Question about a rule

[Sylvie]

You are free to request a suspension or ban from the staff if you have a valid reason (such as exams), however, do add a proper reason and preferred time to it - arbitrary requests for a suspension without reasoning or duration will default to a one-month minimum suspension, with the duplicate account rules in place.

My questions:

• What isn't a valid reason, and furthermore, what is it to you if someone just wants their account locked away for while, or forever?
• Why the hell would you resort to a default if someone is vague? That sounds ridiculous and needlessly suppressive. If someone doesn't elaborate, why not just tell them you can't do it until they provide specifics?

Maybe I'm missing something but I'm really just curious about these things.

 

[Geostigma]

The rule is subject to leniency (as are most of the rules) from my experience.

Not to long ago I requested a ban here due to being out of country and not thinking I was going to have access to decent net and my work needing my attention more, so I decided to lock myself out of this site as well as the 4 other forums i frequent most.

I admittedly didnt read these nor knew the criteria for them when I asked for the ban, I asked X to ban me, he asked how long and I simply said i would contact him when I wanted to return. He asked for the reason, I decided not to tell him.

I came back 3 weeks later-ish and X unbanned me without issue.

Its all about how you close the door on your way out. I dont necessarily think you "have" to tell them whats going on, because im pretty sure its assumed if you dont tell them whats going on its for a good reason and they can work with that.

 

[Octo]

Yeah I think the wording is a little off, as I understand it I think its to prevent reccuring flounces from happening over and over, and to stop flouncees from demanding an unban hours later or something.

EDIT: I'm not suggesting anyone who requests a ban is doing a flounce here, just that the rules are in place to prevent abuse.

 

[Rumpelstiltskin]

Tbh I think all the rules need a proper re-wording/updating.

 

[Sylvie]

They need to sound less ridiculous. It's a forum, not a country.

But why the hell would anyone "abuse" the ability to ban their own account? What even defines abuse in that situation?

All I'm saying is that it sounds like a fucking cop wrote the quoted rule. Like, if you fail to fill out this form properly, fine, but you will be punished by being banned for the default month-long duration. I say drop that bit and just put "we either won't bother filling your request or we'll have to ask you for how long if we're feeling nice, so it would be super if you'd make it easier for us."

It shouldn't even be asked why you want to disappear. I can't see how that is anybody's business.

Ultimately I think you should be able to control your fucking self and then the rule wouldn't even need to be written down. If you can't stop visiting a forum when you need to do more important shit, and you fuck up, feel the pain, bitch. That will eventually teach you to stop fucking up.

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

Literally everyone agrees the rules need modification. This will happen when an admin has time.

But as Gabe mentioned, there's nothing hard and fast about that rule in practice. I doubt the "valid reason" thing will even make it past the editing.

As for why the one-month thing was in there, I don't know since I wasn't here when TLS's rules were drafted, but given that TLS was an attempt to make a vision of what ACF should have been come to life, it goes without saying that a number of the rules here were made to address douchery that went on there. I'd hardly be surprised if multiple requests for banning followed by requests for unbanning a short while later took place.

I was only a regular member there, so I don't know.

 

[Rumpelstiltskin]

Tls is acf tho

 

[Ⓐaron]

Like so much else about our rules, it's Username's fault.

 

[Cthulhu]

Like so much else about our rules, it's Username's fault.

^ . There was something that triggered us to word this rule as such, but I forgot. I guess, as one can assume, that someone was going OMG FINE BAN ME JEEZ, followed by a OMG PLZ UNBAN ME I WAS KIDDING JEEZ LoL .

 

[Geostigma]

arbitrary requests for a suspension without reasoning or duration will default to a one-month minimum suspension, with the duplicate account rules in place.

If anything this part is definitely Usernames fault.

 

[Dawnbreaker]

I think a minimum ban time is pretty valid since this can easily get abused otherwise. Yes this happens.

That said I agree that a 'valid reason' is unnecessary. It even violates privacy to a point. I think that condition should be dropped.

To add to that though is that nothing forces you to post...so why get banned? Just leave. Or take a break. I don't say that it is easy...just that it is possible.

 

[Hisako]

I personally don't have any issue with the idea that the general rules are followed and then common sense backs it up in case people find a flaw in them.

I mean, that's how actual law works, right?

 

[Sylvie]

Spin a wheel to determine the default time. I'm done with this thread. I don't think I ever even gave a shit.

 

[Tennyo]

That said I agree that a 'valid reason' is unnecessary. It even violates privacy to a point. I think that condition should be dropped.

The thing is, though, that "Valid Reason," doesn't HAVE to be in explicit detail telling us every single aspect of why you want to be banned.

You could simply say, "I have IRL stuff to take care of," or, "I just need to be away from the forums for a while," and that would be cool. Or if you'd rather not say, you can just say that it's a private matter you'd like to keep to yourself.

But as has been stated, the rule is worded that way for a reason, because it really was an issue at one point in the past. It's mainly there for people who want to be banned then unbanned then banned again and then unbanned in a fit of drama.

I can't imagine the average forum goer is going to have any problems what so ever. Before Sylvie decided to bring it up for whatever reason there have been no issues other than with Username that I can think of.

Spin a wheel to determine the default time. I'm done with this thread. I don't think I ever even gave a shit.

Then why did you even bring it up?

It was rather random.

 

[Sylvie]

Then why did you even bring it up?

It was rather random.

I was reading the rules and I was pissed off about how draconian it was worded.

 

[Tennyo]

Then you really did care?

But hey, now you know.

 

[Sylvie]

I don't think I genuinely cared.

 

[Tennyo]

Spoiler: Okay, whatever you say.

I don't really believe you, but meh, whatever.

I guess this thread is done, then. I'll lock it unless anyone else that posted in here has more to say?

 

[Sylvie]

HOWARD STERN'S PENIS HOWARD STERN'S PENIS HOWARD STERN'S PENIS HOWARD STERN'S PENIS HOWARD STERN'S PENIS HOWARD STERN'S PENIS HOWARD STERN'S PENIS HOWARD STERN'S PENIS HOWARD STERN'S PENIS HOWARD STERN'S PENIS HOWARD STERN'S PENIS HOWARD STERN'S PENIS HOWARD STERN'S PENIS HOWARD STERN'S PENIS HOWARD STERN'S PENIS HOWARD STERN'S PENIS HOWARD STERN'S PENIS HOWARD STERN'S PENIS HOWARD STERN'S PENIS HOWARD STERN'S PENIS HOWARD STERN'S PENIS HOWARD STERN'S PENIS HOWARD STERN'S PENIS HOWARD STERN'S PENIS HOWARD STERN'S PENIS

 

[Geostigma]

I personally don't have any issue with the idea that the general rules are followed and then common sense backs it up in case people find a flaw in them.

I mean, that's how actual law works, right?

As always ;

Protocol should never over ride common sense

 

[Cthulhu]

I was reading the rules and I was pissed off about how draconian it was worded.

They have evolved over time, yeah, . They should, like all things, be taken with a grain of salt though. Like I said, we sometimes chuck explicit stuff in there due to douches that make us.