My 2c

Rather than banning without referring to the community, how about the mod in cases of egregious behaviour may suspend and then we hold it up to a group decision to allow them back?

I also like the temporary "time out" option to allow people to cool off. (cheers dub)

The venting/locking by consenus on the other hand worked really well IMO. that should stay as is

mikey mikey wrote:
Call it 'suspend' if you like , its what happens at the mo as far as I know.

andyh wrote:
I meant banned pending review by the community

after the community vote, banned permanently or "unbanned"

mikey mikey wrote:
Yep, sounds like its how it is currently I think

The only issue I find with that Mikey is that, is the fact that it may take forever for the community to reach an agreement, and even if the majority of them do, some may not agree and raise holey hell about it, then their views along with whatever the party did has to be brought up for a vote again and there may never be an agreement on it. If it is left of to the team, the community wont be sitting around for days/weeks debating about it. That is the only downfall I see to doing it that way.
Maybe a system wide email sent out, and a thread started, saying so and so did this this is the proposed resolution, voting will be open from such and such date until date and then closed... everyone knows, everyone gets a chance to have their say, at the end the majority is the decision maker. That might work, but may still end up in a giant debate over the actions taken.

The here and now is what really needs to be decided. What are we gonna do, how is it going to continue. All the other stuff can be managed after, but should have a basic grounds to start with so people are aware of any changes that may come with the change of hands of the forum.

StarsChildren wrote:
A cut off date for count of votes and failing that it defaults to the 'zonekeepers' earlier decision.
We'd need a basic minimum count though, perhaps 15 votes or whatever...you can have a separate thread to decide that too lol.

Starschildren, I admire your pragmatism, but where at all possible we should remain true to the principles that SZ members originally agreed to.

andyh wrote:
Before today is out, I'm gonna wanna shoot myself huh?

Voting

ive been hoicked out of many a club and pub off an evening and let back in the next night.

yes someone needs to be able to do the job of dealing with t+c breaches in the moment by lobbing someone offline.

a ban shouldnt be left for a few to decide on though imho. some yardstick needs to be driven in on how the community will acheive a satisfactory decision would be my observation.

i'm not looking to restart the consensus debate but we really do need to find a process that we are happy with and cognisant of.

dubmeup wrote:
Now's as good a time as any

mikey mikey wrote:
I had no idea what that meant and had to go look it up... if you are connected it to the US related stuff, I retract any statements I made in relation to that big word lol... I'd like to be fair and give the community their say in everything, but having seen a few debates go on for what seemed like forever on here when something should have been able to be decided in a much quicker fashion I think some actions and control should be allowed to happen without community approval if it is in the best interest of the forum and it's members.

I have no idea if that made any sense...I'm still a bit hung up on "prag­ma­tism"

I was wondering, what is the SZ stance likely to be regarding DIF-baiting threads, and in particular DIF-member-baiting threads?

dubmeup wrote:
OT, but first thing that came to mind was with the yardstick...

But I agree, we need to have something that works for us and can agree to use.

diamondgeezer wrote:
DIF-baiting threads? Member baiting? Is this involving the "alternative" tag tacked onto the website, or individual threads about certain topics relating to it or members from the other place who are not here?
I honestly don't see how it would effect the forum either way, I suppose that would be put to vote too eventually. But I don't see how it is baiting to talk about someplace most of us, if not all of us, have been before. Or people we knew from somewhere we have been. Purposely doing it show it shows up in search engines though (like the tag on the website/forum), I can see as baiting.

God I need a nap, I can't even understand myself anymore lol...forgive me if I am missing something or was not clear with my thoughts.

StarsChildren wrote:
You've shone like a star today woman... I sincerely mean that

diamondgeezer wrote:
DG are you talking about making jokes on the links to reptilian threads?

StarsChildren wrote:
Well I meant DIF-baiting threads as such.

Although the ''alternative david icke forum'' tag is another issue that will now be up for review of course...I'd forgotten about that what with all the day's exitement lol

Yes, agreed it could appear as such. Bear in mind however, the reasons for it was done, namely to place SZ firmly on the google front page. And from that point of view, it was a successful venture.

Whether or not SZ continues with it though is now both andy's and the SZ communities choice I suppose.

RealAmerican wrote:
No, I believe he is referring to my thread called Name that Prat and the Not-a-nazi thread. Perhaps even the Hitler got Banned from DIF thread (but that would depend on whether he is including threads that Frog participated in- or just me/oioioi/dub etc).

Why at this stage, DG should be concerned for the sensitive feelings of the DIF, I do not know.

The DIF ns Daisy saga buned all thos bridhes years ago.

I wonder what Truth Zone's definition of DIF "baiting" is and what the top down rule is

anyway-- big risk of a tangent here (that I run the risk of taking the blame for--tis that season for me )

ffs mikey, I was just wondering about what future SZ policy may be on the matter, not insinuating anything.

diamondgeezer wrote:
Communities...communities...don't drag me into it!



I'm the anarchist dictator now lol....