[Valerius]

Originally Posted by Gandalf Parker

Ive moderated many forums since the birth of the net, and multiple times as a paid job. Ive seen forums operate in many different styles. All I can say is that everything has its pros and cons.

Its not hard to find forums which openly treat people differently. Where someones opinion of who is or isnt important to that community is a factor in punishments. You can also find forums where the community itself carries out courts and punishments. And then there are forums where the rules are posted, punishments done in private conversation, and no amount of public outcry can drag out the particulars except to talk to the individuals themselves.

All of these have their pros and cons. Which one you consider to be best for a corporate owned service is an opinion for each of us to form. It appears that Shrapnel has decided. (my personal opinions or suggestions on the matter will be sent to Shrapnel in private mail rather than publicly because thats safer... um... I mean more appropriate)

Just to clarify, I don't really think there should be different standards based on a person's status in the community (as I mentioned in one of the other threads on this topic). I was just making a joke to try to lighten things up, but I can see how it reads the way you interpreted it.

Originally Posted by llamabeast

In my opinion, clearly yes. I'm very surprised not everyone thinks the same thing. The public reaction has been the damaging thing, and I can't imagine anything like the same public reaction to a temporary ban. If multiple temporary bans led eventually to a permanent ban, there would be no outcry because it would have been obvious that it was coming.

I'm not at all sure this would have been the case. Perhaps if there were a consensus regarding Sombre's behavior, but I think the recent discussions have made it clear that isn't so. I think there would have been arguments about whether the temp bans were justified, whether the temp bans should ever lead to a permanent ban, etc. Perhaps some of the moderates in the middle of this argument would have been swayed but since a lot of this comes down to a person's reaction to Sombre's behavior it seems like it would have ended up with largely with the same division in opinion as now. If someone thinks his behavior is acceptable (or at least worth putting up with) why would they think even a temp ban is justified? A series of temp bans might have defused the situation by making the process gradual but it might also have just dragged it out and caused more damage. Of course if the temp bans succeeded in changing his behavior that would be one thing - but does anyone really think that likely?