Is banning worth it? - Page 4

On October 24 2008 04:01 Fumanchu wrote:
the only reasons i can see now to ban someone is because of power, spite, and to set an example. the only problem is setting an example is not needed. the people on this site who want to continue posting, and continue to get a good reputation with their posting aren't going to throw that away with a bannable post. they already know the norm of what is acceptable. and the people that get banned usually know why they got banned and don't give a care. i've never heard of someone being emotionally crushed because they were banned from something.

Fumanchu (Original Post):

FYI-- Unsure of what the point was about your wc3/dota banlist--disregarding.

You say banning on TL seems pretty pointless because they can still post. [This logically says, the point of banning is to stop them from posting--if it does not do this, then it does nothing.]

Following this, you conclude that there must be some point to banning [right] when you try to look for what the point could be. You list several potential points then shoot them down. However, with this approach you will never prove it is pointless, only that we know no point of it (but there may still be one, yet undiscovered). This is where your post goes.

You say these are the only reasons you can think of [assuming you are inviting others to propose others if they know them]: power, spite, and to set an example. FYI To be honest I can't follow the connection between the sentences in your third paragraph. I do not see clearly what you mean by power; and if I analyze it a bit, spite seems to be a pretty empty saying too--they are angry so they ban you. That's a description of the emotion, not the reason or purpose or "point." When you are angry, say you swing a bat at someone. The point is to destroy them, in such a case. You believe the bat does something--it's not pointless. So you see how "spite" to me does not seem to describe the real "point"--the point is that you believe the result will happen, the point is the intended result--i.e., making someone lose the ability to post on their account, having to make a new account [surely you concede that this is what happens from a ban on TL]. Therefore, what you are really saying is that making someone do this whole thing is actually pointless. You are perhaps saying it is negligable, that it does not perform any function for the site.

Others have responded that it at least slows down and deters many people; some have said the bans they have witnessed have changed how they posted. It seems to do something, and I have not been convinced that these things the bans clearly do, is pointless.

So this is my analysis of your first post. You sound like you are getting tired of banning what seems like an endless army of ban-needing people. I think you know though that there would be a difference if there was no banning at all, despite how hopeless it seems that the banning never does enough.

Hope this cheers you up. I'm interested in this conversation BTW because before I was banned from this site, I was someone who frequently adocated the banning of particular members. Since being banned I have come to take a softer stance on banning. But I hardly see it as pointless, which is what this topic is about. It's a death sentence within the universe of this site, at least within the universe of your identity--it would be like if you were in an online political forum and you were Bill Clinton but you couldn't tell anyone, compared to in RL where you can (that's the difference between being banned and not ever being banned)--obviously that matters.

--dead man talking

On October 25 2008 00:14 niteReloaded wrote:
I'd rename this topic into "Is PERMAbanning worth it?".

Because tempbanning is perfectly reasonable.
However PERMAbanning is like completely 'imbalanced' to put it that way. It doesn't offer a realistic crime-punishment balance.

If you draw a parallel between real life and crime punishments, permaban would be a deathpenalty.

Now you name me one thing a person can do on TeH internetz that requires this cyber-TL-deathpenalty.

He can't kill(ban) anyone else. He can't take any of your possesions.

The only possible reason would be if someone insults someone in a very bad bad way.

But we see permabans for to petty reasons like a bad thread made.

I'd go exclusively with tempbans, preferably with explanations on why a person got the penalty. Then it's a corrective measure which is what bad posters need.

On October 25 2008 00:29 niteReloaded wrote:
Do you have the doors on your house open so that anyone comes in?

Your analogy fails. If this was a house - it'd be an invite-only style forum.

On October 25 2008 00:24 Kwark wrote: This is our house. We can kick people out and stop them coming back in.