User nominated bannings

[hitony]

And it seems to work, so not sure why the need to implement this!

I don't know the Boss comes up with ideas from time to time, probably why he is on more money than us (and we are looking for an increase on our £50K a year!!!)

 

[hitony]

Isn't that what NSP was for? (does it still exist??)

Yes it does

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Your VERY safe.....Your Female

A female on NSC "safe" ..... from being banned maybe !

 

[dingodan]

I could very easily see myself getting banned if this was to be applied.

The problem I have with this is not that I would probably end up getting banned, but more to the point I would probably end up getting banned when I have never broken, nor would I ever break, NSC rules. Surely this should be the only measure as to whether or not someone should be banned?

Holding, expressing and defending a minority viewpoint on a controversial subject should not result in a ban, but I am pretty sure that this is the way it would go.

If someone is abusive, wouldn't the existing rules and moderation deal with that? And if someone is spamming, wouldn't existing rules and moderation also deal with that? And if someone is not being abusive or spamming, I cannot see any legitimate reason that they should be banned.

User nominated bans would amount to "mob rule" where people are punished effectively because they are unpopular with other posters, rather than for any actual infringement of NSC rules.

In conclusion - me no likey.

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

i think its a brilliant idea

I nominate someone who works for the government, wears rose coloured spectacles and is never ever wrong, no siree.

...and actors

...and bankers getting huge bonuses...you cant fool me marcus

...all these WSU oiks who thing they can lord ity over everyone just cos the sit near bloom

...all teh racists and pwoper nawty geezers

...all the bleeding heart liberals.

...all the soft southern blouse wearing shandy drinking poofs

That just leaves me, ROSM, The Club press Officer, and fellow 5:32 crew.

Utopia

Sounds like a plan

I DONT work in banking!!! Ask Ady!!!

 

[Titanic]

...User nominated bans would amount to "mob rule" where people are punished effectively because they are unpopular with other posters, rather than for any actual infringement of NSC rules.

 

[Racek]

This idea seems very over the top for a message board.

 

[seagullondon]

This idea seems very over the top for a message board.

This. Its a messageboard not real life. Some people need to get over themselves a bit.

 

[public school boy]

ban the banners

 

[c0lz]

To be honest some posters are a joke on here but this seems such a silly idea and surely the mods know right from wrong and should leave it up to them, cant be hard if the same user keeps getting reported post by other members that its will warrant a Ban.

 

[Hillian1]

I could very easily see myself getting banned if this was to be applied.

The problem I have with this is not that I would probably end up getting banned, but more to the point I would probably end up getting banned when I have never broken, nor would I ever break, NSC rules. Surely this should be the only measure as to whether or not someone should be banned?

Holding, expressing and defending a minority viewpoint on a controversial subject should not result in a ban, but I am pretty sure that this is the way it would go.

If someone is abusive, wouldn't the existing rules and moderation deal with that? And if someone is spamming, wouldn't existing rules and moderation also deal with that? And if someone is not being abusive or spamming, I cannot see any legitimate reason that they should be banned.

User nominated bans would amount to "mob rule" where people are punished effectively because they are unpopular with other posters, rather than for any actual infringement of NSC rules.

In conclusion - me no likey.

This is exactly the point, right here.

The guys a 24 carrat loon for some of his views (in my opinion) but just because I don't agree doesn't make it right to ban him.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

In the end the mods are the ones who get the final say on the ban.

If it's obvious the person doesn't deserve to be banned and its just been a campaign against them then that's the mods call and they probably wouldn't be banned.

That then means the people who voted for them to be kicked don't get to vote again for three months anyway.

 

[Return of the Rev]

I'm not very keen on myself today, January blues and stuff, any chance of getting enough posters together to ban me?

Banned myself once and the little strumpets banned me for that

 

[Beach Hut]

having nearly been banned by a moderator who called me a f***ing prick I prefer the old school method

 

[Titanic]

Banned myself once and the little strumpets banned me for that

Who? I would tread very carefully if I were you!

 

[Marshal Josip Tito]

Hey why don't we all make lists of posters we don't like?

Whoever features on the most lists gets a month long ban, to reflect.

 

[Muhammed - I’m hard - Bruce Lee]

oh yes, leave guiness dave and buzzer in here too

awwwwww ta Dave


wish i'd told you about the free chocolates now

 

[Dr Q]

Not such a good Iidea. Admitedly there are some posters, like the Conspiricy Theory muppets who bang on about the same thing over and over, but ultimately I don't think the posters warrent banning.

The only bans I would like to see more often are the obnoxious Palace or Southampton pricks (useually new users/low message counts) which come on here after a defeat for us/win for them etc.

 

[Return of the Rev]

who? I would tread very carefully if i were you!

I seen the future and its murder

 

[Titanic]

Banned myself once and the little strumpets banned me for that

I seen the future and its murder

Two posts, only two capital letters... are you feeling OK?