anyone on her site. I was very courteous on there and very courteous as Karat24 on 7 wonders.
.

Actually I only have one site. And I never banned you because I'd never let you join. :rolleyes:

[David]

Actually I only have one site. And I never banned you because I'd never let you join. :rolleyes:May I join your forum? What's the theme?

[vivfox]

Actually I only have one site. And I never banned you because I'd never let you join. :rolleyes:

Yes you did ban me Becky. I was called vivfox on your site too.

[WildInTheWind]

Yes you did ban me Becky. I was called vivfox on your site too.

Uhh yea...that wasn't my site. :wavey:

[WildInTheWind]

May I join your forum? What's the theme?

The theme? It doesn't really have one. Drunken debauchery would work, though. :shrug:

[vivfox]

Uhh yea...that wasn't my site.
__________________
http://cornersintime.net/songbirds/index.php
Becky

Uhh yea...yes it is:wavey:

[vivfox]

Uhh yea...that wasn't my site. :wavey:

Uhh yea...yes it is:wavey:



http://cornersintime.net/songbirds/index.php
Becky

[LiamMcConville]

Uhh yea...yes it is:wavey:



http://cornersintime.net/songbirds/index.php
Becky

Thats actually Kate's (Natrachs) from Seven Wonders.

[Gypsy-Rhiannon]

Uhh yea...yes it is:wavey:



http://cornersintime.net/songbirds/index.php
Becky

Uhh... no it isn't. And what has your bannings from other sites got to do with the ledge?

[skcin]

So, did the new owner ever chime in? I'm sorry, I haven't been around in a while. Any hope for those banned under the strict 1 strike rule?

[Tango]

So, did the new owner ever chime in? I'm sorry, I haven't been around in a while. Any hope for those banned under the strict 1 strike rule?

Yes, read the announcement at the top of the Chit Chat board by The Penguin.

[skcin]

^Whoops. :o Thanks.

[BombaySapphire3]

IMO there are only a small number of people that have truly deserved to be banned .One of these is the individual that caused the havoc that the 3 strike system was created for back in 2001/2002..and this person did manage to return albeit briefly under a new name before he was discovered .Maybe 2 or 3 others since were deserving.Most of the recent bannings were all people that contributed a good deal to these forums though IMO and it is certainly less interesting without them.