Unban Chris (Cora)?

(Vote extended)

Someone seemed to think that Chris was banned only because of the comment Wes said he was banned for. He was banned for the same reason as technococcus, he was being an ass all over the place, arguing with Zack (as much as he tried to say Zack started it, it always looked to me like Chris was on the offensive) and others, and insulting other players (Zack and Wes included, this was obviously the last straw). I had to PM him when he first came here to ease up on the language, because I knew from experience it'd get him into trouble, but over the past few months, he was becoming more and more disruptive.

I always thought he was acting like an arrogant newbie (in fact, I think quite a few new people are acting that way) but it's not like I'm going to leave if he gets unbanned or something like that. If you people want to give him another chance, ok, but I'll still vote no.

While he wasn't/isn't the sole agressor around these here parts, I still voted no. He knew it was wrong, and unbanning people who frankly should have known they were burning bridges will only serve to undermine being banned as punitive action. I've been a moderator elsewhere for some years now, and I can honestly say the people we've let back after being banned continue (almost uniformly) to do exactly what they did before. There's an age restriction on the site for a reason, and while we still have unpleseant folks, the extreme he took it to is inexcusable.

If we still push for a temporary ban, I would suggest at the least a month. I won't throw a fit either way, though. ::

and I can honestly say the people we've let back after being banned continue (almost uniformly) to do exactly what they did before

Click to expand...

This comment I'm not so sure about. On this site currently we have three people restored after they have been banned (please correct me if I'm wrong): Thad, Tyler and Zack. My point is that these are very important members of the community, and everytime the have 'offended' they have been brought back and continue to be an essential part of the community. Thad is a great commentator on Bios, Zack's usefull for the tech section, and Tyler's just a great guy! (Heh, and a v.good RPer as well).

I'm just saying that being banned can give a positive effect, but the real question is: was Chris as usefull to the site as these three, to be treated in the same way, or was he worse? In my actual opinion he was, since primarily most of the other people have been banned over misunderstandings or (in the case of Zacks recent one) just getting very frustrated at no one listening to reason.

With Chris the situation was very different. He was bitter in his later posts, and seemed to be arguing with Zack for no other reason than because Zack was Zack. With the problem with Neko's reproduction he was flogging a dead horse that made little sense (If ANYBODY mentions the FCP I am going to scream), and was being offensive, needlessly so. In some cases swearing can be allowed, although preferably not in a OOC context, but they way he used it wasn't acceptable, it was pointless.

That is the situation as I see it. Should Chris be banned? I don't know. He was very creative, coming up with much new stuff for the race which is known as the Fenyaro due to a bit of problems, and was a good RPer, as far as I could tell. And he seemed to be a nice guy for most of the time.

I have voted, but choose to keep my own vote a secret. I'm just sharing my views.

Simply put: He chose his actions, he needs to be responsible for them. He's not the only one that can contribute things (including races) and his attitude is not needed, nor welcome if he can't behave less violently when people disagree with him or cite something incorrectly. I don't see much more reason for a drawn out engagement. Again, I've been a mod for years so I do have experience with things like this.

Can I claim the format is the exact same? Of course not. The behaviour type has been, however. Just because someone is useful doesn't signal to me a pardon of a deserved punitive action. Disagreeing is fine and dandy, being adament about that is fine too, but the manner he chose was his own doing.

Having said that, I'm not going to get into a back and forth as I don't feel even remotly motivated to (continue) have a back and forth about this.

Aw but then I'd miss my favorite opinionated and highly insulting neighbor from the north.

I say that with all sorts of kind regards, really I do. Besides he did try to work pretty hard in regards to the 'species whose name must not be mentioned'.

Chris's ban will be lifted 21 September 2005.

I'm really feeling that admitting someone with not even 2/3 majority wanting him to return is asking for trouble, but that's just me. I feel a ban should mean something other than a vacation or time out.

Well, I talked to him last night and he seemed sincere about wanting to come back start again fresh. It's been my policy to let banned members return after some time. Zack, for example, was banned for an entire year, buthas come back and is a productive member of the community. Forgiveness is a virtue.

sorry

Drake Starblade said:

would anyone like to start placing bets on how long he can go without getting banned again?

Click to expand...

I don't think we need that kind of talk here, man. You're just causing more negativity when he returns and reads this. I'm not so sure you know enough about the guy to judge him anyway.

If he behaves (and he should), we should make him feel like he is still welcome, which is he is (at least by me).