I've found something in the rules that I believe need to be addressed



I believe this rule is hypocritical. Whenever somebody is blocked from your blog you will be punished for talking about that person. But it has been suggested several times that there should be a rule against talking about members banned from the whole forum, and that rule has been rejected. I don't get this at all. What I see is that it's against the rules to talk about someone who is blocked from your blog, but it's perfectly fine to talk about someone who is banned from the entire forum

Perhaps the said rule should be put in place.

Because making blog entries and comments about a member you added to your blog block list is considered flame baiting.
Say would like to be part of a forum where someone could add you to their blog block list and then make difamatory blog entries about you and you couldn't even defend yourself because you'd be warned for it?

The OP is taking it one step further. Why are people allowed to flame when those who are banned are unable to defend themselves? It seems flaming is punished when it's against an active member, but it's allowed when it's against a former member who happened to get banned. In addition, a very high percentage of threads about banned members turn into spam. We aren't supposed to know why they're banned, but even the mods break that rule and tell us afterward.

Or some the banned members tell us themselves.

Personally I think the blog block list is a stupid idea.

Honestly, if I just got the stupid remarks or comments I'd just remove them and move on.

You can't really moderate your blog 24/7, Slei.

Is that a bet?

Cuz damn well I'll do it >:[

No, but if you feel it's flaming you it's sort of pointless if you think about it.

Why should someone get worked up over what someone else whom you will most likely never meet thinks of you? is more or less the point I'm trying to make.

unless there is a setting that allows comments to be added after okayed...

And that would be so much more trouble than it's worth. Having a block list is a perfectly reasonable solution to keep a small amount of people out instead of everyone being restricted.

But on topic, I don't think the rule applies because they technically aren't a member of the community anymore.

That you can't, but this is a little place, and if the person is bothering you THAT much then you block them. I've never blocked a person, nor will I unless if the person is annoying me that much. And from my experience a mod has no problem solving the problem.

@Razorlike: I agree with this: it's not like we're on RS and get banned or warned for no reason (Although sometimes you have a reason.) As I stated above, this place is little enough to handle. I'm not sure why we still let trolls here, but whatever.

EDIT: I'm afraid someones going to take my post wrong: I'll clear this up, I agree with that rule because what that called is flaming, or flame baiting, it's like fighting a muted guy.

Yes, but there are plenty of cases where Mods give the details of why a user got banned, which are listed in the user's warn log. It contradicts the forum rules.

You can set comments on moderation before dispalying them. +1 to Aximili for beating me to this comment.

Technically, they are still members so long as their account is not deleted. They are just prohibited from doing anything but reading topics.


This isn't about banned members whining. This is about unbanned members flaming banned members and starting what always end up as spam topics.

This topic is only about applying Blog Block List reasoning to talking about banned members.

@ Gillis: The blog system is a loose version of the forum. Blocking discussion of banned members in blogs won't do anything if unbanned members are able to move the discussion to the Scape Lounge. It's as if the mods put the banned members on the forum block list, but we're still allowed to talk to them. See the similarity? Block block list is to the blog system as banned members are to the forum. In addition, these sort of threads most always end up in spam. The mods have mentioned multiple times that the Scape Lounge is not a spam board. If people want to spam, go to the loosely moderated blog system. They still are not allowed to blog about people whom they blocked from their blog.

If you're going to apply the rule to the blogs, it should also be applied to the rest of the forum. I think it should be a rule for the forum because of the spam and other rule infringements they most always bring.

Sodom clearly says that we should not talk about banned members because they cannot respond, just like with a blog block list. I realize that you're trying to take this in another direction but the topic was created for just the one point.

Not another direction, a logical expansion and understanding why such a rule should be in place.

Technically, ban reasons are in ban request threads in the mod board.

Flaming is already punished. OP is talking about referencing/talking about banned members. Which, frankly, I think it's way overboard - as it would have little difference from banning talking about people that aren't members of the forums at all, and that would be patentedly silly.

Approval of comments is not a way to solve the problem that block lists have - so far - soothed. If such a logical expansion would be implemented correctly, it would mean that people would never be banned, but merely put on mod preview forever.

Wait, what? People that are on a block list usually are there for a reason (and those who are there for petty reasons usually don't get really damaged at all..). That reason is, usually, because they deliberately set upon to cause grief upon the blog owner (= troll). Comment approval wouldn't solve that problem at all, much like putting people on mod preview wouldn't work either.

If they end in spam, the spammers will be punished. It's simple, without the need to prohibit threads 'just because they may end up like that'.

Besides, I don't really see the need for this.

Because banned members are not part of the community anymore. If one was to follow your logic then we shouldn't be able to make blog entries about Obama or any other public figure because they are not member of this community.

Which is acceptable according to the rules, and rightfully so. Those who have the ability to remove warns should know why the user got warned in the first place.

Unless a mod is involved in the discussion too... then it's alright...

That comment was in reply to an incorrect statement made by another user about "stupid remarks or comments." It wasn't about BBL user-made comments.

If a thread-type typically ends up in multiple breaking of forum rules, then yes it is a pretty good reason to prohibit such topics. The mods just close the topics...


If Obama wanted, he could register an account and reply to comments about him. What I see are banned members returning and showing to some that they can fit into the community again.

What does that have to do with anything I said?


And punish the offenders. But many seem to forget that.

I said mods publicly reveal warn logs to the rest of the community, which is apparently against the rules. You made a cutesy comment about mods having a ban request thread in the mod board. I nicely replied, "No crap." Mods talking privately in the Mod board is not publicly available to the rest of the community. So my reply to your previous reply to me is: What does that have to do with anything I said? It doesn't, so let's get back on topic.

Because the mods don't seem to get punished, yet they play a part in the spam, flame, and revealing of warn logs. If a mod doesn't get noticeably punished, others will think their behavior is acceptable. Take you for example. Think about it and then get back on topic.

Edit: Oh boy you make me laugh.

If the mods see fit to make contents discussed in the mod board publicly available, I don't see what's so terrible about that. After all, rule changes are discussed in the mod board, henceforth they shouldn't be made public? My reply had a lot to do with yours, simply because the reason for a ban might not be in the warn log, but rather in the ban request thread. Since we're talking technicalities, technically that's not sharing warn logs.

So, what would your suggestion be? I admitted I've posted snide comments, off-topic remarks, and such. None of those acts, however, would have gotten anybody warned. So I don't see how I can be an 'example'.

The one diverting the topic telling others to get back on it.