Forum:Congress/Agree on banning

Hi, Happyface back again with a justice bill. I've noticed admins unblocking, reblocking, changing blocks etc etc. It makes the ban log messy, which made us lose spotlight once. I think we should have a system, so admins can decide how much time someone should be blocked.

Note: ANYONE can participate.

System
After Explorer and I had a friendly debate, we decided for me to rewrite the system and restart the vote.

We decided that we should have three ban systems: strike system, immediate bans, and block votes.

Strike system is for petty crimes, just for a newbie who rewrote an article without permission, causing a small argument, insulting users, or minor spamming.

Immediate bans are for REALLY, REALLY, serious things, like hacking, out-of-control vandalism, and sockpuppeting (the sockpuppet gets banned, not the initial user).

Block votes are for frequent editors who break the rules, either via small crimes on a repeated basis, or one or two large crimes at a single point in time.

This would create multi-tiered block policy, which practically means different systems of block policies running simultaneously.

This also creates a more fair and peaceful block log.

Reasons for Using this system
For Frequent Editors
 * Re-starting flame wars
 * Swearing
 * Uploading inappropriate pictures (like someone being stabbed in the back, not a lot of gore)
 * Hate mail
 * Insulting multiple users
 * Abusing shout box
 * Being Racist/sexist
 * Power Fit

How Does this System WORK?
On the first day someone makes a forum and bans the editor who broke the rules for infinite. On the first day, people recommend blocking times. The recommendations end on the second day. Then, the users vote on a blocking time, as long as the user is not the bad user's best friend or something. The third day, the vote is decided. Their cannot be a fourth day, unless it is required.

Strike System Reasons
For Newbies
 * Vandalizing
 * Rewrites an article for no reason
 * Minor arguments

Immediate Ban
THIS IS SERIOUS BUSINESS!
 * UNHOLY CONDUCT
 * Walrus Minion....Wait, what am I talking bout?
 * Hacker or old time vandal (i.e. Slow Poke)

More Examples
Scenario 1

Dude is a new user to the CPFW. Not being familiar with policies and common sense, Dude rewrites the USA article so that it is an empire over which he rules.

Dude should be subject to the Strike System, which deals with frequent or new editors committing petty (and sometimes unintentional) crime. A Strike Template will be posted on his talk and if Dude repeats the same offense, he will progress up the strike scale until he is out.

Scenario 2

Bob is a frequent editor on the CPFW. One day, he gets into a fight with Phil and starts a flame war on the Shout Box. It takes 90 minutes for the flaming to burn out.

Bob should be subject to the Block Vote system, which deals with frequent editors that commit more serious crimes as well as somewhat smaller crimes on a repeated basis.

Scenario 3

CHEESE_FTW is a hacker and member of the Nacho Cheese hacking club. He spots the CPFW, and, in an attempt to make the users BAAAAWWW, rapidly spams the site, overwhelming the rollbacks.

CHEESE_FTW should be subject to an immediate ban, which is an instantaneous block used in cases where the Strike System or Block Voting would be useless in discipline and/or the crimes committed are too severe.

For

 * It makes the block policy more flexible and fair, and we can always change it to avoid obstacles.  Yours "Falsely",   Explorer 767 ( Logic OWNS You!  )    View this template   19:40, October 17, 2009 (UTC)


 * -- Triskelle3 '''Happy Hallowe'en! 19:45, October 17, 2009 (UTC)

Against

 * I fear that it would instate a massive and counter-productive choked-up bureaucracy (the bad government kind, not the staff rank) on who is who and where to put them in the blocking categories. I'll never be able to remember how to block and would probably block productively instead of going to the polls and sayin "should I block this user?". In other words, it is really just a hassle on a stable blocking policy. The so-called "non-peaceful" block log is merely an appropriate adjustment of punishment. It's not a flame war, it's just differing opinions. I can't think of a time we've gone to a flame war for deciding a fellow man's punishmnent. Besides, the spotlight isn't everything. We're a huge wiki in comparison to many fanon realms and are also the biggest CP wiki there is. Why mess with something that is not broken? -- † This is Serious Business! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! †    :)  :) Oooh, Yertle is performing his signature Bible Bashing Move! † 21:22, October 17, 2009 (UTC)


 * Tha Turtle has spoken. Dancing Penguin  http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/clubpenguin/images/6/6c/Smile_spin.gif (Talk!) 23:16, October 17, 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

 * Hmmm, I'm not sure. -- ' Happy Halloween! 21:28, October 17, 2009 (UTC)harkbate Happy Halloween! 21:28, October 17, 2009 (UTC)

Comments

 * I know i cant vote, but this is only a comment. The only allowing your so called "bobs" or "senates" vote is an example of ignoring and throwing the community in the garbage and not listening to them. You have to allow the ENTIRE community to participate in votes. Admins cant make all the choices. (Also, im only saying this because its not really fair to other users who want to have a say too) -- seahorseruler | Talk  (EditCount) Yoshi! 22:04, October 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, can't you read. Duhhhhhhhh... -- Happyface ( Just Say Hi) ☺  22:09, October 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: ANYONE can participate.  @ top. You didn't have to be so rude, HF. Citcxirtcem 00:38, October 18, 2009 (UTC)