Difference between revisions of "UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Amnesty"

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Line 4: Line 4:
 
:::These two are only the tip of the iceberg... there are many users who were banned for the wrong reasons. --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User talk:Hagnat|talk]]</sup> 15:39, 15 October 2008 (BST)
 
:::These two are only the tip of the iceberg... there are many users who were banned for the wrong reasons. --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User talk:Hagnat|talk]]</sup> 15:39, 15 October 2008 (BST)
 
:::If an actual hostile takeover of the wiki only gets you a 6 month ban then you can hardly justify a perma ban for minor vandalism.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 16:52, 15 October 2008 (BST)
 
:::If an actual hostile takeover of the wiki only gets you a 6 month ban then you can hardly justify a perma ban for minor vandalism.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 16:52, 15 October 2008 (BST)
 +
{{Wah|from the evil overlord whose coup lasted all of 10 minutes}} <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 16:59 15 October 2008 (BST)</small>
 
Way overkill. So, you're justifying the purging of all vandalism record before a certain point because of a policy change that only affects the top two levels? How about just allowing a perma-ban vote to those who got their perma before the policy change? If the perma is deemed unnecessary, they lose '''one''' escalation level, and then they can work it down themselves. Or maybe even allow a perma-ban vote to everyone, say, six months from their last infraction. Naturally, these would be available only upon request and not automatic. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 15:45, 15 October 2008 (BST)
 
Way overkill. So, you're justifying the purging of all vandalism record before a certain point because of a policy change that only affects the top two levels? How about just allowing a perma-ban vote to those who got their perma before the policy change? If the perma is deemed unnecessary, they lose '''one''' escalation level, and then they can work it down themselves. Or maybe even allow a perma-ban vote to everyone, say, six months from their last infraction. Naturally, these would be available only upon request and not automatic. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 15:45, 15 October 2008 (BST)

Revision as of 15:59, 15 October 2008

No. Idiocy. There are hundreds of users who have been banned who thoroughly deserve a permaban -- boxy talkteh rulz 14:59 15 October 2008 (BST)

Yes, and there are several of them which were banned because their actions only degenerated to the point where they made themselves deserve damnation because of persecution. Think Nalikill, think Izumi... --People's Commissar Hagnat talk 15:11, 15 October 2008 (BST)
So in order to allow Nali and Izumi back (both of whom are too impulsive to avoid VB escalations for any amount of time, despite such escalations being struck after a few months of decent contributions), you are willing to open up the floodgates on every idiot who signs up only to vandalise the wiki? -- boxy talkteh rulz 15:18 15 October 2008 (BST)
These two are only the tip of the iceberg... there are many users who were banned for the wrong reasons. --People's Commissar Hagnat talk 15:39, 15 October 2008 (BST)
If an actual hostile takeover of the wiki only gets you a 6 month ban then you can hardly justify a perma ban for minor vandalism.--– Nubis NWO 16:52, 15 October 2008 (BST)
BAWWWWW!.jpg Wah!
Save me from the evil overlord whose coup lasted all of 10 minutes!!!!111one
-- boxy talkteh rulz 16:59 15 October 2008 (BST)

Way overkill. So, you're justifying the purging of all vandalism record before a certain point because of a policy change that only affects the top two levels? How about just allowing a perma-ban vote to those who got their perma before the policy change? If the perma is deemed unnecessary, they lose one escalation level, and then they can work it down themselves. Or maybe even allow a perma-ban vote to everyone, say, six months from their last infraction. Naturally, these would be available only upon request and not automatic. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 15:45, 15 October 2008 (BST)

Personal tools
advertisements