Drunk tank

[Hisako]

I guess we can just approach it the same way we do other irritating shit, like send out PMs or warnings and if they persist in the short term give em' a time-out if necessary.

I mean a general "don't be a dick" ethos should be applied to most things in the forum anyway, doubly so for drunktards

 

[Madame Mayor]

I understood the rule as being in extreme circumstances. Putting it in the rules was simply so it's there in case it does happen.

 

[Rumpelstiltskin]

So essentially were gonna start saying to new members "welcome to tls, enjoy yourself! But only enjoy yourself in a way that is coherent otherwise you will be banned"

Drunk posting is funny as fuck and I don't see why anyone need take any action against it.

 

[Madame Mayor]

It's not just drunk posting though, it's excessive spam posting, disruption of threads...

you know maybe we don't need a rule for this. I'm wondering if this already falls under some other rules anyways about spam and whatnot.

 

[Cookie Monster]

It does, that's why I didn't pay any attention to the thread in staff, lol.

 

[Ryushikaze]

It's not just drunk posting though, it's excessive spam posting, disruption of threads...

you know maybe we don't need a rule for this. I'm wondering if this already falls under some other rules anyways about spam and whatnot.

It might, but there's no reason not to have a clarification for 'In the instance you are acting distruptive and we suspect it's because you are drunk or otherwise in an altered state, we may suspend you for a day or less so that you may even out.'

 

[Alex]

Then I guess I should be thankful that any changes to my personality or leet keyboard skills aren't especially noticeable no matter what state I happen to be in.

 

[Madame Mayor]

Actually, let me rephrase entirely.

If you are being ridiculously disruptive, you'll get this little temp ban. If it looks like it's because you are, for example, drunk, we're kind of going to go easier on you. Because the way I see it, the kind of disruption we're talking about here is not just repeated posts in what ruins your day. We're talking about across threads and especially in serious threads. So, you get a time out, rather than what would normally happen if you were just doing it to be a jerk, which would probably be a few warnings, infractions, and then a longer ban.

 

[Joker]

I made a post about this subject in my qa thread.

 

[Tifabelle]

I don't think this is even something that needs to be added to the rules, idk. I don't think it's as serious a thing as the OP made it sound. I think the behavior we're talking about is covered in the rules already (spamming etc), but the idea is that it will be more lenient if it's obvious the person is just drunk

 

[Ryushikaze]

I don't think this is even something that needs to be added to the rules, idk. I don't think it's as serious a thing as the OP made it sound. I think the behavior we're talking about is covered in the rules already (spamming etc), but the idea is that it will be more lenient if it's obvious the person is just drunk

Well, in my mind it's not adding anything to the rules, really, just making it clear that this is how we will treat folks who are drunk and making asses/ fools of themselves, since we've done it before.

 

[stiles]

who decided whether somebody is embarrassing themselves or being disruptive. what if other people find it amusing and entertaining, i don't see why that needs a ban somebody made a post abut excessive regulations and i think thats very true, ive noticed a lot of small things here that are taken a bit more seriously than ive ever seen fhem anywhere else like double posting, seriousness around aka field (removing ability to edit profiles, removing signatures for it), and etc.

 

[Ⓐaron]

Actually, let me rephrase entirely.

If you are being ridiculously disruptive, you'll get this little temp ban. If it looks like it's because you are, for example, drunk, we're kind of going to go easier on you. Because the way I see it, the kind of disruption we're talking about here is not just repeated posts in what ruins your day. We're talking about across threads and especially in serious threads. So, you get a time out, rather than what would normally happen if you were just doing it to be a jerk, which would probably be a few warnings, infractions, and then a longer ban.

Right, the basic idea behind this is that if a person is being disruptive and it is obviously because they are in an incapacitated mental state (intoxicated, emotional issues, whatever), banning them for a few hours is a much less severe punishment than giving them a bunch of infractions that would leave them in serious danger of a much longer ban. Most of the people who post drunk or whatever are never seriously disruptive, and most of them are entertaining tbh. But on the offhand cases where a person seriously makes an ass of themselves, it's nice to have an alternate course of action to fall back on that doesn't involve having to dish out infractions for each individual offence when it's obvious that the offences are occurring due to an incapacitated mental condition.

