Some people think they're just uneducated posters with the potential to be successful members of a forum community. Others see them as posters who are blatantly ignoring all common sense and deserve to be punished (severely). And others fall somewhere in between.
Where do you stand on the treatment of posters gone wrong, and why?
For the record, newb/newbie =/= n00b. Newbie simply means a new member. A n00b is someone who utterly ignores the rules and spams/posts pointless crap. While this tends to happen most of the time with new members an older member could potentially gain n00b status, in which case they'd seem like an even bigger moron because they should know better.
Some people have the notion that 'quantity over quality' is most important on a forum with few members (you bend the rules a bit if it means keeping poster #s up). I have and always will disagree with that idea, because let's face it: a forum filled with idiots is a waste of time and effort. It can be fun for awhile, but sooner or later you'll realize it's pointless and you'll move on to a forum that actually has members with half a brain.
With that in mind, I do not think it's right to allow spammy posters to get away with it (even if awhile back I let some people around here get away with more than they should have... I've since learned). Sometimes it can be a bit hard to draw the line between what is and isn't spam, but in the cases that it's clear something should be done. People should get a warning, and if they don't take heed of it and actually read the rules then they should be banned (admins/mods wouldn't waste time typing up rules if they didn't want 'em read). You know how it goes... First time they mess up, shame on them. Second time they mess up without getting dealt with accordingly, shame on you. You can only give so many "second chances" before it sinks in that this person isn't listening to a word you say, and, really, that's how it tends to go. You can usually tell just by the way someone posts if they're actually trying to improve or if they really couldn't care less.
Still... since there are n00bs who do want to stay part of a community but need a good kick to get things right, a temporary ban is a good idea. If you simply ban someone and never let them back you'll never really know if they learned their lesson or not. By warning someone, then temp banning if they don't smarten up, you can get a better picture of how much they actually want to be around. If they spam again, a permenant ban is in order. And speaking of temp bans, the Doc had the idea of both temp banning and putting someone's post count to zero, which is a great idea IMO. Most people spam to get their post counts up, eh? Taking that away from them gives a clear message and is a good lesson.
So... yeah. I've rambled enough. Thoughts anyone?
Note: While they might deserve it, cursing n00bs out is pointless IMO. In the end it only reflects badly on the admins/mods/community.
Where do you stand on the treatment of posters gone wrong, and why?
For the record, newb/newbie =/= n00b. Newbie simply means a new member. A n00b is someone who utterly ignores the rules and spams/posts pointless crap. While this tends to happen most of the time with new members an older member could potentially gain n00b status, in which case they'd seem like an even bigger moron because they should know better.
Some people have the notion that 'quantity over quality' is most important on a forum with few members (you bend the rules a bit if it means keeping poster #s up). I have and always will disagree with that idea, because let's face it: a forum filled with idiots is a waste of time and effort. It can be fun for awhile, but sooner or later you'll realize it's pointless and you'll move on to a forum that actually has members with half a brain.
With that in mind, I do not think it's right to allow spammy posters to get away with it (even if awhile back I let some people around here get away with more than they should have... I've since learned). Sometimes it can be a bit hard to draw the line between what is and isn't spam, but in the cases that it's clear something should be done. People should get a warning, and if they don't take heed of it and actually read the rules then they should be banned (admins/mods wouldn't waste time typing up rules if they didn't want 'em read). You know how it goes... First time they mess up, shame on them. Second time they mess up without getting dealt with accordingly, shame on you. You can only give so many "second chances" before it sinks in that this person isn't listening to a word you say, and, really, that's how it tends to go. You can usually tell just by the way someone posts if they're actually trying to improve or if they really couldn't care less.
Still... since there are n00bs who do want to stay part of a community but need a good kick to get things right, a temporary ban is a good idea. If you simply ban someone and never let them back you'll never really know if they learned their lesson or not. By warning someone, then temp banning if they don't smarten up, you can get a better picture of how much they actually want to be around. If they spam again, a permenant ban is in order. And speaking of temp bans, the Doc had the idea of both temp banning and putting someone's post count to zero, which is a great idea IMO. Most people spam to get their post counts up, eh? Taking that away from them gives a clear message and is a good lesson.
So... yeah. I've rambled enough. Thoughts anyone?
Note: While they might deserve it, cursing n00bs out is pointless IMO. In the end it only reflects badly on the admins/mods/community.
.
