Moderator: Community Team
jbrettlip wrote:Allow permabanned users access to the private forums that they were involved in before their permaban. If a clan member is forum banned, for misbehaving in the general population, there really is not much reason to keep him/her from speaking to their friends, who usually are the ones complaining about the ban in the first place.
Plus some of us don't have each others real life info to contact outside of CC.
In other words, I miss DM. And probably a few others that will soon be banned.
KraphtOne wrote:when you sign up a new account one of the check boxes should be "do you want to foe colton24 (it is highly recommended) "
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?
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).
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.
I've looked at making a few changes to clans and usergroups, and the Clan Directors (and other mods and player input) has been considered. I know the history, but I don't see a formal policy. I will look into this further, don't expect anything in the next few weeks though.
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.
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.
4myGod wrote:Perhaps CC needs to make a record db and the clan leaders can do background checks on their new recruits before hiring them... I mean allowing them on the team.
Forum bans general do not stop you from playing the game...King Berzerker wrote:most forums just have a member rating near the avatar. like a warning level or something. i think if you are going to pay for the service, you should have to be able to meet the full agreement of gaming. you cant just ban someone for being bad on the forums when they pay to play the game. that is just rong.
spiesr wrote:Forum bans general do not stop you from playing the game...King Berzerker wrote:most forums just have a member rating near the avatar. like a warning level or something. i think if you are going to pay for the service, you should have to be able to meet the full agreement of gaming. you cant just ban someone for being bad on the forums when they pay to play the game. that is just rong.
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.
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.
Woodruff wrote: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.
clapper011 wrote:there is, perma ban means no access to the site what so ever..forum ban means no access to any and all forums.
King Berzerker wrote:clapper011 wrote:there is, perma ban means no access to the site what so ever..forum ban means no access to any and all forums.
so ur saying that u can ban a player that paid for site access because of stuff done on forums?
4myGod wrote:Woodruff wrote: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.
Well unfortunately it doesn't say how many people or who needs to think someone is intentionally annoying in the rules. Therefor if I think he is intentionally annoying then what is to say he doesn't deserve a ban any less than someone else who is getting banned for being intentionally annoying?
Woodruff wrote:4myGod wrote:Woodruff wrote: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.
Well unfortunately it doesn't say how many people or who needs to think someone is intentionally annoying in the rules. Therefor if I think he is intentionally annoying then what is to say he doesn't deserve a ban any less than someone else who is getting banned for being intentionally annoying?
True enough...that essentially comes down to what the moderators perceive to be annoying. That is, after all, rather what they're there for...to make those sorts of determinations. "How many people are annoyed" isn't really relevant, in my opinion...nor do I think it should be. Otherwise, individuals could essentially harass only one person endlessly (to the amusement of everyone else) and get away with it, potentially.
4myGod wrote:Woodruff wrote:4myGod wrote:Woodruff wrote: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.
Well unfortunately it doesn't say how many people or who needs to think someone is intentionally annoying in the rules. Therefor if I think he is intentionally annoying then what is to say he doesn't deserve a ban any less than someone else who is getting banned for being intentionally annoying?
True enough...that essentially comes down to what the moderators perceive to be annoying. That is, after all, rather what they're there for...to make those sorts of determinations. "How many people are annoyed" isn't really relevant, in my opinion...nor do I think it should be. Otherwise, individuals could essentially harass only one person endlessly (to the amusement of everyone else) and get away with it, potentially.
Yes that is true, however leaving it to the judgment of the moderators doesn't work, because some people get banned for doing the same things as others, but the others don't get banned. So relying on a mod to tell us when something is intentionally annoying doesn't work. A vast majority of us in a thread could be discussing one thing and then someone comes in and tells us that we are all stupid for even caring, that to me would be a reasonable "intentionally annoying" act, however things like that get ignored, unless there is some other reason that the admins/mods don't like the users, then they may or may not punish the user it seems.
4myGod wrote:Even you would agree woodruff that the admins have not been fair in their punishment system, and I don't feel we can trust them to tell us what is annoying or not. So if we are to rely on their opinion, which I think we should, for the reasons you said, we need new mods/admins who we can trust. Who are fair in their punishments.
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 accuse you of being Intentionally annoying, which breaks the forums rules. Tell me when your ban is up so I can feel justice has been served.
An apology will not suffice and I have no doubt that when you have been on the forums as long as you have, you should have already received a warning, if not then I can certainly go through all your posts and find adequate reasoning for your warning.
Everyone is breaking the rules if CC wants them to be... The rules are so general and vague. How would a clan owner know if someone has been warned or punished for an offense before? Ask them? Yeah, if they knew they wouldn't get into the clan saying they had a previous offense, don't you think they would just lie?
Perhaps CC needs to make a record db and the clan leaders can do background checks on their new recruits before hiring them... I mean allowing them on the team.
Return to Archived Suggestions
Users browsing this forum: No registered users