toldailytopic: Do you think TOL bans members too frequently, or not frequently enough

[Nathon Detroit]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for April 30th, 2012 09:12 AM

toldailytopic: Do you think TOL bans members too frequently, or not frequently enough?

Get the TOL "banned" shirt here.


Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

 

[One In Christ]

Not frequently enough.

 

[Sherman]

I think it's about right, after all this is your playground and you can invite whoever you want to play and boot whomever you want. :chuckle: I rather like the penalty box style banning system. Other boards just boot people and that's it.

 

[sky.]

I just ordered the brown long sleve T.

 

[HisServant]

The rules aren't follows that much... so why bother banning anyone?

There is a certain member that posts links to very long articles and never points out the relevant part.. his goal is to subject us to reading everything in the article instead of the applicable part.

I believe that is against the rules... yet he has gotten away with it for years now.

So if you aren't going to enforce your rules.. you shouldn't be banning anyone.

 

[meshak]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for April 30th, 2012 09:12 AM

toldailytopic: Do you think TOL bans members too frequently, or not frequently enough?

Get the TOL "banned" shirt here.


Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

To be honest, it is very biased. It seems that when certain members who is respected highly by mods, the reportees get banned without good reason.

I am a non-trin so I dont have right to say anything about the fairness.

And I understand this is trinity believing forum and that's why I have obligation to pay what I have to say for the Lord.

I would pay for lifetime membership if I get to say about Jesus' messages.

Thanks Knight for letting me express my conviction for my Lord, Jesus. I do appreciate it greatly..

 

[Stripe]

I would pay for lifetime membership if I get to say about Jesus' messages.

There's something you don't get to say? :AMR:

 

[Newman]

Some very wise and handsome TOL member as suggested an unofficial Censuring Committee. :think:

It would be slow, bureaucratic, inconsequential, satirical, and perfect for its purpose.

 

[Stripe]

:noid:

 

[Tambora]

I love this place.
I think it does a great job.

 

[Psalmist]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for April 30th, 2012 09:12 AM

toldailytopic: Do you think TOL bans members too frequently, or not frequently enough?​

I think works fine the way banning is.​

To be honest, it is very biased. It seems that when certain members who is respected highly by mods, the reportees get banned without good reason.

I've reported some members who had some bad and absolutely shameful posts. Banning actions are for the mods to take care of.​

I am a non-trin so I dont have right to say anything about the fairness.

Maybe it's the way that Non-Trinitarian is defended, I don't know. I believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, that does not prevent me from being banned, maybe not for marginally questionable posting, but I would be banned for outright breaking the TOL rules and I'm a supporter and Lifetime subscriber to TOL. ​

And I understand this is trinity believing forum and that's why I have obligation to pay what I have to say for the Lord.

Maybe it's attitude, I could be wrong, but I really don't think Trinity or Non-Trinity is an obligation, I think that a paid subscription is a personal choice. Listen if Trinity and Non-Trinity were a must the ranks of TOL would thin.​

I would pay for lifetime membership if I get to say about Jesus' messages.

I see your a Silver Subscriber, maybe some day you'll be a Gold Subscriber. ​

Thanks Knight for letting me express my conviction for my Lord, Jesus. I do appreciate it greatly..

And I'm sure it's appreciated by Knight as well as others here on TOL :e4e:​

 

[Sherman]

To be honest, it is very biased. It seems that when certain members who is respected highly by mods, the reportees get banned without good reason.

It's all in how you present yourself. You are a silver member, a pretty high rank. What gets you the bans is rule violations and being a constant pest. It has little to do with your theology.

I am a non-trin so I dont have right to say anything about the fairness.

Wrong. If a certain theology were requirement for belonging on this board, its membership would be quite scarce. Members in good standing get the same treatment. Those that are pests get the ban hammer.

And I understand this is trinity believing forum and that's why I have obligation to pay what I have to say for the Lord.

:think: I had to pay too a get my silver membership. You don't have to be a subscriber to post on the board. Subscriptions just get you more space for your photo albums, a bigger avatar and access to the chat box. The only one you have used is the chat box. Maybe a Green subscription would have been more to your advantage. You would have still had access to the chat.

I would pay for lifetime membership if I get to say about Jesus' messages.

That would help TOL, but unfortunately, that wouldn't change a thing for you. It doesn't save you from repercussions from being a forum pest and breaking the rules.[/quote]

 

[Town Heretic]

I'm mostly on board. I'd give serial blasphemers the eternal boot, like them (that's you, DD) otherwise or not. I'd probably have kicked MEshak to the curb on general principle, but on the whole I think those in power exercise it with appropriate restraint. :thumb:

 

[kmoney]

I would say it is good for the most part. If anything I sometimes think the non-Christians are banned too quickly.

There are a couple posters, like SD and TSF, that I would like to see banned but I'm not sure they actually break enough rules to warrant it. lain:

 

[All12Cylinders]

Yes & No

 

[chrysostom]

more should be banned
but
for the right reasons

many have been banned for the wrong reasons

 

[Sherman]

I'm mostly on board. I'd give serial blasphemers the eternal boot, like them (that's you, DD) otherwise or not. I'd probably have kicked MEshak to the curb on general principle, but on the whole I think those in power exercise it with appropriate restraint. :thumb:

I could get on board with the idea of permabanning serial blasphemers and generally vile posters.

 

[HisServant]

I could get on board with the idea of permabanning serial blasphemers and generally vile posters.

Subjectivism... its whats for dinner.

 

[Sherman]

Vile--disgusting, perverted, vulgar as in Uberpod1 and P66. TOL has had the few of these. Right now they are all serving extended bans.

 

[chrysostom]

Vile--disgusting, perverted, vulgar as in Uberpod1 and P66. TOL has had the few of these. Right now they are all serving extended bans.

who should be banned that has not been banned?