11-01-2004, 04:47 PM
Had to be done, but I don't like it. This means if Vicious slips up one more time (distinct possibility), it'll be a 7-day ban next time. A 30-day ban after that, and then a permanent one. That would be a shame. He's a one-man party always waiting to happen.
I would like to point out the flow in Zagatto's banning scheme. Long bans disproportionately hurt established members like Vicious more, while they are potentially only a minor inconvenience for newbies. If someone is hell-bent on wreaking havoc on the board, I don't think any long bans will stop that. They can always create new names and come back. In fact, any extended bans will only encourage that practice.
Personally, I don't like any extended bans greater than a week. I would advocate for 3 day bans only. It's been effective in curbing the flame war. Wasn't that the purpose of the bans?
I would like to point out the flow in Zagatto's banning scheme. Long bans disproportionately hurt established members like Vicious more, while they are potentially only a minor inconvenience for newbies. If someone is hell-bent on wreaking havoc on the board, I don't think any long bans will stop that. They can always create new names and come back. In fact, any extended bans will only encourage that practice.
Personally, I don't like any extended bans greater than a week. I would advocate for 3 day bans only. It's been effective in curbing the flame war. Wasn't that the purpose of the bans?