Should idiotic/ annoying/ sectarian etc users be banned?

Published by RI_RS on 17 October, 2011 - 01:41

Primary tabs

Submitted by TPOS on 17 October, 2011 - 16:01

It's a hard choice. I like the sound of number 4 Blum 3

Seriously, either 1 or 3

—

"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi

Submitted by RI_RS on 17 October, 2011 - 16:40

ThE pOwEr Of SiLeNcE wrote:
It's a hard choice. I like the sound of number 4 Blum 3

Seriously, either 1 or 3

So they should either be banned or kept?
You've pretty much covered all bases there haven't you Blum 3

—

#Before you look at the thorns of the rose , look at it's beauty. Before you complain about the heat of the sun , enjoy it's light. Before you complain about the blackness of the night, think of it's peace and quiet... #

Submitted by RI_RS on 17 October, 2011 - 17:17

s.b.f wrote:
Why?

Just curious. The policy atm seems to be that they're fine to stay until they really bother either 'You' or Ed, and I wanted to know what everyone else thought.

—

#Before you look at the thorns of the rose , look at it's beauty. Before you complain about the heat of the sun , enjoy it's light. Before you complain about the blackness of the night, think of it's peace and quiet... #

Submitted by TPOS on 17 October, 2011 - 18:18

Rawrrs_isarollingstone wrote:
ThE pOwEr Of SiLeNcE wrote:
It's a hard choice. I like the sound of number 4 Blum 3

Seriously, either 1 or 3

So they should either be banned or kept?
You've pretty much covered all bases there haven't you Blum 3


Lol. Well it depends how idiotic/annoying/sectarian they are.

You need a way to measure the levels, e.g if they insult Islam or a person really badly (like what lolswood said to malik) then first time they should get warnings, if it continues then be banned for a while.

Sometimes its amusing and banning would be extreme.

—

"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi

Submitted by You on 17 October, 2011 - 18:23

Rawrrs_isarollingstone wrote:
The policy atm seems to be that they're fine to stay until they really bother either 'You' or Ed, and I wanted to know what everyone else thought.

I think that the policy should be refined:

"they're fine to stay until they really bother either 'You'."

but then again I have shown great tolerance towards Lollywood and Metallica in general...

—

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

Submitted by LookingToSee on 17 October, 2011 - 22:26

You wrote:
Rawrrs_isarollingstone wrote:
The policy atm seems to be that they're fine to stay until they really bother either 'You' or Ed, and I wanted to know what everyone else thought.

I think that the policy should be refined:

"they're fine to stay until they really bother either 'You'."

but then again I have shown great tolerance towards Lollywood and Metallica in general...

great tolerance indeed.

i think it should be a case by case thing. and not if they "bother" a certain person, but mroe if they insult someone or Islam....bbbbbbbbuuuuuuuuuuuut. they DO make revvy interesting and are really good revision tools. not tools. revision..euh..thingies.. euh...

—

Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?

Submitted by TPOS on 17 October, 2011 - 22:59

Lilly wrote:

great tolerance indeed.

i think it should be a case by case thing. and not if they "bother" a certain person, but mroe if they insult someone or Islam....bbbbbbbbuuuuuuuuuuuut. they DO make revvy interesting and are really good revision tools. not tools. revision..euh..thingies.. euh...


revision?
—

"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi

Submitted by LookingToSee on 18 October, 2011 - 07:08

ThE pOwEr Of SiLeNcE wrote:
Lilly wrote:

great tolerance indeed.

i think it should be a case by case thing. and not if they "bother" a certain person, but mroe if they insult someone or Islam....bbbbbbbbuuuuuuuuuuuut. they DO make revvy interesting and are really good revision tools. not tools. revision..euh..thingies.. euh...


revision?

religious knowledge.

—

Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?

Submitted by The Lamp on 18 October, 2011 - 17:29

Lilly wrote:
You wrote:
Rawrrs_isarollingstone wrote:
The policy atm seems to be that they're fine to stay until they really bother either 'You' or Ed, and I wanted to know what everyone else thought.

I think that the policy should be refined:

"they're fine to stay until they really bother either 'You'."

but then again I have shown great tolerance towards Lollywood and Metallica in general...

great tolerance indeed.

i think it should be a case by case thing. and not if they "bother" a certain person, but mroe if they insult someone or Islam....bbbbbbbbuuuuuuuuuuuut. they DO make revvy interesting and are really good revision tools. not tools. revision..euh..thingies.. euh...

I went for a fifth option of "Something else", I mean who defines annoying? If someone is dangerously secetarian or wants to stir up hatred and trouble rather than a mature debate, then it might be better to warn them first.
I think banning should be left for the most extreme cases.

—

“Before death takes away what you are given, give away whatever there is to give.”

Mawlana Jalal ud Din Rumi

Post reply