Democracy

[Omar Ranger]

I like how I'm the first example.

[emailbox]

I don't like the idea of banning someone if they haven't technically broken rules. I know a lot is left up to mod/admin discretion though, so idk...

I'm sure you've totally forgotten about the part in the ToS about inciting flames (ie trolling) because it's a non-issue on these forums, right?

Also, seconded this post. I know for a fact that there are at least two people would be instantly banned.

[Wyatt]

I like how I'm the first example.

Because kag/bulma don't really like you, and they were also involved a lot in it. Using you as an example only made sense to me.

[emailbox]

Wyatt's example makes no sense, by the way. If someone's chosen to be banned by 2 people and another person by 10, it's pretty obvious who the one to leave really should be. I think people forget that HS.net/forums is a massive circlejerk and there are unwanted people here.

[nanop44]

No. Lynching people just because they're disliked by the majority of the community is not right. If they haven't explicitly broken the rules they have every right to remain here. The lynch mob could potentially go on a power trip and ban anyone who says even a single little thing out of line with the majority opinion.

[Wyatt]

Wyatt's example makes no sense, by the way. If someone's chosen to be banned by 2 people and another person by 10, it's pretty obvious who the one to leave really should be. I think people forget that HS.net/forums is a massive circlejerk and there are unwanted people here.

It isn't "You go, you stay." It's "A majority of the community thinks you need to go, so see your way out." No two people have ties to each other. If 7 people said "Ban him" and 3 said "He doesn't get banned." then that's a 7/10 majority to ban him. There's no "competition" in this, no "He's liked more than the other person."

[Omar Ranger]

It's democracy. End result: nothing gets done anyway.

[White Mage Abyss]

No. Lynching people just because they're disliked by the majority of the community is not right. If they haven't explicitly broken the rules they have every right to remain here. The lynch mob could potentially go on a power trip and ban anyone who says even a single little thing out of line with the majority opinion.

I am in 100% agreement with this statement, though I don't think it would get that badly out of hand since the lynch mob can't technically ban anyone themselves.

Wyatt's example makes no sense, by the way. If someone's chosen to be banned by 2 people and another person by 10, it's pretty obvious who the one to leave really should be. I think people forget that HS.net/forums is a massive circlejerk and there are unwanted people here.

Shouldn't that flaw try to be fixed rather than catering to it?

I mean, Yes it's there, but it's not a good thing, why not fix it rather than make it worse?

[Omar Ranger]

Good luck fixing it.

[blankaex]

I don't think anyone on this forum hates me enough to vote to ban me, so I think I'm safe, but I don't really see why this is necessary. I mean, if we really wanted to, we could set up a committee of people (maybe the older forum members or something) to act as a jury of sorts so we don't have the issue of people not caring to vote, but this is really unnecessary. If you don't like someone, just ignore list them and problem solved, right? I don't see why we should implement a system that can pretty much screw over the whole community. Not to mention the community is already minuscule.