Admins have power to ban immediately
• Spamming the board with ads
• Spamming the board with porn
• Hacking the board
• Threats of RL violence against members
Poster has the Right to a Hearing
• Refusing to participate in a required Arbitration
• Refusing to abide by the Decision of Jury in an Arbitration
• Interfering with any thread in an Arbitration or a Hearing on a Ban where poster has not been asked to participate.
• Accusations of stalking or harrassment in RL that has resulted from acquaintance made on this board
• Solicitation of a minor on the board for any activity in RL that would be illegal, or using the board to arrange RL meetings with minors for the purpose of engaging in illegal activity
I think these are perfect.
Admins have power to temporarily suspend posting rights or restrict access to a forum
• In the Invite Forum, if confidential information has been revealed, access can be suspended
• In the Jury Room, if poster has interfered with an Arbitration or Hearing on a Ban, board-wide posting rights can be suspended.
As to the first, I think it should depend onthe nature of the breach of confidence. I still don't see where the damage is in telling a friend you've put up an invite for them, for example.
As to the second, I don't rightly understand it. I thought the idea was that only the people concerned in the conflict could post in their threads in the first place, ie that posting rights would be given only to those who need them, when they need them. So, how can someone interfere in a hearing?
And the stress here is on "suspended" ,right? That is, temporary. Would that mean in such a case there'd be a hearing on this case then? Or talks about what happened and why?
Alandriel wrote:
If after 2 probation periods the poster yet makes another bannable offence – he/she should be banned without means of recourse. Perhaps, if the offender truly repents, (contact to other members via email or IM) then after e.g. 6 months (long enough to really consider) under certain circumstances and with member discussion he/she might be allowed back (again, initially on 3 month probation)
I think there should definitely always be the opportunity to revoke the ban (like suggested, I'm just stressing it because the possibility sounds a bit doubtful here).
Quote:
Admins should be able to create temporary admin positions (as I did with Alandriel) if the need is there;
I think if we allow that, we need a very exact definition of the cases in which that is allowed without prior asking on the boards.
In the recent case, I seem to remember that giving Alandriel temporary admin status was asked first in some thread. There was no official vote or long waiting time, but if someone had wanted to object they could have.
I can't imagine a great many cases in which it would really be necessary to do that, so let's not grant such power to the admin without thinking carefully about when and what for it should be used.
Quote:
Admins should be able to temporarily remove posting ability of RP ID'S if there are multiple complaints against how that ID has been used.
I'm with Alandriel that multiple IDs should remain restricted to the RP threads. So, what great harm could they do that would need special treatment?
Quote:
5. Admins should be able to temporarily remove posting ability of any ID in the "Thinking of England" forum if there are multiple complaints about how that poster has been posting there.
Basically not against that, as that forum is particularly sensitive, but shouldn't there be an arbitration process immediately when a poster stirs up trouble there? I'm a bit confused about the procedure here.
On the whole: if a poster has done something that gets them into an arbitration or a hearing, should they continue to keep their posting rights?
If not, additional admin power is not needed.
If yes, it would be ok, I think, to give the admin power to cancel posting rights (beyond the arbitration thread) temporarily, if a poster continues to misbehave during arbitration.