 

[Joker]

I feel like I should make the obvious point here, but that seems like it will just cause more trouble. I'm just going to stay out of it since, as a member, it doesn't really matter either way.

 

[Tifabelle]

I'd like to hear what you have to say.

 

[Cookie Monster]

I feel like I should make the obvious point here

Dish it out bruh.

 

[CK]

I'd like to hear what you have to say.

Ok then. Adding this to the rules is about as fucking pointless as username making another dupe account.

 

[Dawnbreaker]

I guess teh quetion is which is better: a 24 hour temp ban or a bunch of warnings on your profile? Personally I think a short ban is easier than having a crapload of warnings but I've never been unwillingly banned so I dunno.

 

[Tifabelle]

Ok then. Adding this to the rules is about as fucking pointless as username making another dupe account.

 

[Ⓐaron]

I guess teh quetion is which is better: a 24 hour temp ban or a bunch of warnings on your profile? Personally I think a short ban is easier than having a crapload of warnings but I've never been unwillingly banned so I dunno.

It wouldn't even be 24 hours. It would probably be like three hours or however long was necessary for them to cool off/sober up.

 

[Celes Chere]

Uhh is it really worth banning them for three hours? I mean is a few drunk posts around the Forum in the span of three hours really that bothersome to people? They'll sober up later and that'll be the end of it. It's not like it happens all that often anyway.

 

[Octo]

Also isn't this open to abuse? I mean people can easily say 'oh I was drunk/agitated when I posted that' in order to get some sort of leniency. Not everyone who is drunk peppers stuff with typos after all. And as for agitated/emotional.....well thats 99% of us 99% of the time

 

[Geostigma]

I guess teh quetion is which is better: a 24 hour temp ban or a bunch of warnings on your profile? Personally I think a short ban is easier than having a crapload of warnings but I've never been unwillingly banned so I dunno.

Something else to consider is the fact that the majority of us have a "come at me bro" attitude when it comes to getting infractions. I know I dont care at all about the warns and dont see them as a reason to keep me from breaking the rules

 

[Tifabelle]

Uhh is it really worth banning them for three hours? I mean is a few drunk posts around the Forum in the span of three hours really that bothersome to people? They'll sober up later and that'll be the end of it. It's not like it happens all that often anyway.

No one's gonna get temp-banned for a few drunk posts. It's only if it's completely disruptive, derailing threads, etc etc. Don't read too much into it. But yeah, this is not something I've seen all that often (if at all), so I doubt this would ever be used.

 

[Ⓐaron]

Also isn't this open to abuse? I mean people can easily say 'oh I was drunk/agitated when I posted that' in order to get some sort of leniency. Not everyone who is drunk peppers stuff with typos after all. And as for agitated/emotional.....well thats 99% of us 99% of the time

I doubt we'd be willing to let the same person get away with the same kind of behaviour repeatedly. The drunk tanking wouldn't go on their permanent record like an infraction would, but it would also be a sort of "watch yourself" warning. If a person made a habit of doing behaviour that would be worthy of drunk tanking, then that would be a serious issue that obviously wouldn't be solved by another drunk tanking.

Uhh is it really worth banning them for three hours? I mean is a few drunk posts around the Forum in the span of three hours really that bothersome to people? They'll sober up later and that'll be the end of it. It's not like it happens all that often anyway.

We're not talking about "a few drunk posts". We're talking about seriously disruptive behaviour that happens to occur while a person appears to be in an intoxicated or otherwise compromised state.

There haven't been many instances in the forum's history where we would have needed to use this idea (although, as mentioned, we already did use it once on Mumble), and I doubt there will be many in the future. However, it would probably be helpful to have this codified in the rules so it doesn't surprise anyone.