Evil Semp wrote:
Symmetry wrote:How about something as simple as a petition? If enough members of the community sign up for a player to be reinstated, then their case should be reconsidered as perhaps not being as detrimental to the community as previously thought?
Pretty easy to implement, no?
1] The CC community-all members of CC.
2] The active CC community-those that are active on the scoreboard.
3] The forum community-Only those that post in the forums.
4] The vocal community-the posters who have X number of posts.
Where do you draw the line on how many members have to sign the petition?
Fair points, all. I would simply say that if a petition got a decent number of votes the decision should be up for reconsideration. That doesn't mean automatic reinstatement once a certain level is reached. And certain voices would obviously have greater weight than others.
I'm not advocating a hard and fast system here, just a possibility for an appeal process that might be a little more satisfactory. Of course, people will still be pissed off, no matter what, and there will always be people annoyed that their favoured player or poster can't come back.
So no- I can't define community, and I wouldn't want to. Too many people enjoy different aspects of the site. But, just as a tentative theory, say 20 names got put on a list asking to reconsider a ban, would it be unreasonable to look at that list, judge the merits of who was on the list by any of the criteria you mentioned, and see if the person is considered valuable enough?
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
The ram: In the case of all libtard vermin I'd actually encourage abortion! I'm just happy you won't procreate