|
On January 06 2019 00:41 Danglars wrote:
You’re all still arguing bans in a thread that explicitly states “don’t continue these derails” “don’t post in here questioning whether a ban is justified?”
Far too frequent an issue for this not to have a thread to go to.
I'll start off by saying:
The thread should probably be titled "making fun of banned people" with a mod note of "don't defend yourself or others" then it would be a bit more clear what the thread is for.
"on-topic" is too much of a euphemism.
|
it should be titles Pissing on banned people. That way it would occasionally work as a pun.
|
On January 06 2019 03:27 opisska wrote:
it should be titles Pissing on banned people. That way it would occasionally work as a pun.
I could be on board with that.
Might not be bad idea to field some suggestions/ideas for a new name and poll it.
|
United States24569 Posts
The mod note at the top of that thread has been revised to discuss what is and isn't permitted.
|
This thread is for discussing recent bans. Don't discuss other topics here.
Take it to website feedback if you disagree with a ban or want to raise an issue.
Keep it civil.
Still sounds like a euphemism for "insult and belittle (defenseless in that space) banned users" to me. I do appreciate knowing that my feedback was received and hearing back though
"Sick Burns for the Banned Thread" I think would at least be closer to what you guys are going for there imo. Because it's not "discussion" as I understand the word.
|
Yeah, i was always confused how you can not actually discuss bans in that thread, because as soon as any discussion happens, people are told to "take it to website feedback".
The only thing that seems to be allowed is to have about 5 light posts making fun of some ban. If that is indeed that goal of that thread, it should be made a lot more clear. Currently it attracts people wanting to discuss bans (Maybe because they thing a ban was not warranted), and the modnote reinforces that that you should discuss bans. But a discussion also entails stuff like "I don't think this was a valid ban".
|
lol wp whoever changed the title of this thread. wp
|
United States24569 Posts
That was intentional. I wasn't going to rename a long-lived thread, but I didn't want this thread to have the exact same name as other threads.
|
On January 07 2019 08:22 micronesia wrote:
That was intentional. I wasn't going to rename a long-lived thread, but I didn't want this thread to have the exact same name as other threads.
Why not rename it, just because it's name is old?
|
United States24569 Posts
Renaming big threads causes confusion. In a staff forum, there is one thread that gets renamed every time there is a new inside joke and it's annoying as hell to keep track of.
|
On January 07 2019 08:24 micronesia wrote:
Renaming big threads causes confusion. In a staff forum, there is one thread that gets renamed every time there is a new inside joke and it's annoying as hell to keep track of.
Seems kinda silly to me but I understand.
A more accurate modnote would be sufficient to address the whole "discuss" euphemism imo, probably make sense to just link this into the text about discussing bans or feedback related issues.
|
Mod note now makes it clear that the intention of the thread is to piss on banned users.
|
On January 07 2019 21:50 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Mod note now makes it clear that the intention of the thread is to piss on banned users.
well .. mmm that's like your opinion man
![[image loading]](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/76/19/92/76199263c8d1bc961e93c5a0a987b732.png)
the "Keep it civil" has been bolded!
|
Moved from the ABL:
On October 04 2020 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2020 01:57 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
If you have a complaint you really should take it to website feedback. This isn't the thread for arguing about bans I honestly don't understand what this thread is for?
On October 04 2020 04:55 Nevuk wrote:
It's for making fun of/mourning the recently banned
On October 04 2020 05:32 GreenHorizons wrote:"lolz" Seems to mean "for the gleeful and childish denigration of functionally defenseless people" to me. Which I guess generally made sense when dealing with kids that more or less had it coming, but seems woefully inappropriate nowadays or at least among people that purportedly disdain childish bullying. Show nested quote +On October 04 2020 05:37 farvacola wrote:
Whatever you say GH, those poor defenseless people, God bless @farv They literally aren't allowed to argue the posts denigrating them here as Karis pointed out.
On October 04 2020 05:54 The_Templar wrote:
It's not like the people being banned can't send a PM to (a) moderator(s) while banned or argue it in website feedback after the ban duration expires.
On October 04 2020 06:02 Cokefreak wrote:
They can also PM Seeker.
That's why I said "functionally". I think it should just be shut down or we should acknowledge it as childish intentionally one-sided bullying and enjoy the guilty pleasure.
Just my $0.02.
EDIT: Pretty sure we all know the visibility of someone defending themselves or someone else here is a tiny fraction of the visibility of their detractors in the ABL.
|
I can never seem to find the actual automated ban list. Can we by any chance have a link to the list in the OP?
|
On October 04 2020 06:20 dUTtrOACh wrote:
I can never seem to find the actual automated ban list. Can we by any chance have a link to the list in the OP?
Too old for me to edit it in myself but I certainly wouldn't object. As well as a naming convention to easily distinguish the ABL that is automated and closed, from the ABL that is that other thing.
|
Northern Ireland23775 Posts
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
