jpcloet wrote:Woodruff wrote:This seems very reasonable, so long as the individuals in question's (ignore my punctuation!) actions didn't piss off those private forum-goers (in other words, get the respective clan leader approval stamp on it).
Well there would be inherent approval. If the leader does not approve, they have the option to boot.
That's true...good point.
4myGod wrote:Night Strike wrote:Artimis wrote:Night Strike wrote:Why? I'd bet that 99% of the people in a private forum are there because of first being in the public forums. If they can't follow the rules in public, why should they get the privilege of still being in a private forum?
Congratulations, you've just completely missed the point!
Members on forum vacation are difficult to contact to pass clan related info on games they are required to play. That is the point that jbrettlip is trying to make. So by all means continue to bar them from posting in public as punishment for whatever transgressions they have committed, just don't punish their clans as well by making it difficult to contact the members under sanction.
Then the user should double check to make sure all their posts are following the guidelines. Clans are a forum privilege, so it's quite simple that those benefits are also lost while on a forum vacation/ban. Perhaps clans should think twice about allowing users who break the guidelines be members, or be prepared to make changes if a person is not allowed on the forum.
Night Strike, I think you are intentionally trying to annoy the creators of this thread.
I don't think he is. To be honest, his position is a very legitimate one. I don't happen to agree with it, but I can certainly see the validity of what he's saying and I can certainly see how that might turn out to be the official position of the site, as well (not because of him, but just because they see it as logical).