Yeah, some of those names are a suprise to me as well, though I don’t follow some areas very well and generally stay out of threads I have no interest in. I guess we have to give the benefit of the doubt that those people have been given multiple opportunities to reform in the past.
Its going to be different, for sure.
Definitely thirded, it seems appropriate to at least offer a probationary period first.
I can’t speak for the whole list (nor would it make a difference if I could, because I cannot know the PMs and such) but many of those on the list have been very vocal (or the writing equivalent) about Tom and his policies, despite repeated warnings against such behavior. I can almost guarantee that they would be continuing this course in this thread if they were not banned.
I agree that from my perspective many of the people on that list are good posters who have been respectful in my experience. I’m just noting why Tom might (rightly) feel that there is no need to give a clean slate to them. It would not be a second chance. In many cases, it would be a fifth or sixth chance.
Note that this does not mean I agree with the bannings (or disagree). I’m just trying to explain them a bit, especially since Tom dislikes doing so.
Oh, and welcome back!
Yeah, I think there should be some sort of amnesty in light of what happened the past few months.
Granted, there have been a lot of disputes. I just think it’d be nice to at least make the attempt. Why start the new regime with an unnecessary tide of blood when we could have flowers, right?
I was saddened to see Cubit’s name on the list after reading these posts:
I guess the important part is that he’s turned his life around for the better, not whether or not he can post on Qt3. But maybe there is more going on behind the scenes that I don’t know about.
Jeremy Johnson? Maybe you mean James Johnson as Jeremy is the most inoffensive person I know.
Then perhaps a one chance and done thing. I don’t want to speak for anyone on that list because I don’t know them, but at least one member on there was posting in the last few days about the reason for his poor behavior in the past and seemed apologetic and sheepish about it. I’m hoping some conversation can get him back on.
Wow, had no idea those folks were volatile or anything. Guess I missed those conversations. Whew! :)
I think this is a terrible move, it doesn’t improve the forum in any way, and it’s very telling that the handful of genuinely awful posters who screw up every thread they participate in are left untouched.
Everyone on the banned list has had a problem with Tom, but Tom has also had a problem with them. They do not drag down this board. Tom’s inability to get along with them (and in some cases, their inability to not harp on about it - not the world’s biggest crime) is the issue here, not the health of the board in general.
Really? Where? I literally cannot remember running across a single NSFW image here in the past six months.
I was thinking the same thing, actually, but I may be biased since Jeremy was my Secret Santa! He’s good peeps though, in my book.
Hugin, check the example in Tom’s post. (here is the link again: http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showpost.php?p=2998202&postcount=205) NSFW, obviously.
BTW, Tom, I can’t see the infraction on the post. I can see why it was given one, and maybe that’s what you meant by ‘example’ but I expected us to be able to recognize when one was given.
My take: Sounds like you have an affiliation deal in the works and the habits of certain posters could put a damper on that.
I agree. Most of the banned people are what I consider to be quality posters around here.
Me neither, though Tom did link to a post with a GIF that featured huge, bouncing boobies. I have to say that while I appreciate and respect the rule against posting such images in the forum, I am not displeased that I saw the GIF.
I was directed to a blurred out sideboob from a magazine when this question was last asked.
edit: I think the linked boobs were an ironic example since they were posted a couple days ago as a joke about Tom’s mail.
Wow. That is really not the banned list I expected.
In the new regime, Octonoo is okay but Hans isn’t?
I can’t even begin to make sense out of that.
I definitely agree with the growing “wait, what?” chorus.
I had no idea about Hans and Matthew, I enjoy their posts.
The logic appears to be that it is OK to piss off the entire community, but pissing off Tom is asking for the banhammer.
I agree that some of the people on that list have seemed pretty reasonable to me, but I also know that I read the forum fairly selectively, so I miss a lot.
I do agree with Tom’s internet living room ideal, and frankly it’s the kind of living room I want to hang out in too. What’s wrong with having a corner of the Internet where manners are still important?