Drunk tank

[Tifabelle]

Can we just bottom line here? Do people think it's better to hand out infractions or temp ban someone for like 3 hours? (keep in mind that a bunch of infractions in a small amount of time could result in a ban, this is only in extreme cases, and we could also do section bans rather than entire forum bans)

 

[Dawnbreaker]

Poll it? Might be an easier resolution.

 

[Rumpelstiltskin]

So hold up, your openly backing this as a proper rule however at the same time encourage people to join in on drinking and chatting with use of the drinking thread?

Why bother encouraging people to meet up on the tls irc channel and get blitzed if you don't think it may spill over to the forums?

 

[Ryushikaze]

Because, as a rule, it has not spilled over to the forum in a disruptive manner, because people have a much more immediate outlet for their drunken nonsense in the form of the IRC and skype chats.

 

[Tifabelle]

So hold up, your openly backing this as a proper rule however at the same time encourage people to join in on drinking and chatting with use of the drinking thread?

Why bother encouraging people to meet up on the tls irc channel and get blitzed if you don't think it may spill over to the forums?

I don't personally encourage getting drunk

But yeah, just because people get together off the board for socializing and drinking doesn't mean it's cool to come on the board while drunk and spam shit up. But I've never seen anything negative come from the drunk nights.

The whole idea of this was just in extreme cases of distrupting the board.

But let's just decide if we're for or against it, and move on.

 

[Celes Chere]

drinking doesn't mean it's cool to come on the board while drunk and spam shit up.

>:C

 

[Alex]

I'm against it. It seems like making a rule just for the sake of having a rule take the place of what should be common sense to begin with. Too many rules brah. Just take some initiative.

 

[CK]

Define 'extreme cases' I don't think i've seen anything that's extreme enough to warrant adding something like this to the rules. Unless you all think sami's drunken blitzes are extreme.

 

[Max Payne]

I just, common sense should simply apply depending on the situation.

We don't need some set criteria for dealing with drunk people. Just handle it at a case by case basis. If someone is just posting harmless dumb shit and not interfering with serious discussion we just ignore it.

 

[Tifabelle]

Define 'extreme cases' I don't think i've seen anything that's extreme enough to warrant adding something like this to the rules. Unless you all think sami's drunken blitzes are extreme.

No. Posting in the makes your day/ruins your day or w/e is not "extreme" imo. I'm referring to serious threads, feedback or news sections, and posting jibberish. I can't recall seeing it done either.

But if people prefer just doing the infractions thing, I'm cool with that.

 

[Ⓐaron]

The time we banned Mumble, he was spamming a bunch of serious threads with completely irrelevant crap and generally getting on people's nerves across the board. Multiple post reports had been submitted.

We're basically referring to cases like that.

 

[Dawnbreaker]

So hold up, your openly backing this as a proper rule however at the same time encourage people to join in on drinking and chatting with use of the drinking thread?

Why bother encouraging people to meet up on the tls irc channel and get blitzed if you don't think it may spill over to the forums?

This:

Because, as a rule, it has not spilled over to the forum in a disruptive manner, because people have a much more immediate outlet for their drunken nonsense in the form of the IRC and skype chats.

But yeah, just because people get together off the board for socializing and drinking doesn't mean it's cool to come on the board while drunk and spam shit up. But I've never seen anything negative come from the drunk nights.

The whole idea of this was just in extreme cases of distrupting the board.

Honestly I can't think of a better way of saying it.

For my part, I'm honestly not that fussed about it. I just like proactive approaches.

 

[Joker]

Honestly I can't think of a better way of saying it.

Then why repeat it after the original question was answered?

 

[Madame Mayor]

If anything is being added to rules, I think something along the lines of:

You may be given small temp bans, from 1 to 24 hour(s), if your behaviour is extremely disruptive and we feel that giving you a "time-out" is the better course of action to warnings or infractions because of spam and other content.

But I need to remind myself what's already in the rules being a new mod, so I'm not even sure if this is already something listed.

And I also agree with the common sense thing. I've always been for the golden rule being "don't be a dick", but I understand some of the memberbase prefers things related to consequences being listed in the rules as well. So, for example, if this situation did arise and someone was given this "time-out", when they sobered up they wouldn't be pissed and say "hey what was that all about why didnt I just get infractions".

 

[Joker]

Yeah, but what was all that about not running a forum based on common sense?

 

[Madame Mayor]

Reading the current rules and...

A moderator is free to suspend you for a few hours up to a few days if you're repeatedly misbehaving in a short amount of time. This is to force you to 'cool off', take a time-out - we know that people can get heated over certain issues, causing them to repeat an offense in quick succession. The time-out should give some time for the mood to cool off again.

To me this sums up what this "new" rule would be trying to say anyways. As I said, I wasn't sure if there was an equivalent, but this definitely covers this situation enough for me. Maybe, if anything, I would re-word the "can get heated" part, just because it sounds a bit like this would only be used when people were pissed off and acting out because of that. Something that includes the idea that the misbehaving just has to be extremely disruptive in general, the tone isn't really important.

All I really wanted was to make sure this type of suspension was explained in the rules. No specifics, everything is case-by-case, just that it's mentioned as a possibility of something we may or may not do in a situation.

 

[Alex]

This wouldn't be a problem at all if TLS as a whole could hold it's drink.

*hand raised for prime hi-5's, brahs*

 

[looneymoon]

Tbh if I'm online and I'm drunk, I come on with the intention of making ridiculous drunk posts.

...

Drunk-me is so much cooler damn

 

[Rumpelstiltskin]

If this new rules does go ahead why don't you just go the extra mile and disable the ability to access the IRC chat for tls off the website during times when your promoting members to get drunk and chat on it.

Ya know since your effectively accessing the site to join the chat, to get drunk.

While were at it why don't we ban people from eating certain foods while on the site just in case a nasty incident occurs with a sticky bun and a sudden influx of "bun posting" that obviously disrupts this site's booming activity.

 

[Flintlock]

All this talk of the IRC drinking nights... has anyone got any examples of when they have ever lead to drunken and disruptive posting on the board? The most I've ever seen is "that was fun, guys" the following day. Personally, when I'm talking to people on IRC or Skype, I don't feel the need to talk to them through forum posts at the same time.

I'm not trying to give support to the new rule. I already said I thought it was unnecessary and likely to be applied arbitrarily. I think that people should be responsible for their actions the whole time. If someone breaks the rules in such a way that warrants a warning/ban, it shouldn't matter whether they were drunk or sober at the time.

 

[Joker]

I said that exact same thing ;.;

 

[Tifabelle]

I think Brooke established that the whole issue is already covered in the rules. No point in adding something new that basically says the same thing. Case closed!

 

[Cookie Monster]

I'm closing this. I said on the second page that this shit was already covered in the rules. This thread is pointless.