"Close To Banned" users...

... if they become actually banned as soon as they log in... well, it looks like there is a problem. I see chemical near the top of the list, who hasn't posted in quite some time AFAIK. Sounds like people looking for places to dump neg APs and they found a place...

But what if Chemical never logs back in? Has forgotten the site? There should be a time limit after which 'close to banned' becomes 'banned' whether or not the person has logged in. Otherwise you could get the top 10 list filled up with people who have simply stopped coming to the site.

Or you could get a user who tries to intentionally become banned, and uses a second-account to check his first account's status before logging on. If he knows he will be banned when he logs on the first account, he might just never log in... Filling up the list account by account.

And then the people who really need to know if they are close won't be able to tell easily.

Regardless if those other users will be in that list or not, they WILL be getting the '**** you, you're about to be banned' message when they look at the main page (simmilar to the "balance your antipoints" message).

While that **** you message is funny and annoying to those users, it is true, what if they do never log in again? I was looking xxenom, who hasn't logged in, in a very long time, but he is on the close to banned list. And while I think the close to banned list should be kept updated so others know how close they are to being banned, I am not sure if those who stop coming here should be automatically banned, or maybe just taken off the list and have their accounts deactivated until the login again.

I was just thinking about this same thing yesterday, Terr... thanks for articulating it.

What if the "closest to being banned" users were only ones dangerously close, even if they log in (ie. they're still allowed to post). Frankly, once someone's "gone," I think they should be removed from there. Once person logs back in, they can get transitioned to the "banned" list.

Then we could have a "limbo" list somewhere (maybe clickable from inside a list of "everyone banned in the last X days" link) which would list the people who are going to be banned the next time they log in, but they've not logged in for at least N days (ie. they wouldn't appear on the limbo list until they've been gone a while).

I know... sorry JP - giving you more things to do... well, at least for you to consider doing. ;-)

And also, those on the limbo list, shouldn't be able to recieve negative points. Some people can change and i think they deserve a chance to prove that. (And draziw, did you get my messages?)

Khakisrule > Then how would anyone ever get banned? Everyone who is about to get banned is placed on that list. Once they achieve a certain number of antipoints, they are then banned. If you place that limitation in place, there will be no way to ban people.

I agree that people can change, but they have more than enough time to do so. I have never seen someone become banned in one day (well... for those who know ko*, he doesn't count because his third account was banned in a day, and most people know why). Generally, it takes a few days. Over the period of those days, the member has time to redeem themselves, or at least keep their mouth shut so that they don't say something stupid and get banned. Remember, everyone started out as a newbie, and we all know what it takes to become the people we are today, and it's not by b*tching, whining, asking "how to hack hotmail", etc. It takes time... time to get to know the community, time to learn how to search the archives, time to learn how to ask questions, etc. For those who don't like it, this may not be the community for them. All I know is that it takes *a lot* of negative points to get banned... it doesn't happen by accident.

AJ

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by khakisrule
And also, those on the limbo list, shouldn't be able to recieve negative points. Some people can change and i think they deserve a chance to prove that. (And draziw, did you get my messages?)

---

Decent enough point - since they're "in limbo and waiting to be banned," they should suffer the same fate as those that have logged in to receive their bans.

{obligatory reponse to parenthetical question}
And yes, I noticied all three of your message(s) - but nagging/begging/pleading/whining doesn't help your case, though it helps solidify my decision (nor does whining about it in a public forum). (for those addicts/seniors wanting details, feel free to PM me if you feel so curious - my apologies for breaking this out publically, but the next thing I'm expecting is another reply to one of my posts with the words "(And draziw, did you get my messages?)" in it, if you catch my drift).
{end of response}

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by avdven
Khakisrule > Then how would anyone ever get banned? Everyone who is about to get banned is placed on that list. Once they achieve a certain number of antipoints, they are then banned. If you place that limitation in place, there will be no way to ban people.

---

I think he was talking about my idea of a "limbo" list - which is really just a list of people that should be banned but haven't logged back in to be told/cussed at/whatever. So yeah... they're essentially banned anyways.

Greetings All:

Users are now banned automatically when their AntiPoint Level goes below a critical level. The system no longer wait for them to log in for the ban to take place.

thanks.