Alrighty, here's what I propose for a new feature. Each thread should have a blacklist, so if anyone is being unruly in the thread instead of shutting the entire thing down, the thread creator (or an admin) can blacklist a user's name to keep them out of that thread in future. They would still be able to read it, but unable to comment.
For example, I have been in 3 civil war threads, two of which were closed down because of a user refusing to leave when asked. Obviously, there might be some over-passionate people that might try to circumvent the blacklist by logging out, at that point the thread can be closed as normal. I just feel like there should be some alternative to just outright killing a discussion just because of one or two people disagreeing.
I oppose. Every user should be able to keep the maturity level needed to discuss these threads civilly, without having to be banned from a thread. Banning a user from a thread is simply hostile, and instead of banning users from threads, we should instead be banning users who break etiquette by being hostile as you have all been to each other.
I strongly oppose this. You guys need to learn how to get along, instead of all arguing with each other. It's just a game. We all have our own opinions. If the problem is so strong you seriously can't stand another user, simply take it off site.
The thing is, the user was asked to leave multiple times, but still insisted on maintaining an aggressive stance within the thread. As we speak, he has entered the third thread and already began arguing with the same person, yet again, and in a few days I feel like the thread will be closed yet again.
Perhaps as an alternative, a person could be given a cooldown block? Where an admin steps in and uses a timed block on both warring parties, so that people have a chance to either calm down and apologise when they get back into it.... or possibly just worsen the entire situation by giving them more time to come up with something salty.
A more common application we already do - more often in discussions - is simply locking the thread for the time being. You guys have all been hostile to each other to a degree, it's not like Jauffre is the only one doing something, and it's not like there's already been multiple warnings to everyone that have not been listened to.
As I've stated above, this is simply a terrible idea. The problem isn't with everyone, but has only been related to this discussion with you guys. Making a rule for you guys just to get rid of Jauffre is simply hostile. I know you guys might see it as something different, but you guys need to just settle the problem. Like I said, it's just a game - there's no need to get upset at another user and say some of the things that have been exchanged, it's all simply childish.
Again, if you guys can't make it work, just move off site and discuss it, if you want nobody else to join in the thread. There's a reason threads are open discussions.
For the time being? I don't think I've ever seen a thread unlocked after being locked...
I'm not blaming Jauffre in particular, I get that he has strong opinions on the civil war but the way he words his arguments is rather aggressive, and can easily set off different users, not just Busaio no Laughs.
I'm just posting it here since Avetlonius said I might be able to put it past the moot. If you can block people on a more personal level (I'm not sure) then great, but it doesn't really fix the problem of two people who want to argue with eachother.
As for moving off-site, that's not really gonna help. I personally wanna hear a lot of people's opinions, not just the same arguments over and over (but when people are at eachother's throats other people back away), so unless I literally created my own elder scrolls forum site, It doesn't work in this situation.
If you have a problem with another user, you go to the admin and tell them, not make the situation worse by being rude back to the user without trying to actually *solve* the issue. You can't fix this by being an asshole to one another and banning each other from threads like kids fighting over toys. As you already know, warnings were already issued again, and this time if they're ignored a block will be put into place. You guys should learn to all set your differences aside.
Like I've already stated, I can see why you want this to be made into a rule, but this is simply too childish. I also want to take the time to point out this is extremely abusable. Who would even dictate who can not talk in a thread? I can dictate that everyone who disagrees in a CT to not participate, and the CT would pass. The wiki has had problems in the past with this, with telling certain users where they can't talk. It only causes more issues.
Hmm. The CT is different from regular threads though, so if there was only a specific type of thread the block could be used on, you wouldn't have that issue of misuse.
If you really think we're not mature enough to decide who is allowed in what thread (we as in regular users) then the power could just as easily be reserved for admins/helpers only, like the thread locking. Sometimes people just don't know when to quit. They've started bickering again in the third thread and I don't wanna have to keep starting new ones and hoping they won't find it, or eachother.
Even though Civil War threads have had history of devolving into slanderous hate fests for a couple of years now, and what little patience I have had with these long standing feuds has worn paper thin, I don't really see this as practical. I believe the best option is to block them from the wiki as a whole, with increasing block lengths, including up to a permaban if the infractions keep continuing after the block is up. Frankly those cooldown periods really only had a minimal effect on one user's behaviour in forums on the subject anyway. One of the offending Civil War zealots has been blocked twice if I remember right because of their constant feuding, including with a staff memder.
Even though I see the reasoning behind this proposal, due to the ridiculousness that goes on in those threads, I tend to agree with Crusader on this.
Users are definitely not mature enough to handle it, admin and regular user. We've already seen the power argued and complained about countless times, even back in 2012, where we had two admin fight over control of the wiki. Jimeee and Sajuuk are two more examples, and all of these cases are over admin rights, where every user should be given a say. So basically, we'd have an issue with misuse no matter what we do. There's really no option in banning people from threads. Every user in the wiki should have a voice, unless they have clearly broken a rule. That's why we ask you guys to report to admin when there's a problem, so that it can be resolved without too much turmoil.
I'm honestly not going to open the third thread right now, because I'm honestly fed up with how immature it is, in case it isn't really that clear. The thread won't be closed, unless it is extremely derailed. If they are still arguing then they will be banned, as they have been told.
Edit: I kinda was typing this before Cat Master's reply was posted. Still what I want to say, just a reply to an earlier post :P
I see how such a feature would be useful in preventing users from bickering, but, as stated above, allowing the thread creator to control a hypothetical thread blacklist would very likely lead to the stifling of opinions, particularly on the Consensus Track board. A past example of this would be the infamous "Consensus against Jimeee" thread from 2014, in which Jimeee was not allowed to defend himself in his own demotion CT because of a "conflict of interest." This was obviously quite unfair for Jimeee, and it ultimately ended in his resignation.
Also note that this was enforced by an administrator, Ghost Anubis, so it's not like admins are necessarily going to be totally reasonable. You could perhaps argue that since sysops already have the power to block users, a thread-specific ban is no different. However, such a feature would likely encourage administrators to impose user thread bans preemptively or prematurely, whereas a block is an entirely reactive tool. As with Jimeee's CT, this won't always end well.
One alternative would be to create some sort of ban on user interaction between two individuals in which they are free to do as they please except for talk to the other person, which would result in a block. This would be easier for the administration to manage, although it could still result in the same issue as we saw on Jimeee's CT. I believe this is in practice on the UESP and some other wikis, but I would have to look into how successful it has been before saying anything decisive about it.
Before I even put my input here -- because we all know this post is referring to me -- it was pretty clear that those posts getting locked was not because "someone refused to leave", but because those posts turned off topic and/or uncivil.
There are alternatives if you seriously dislike what someone is saying, beyond a mere disagreement. One of which would be to ignore their comments.
And what if a person changes their mind? Or what if their attitude changes?
I only meant the second one, where I asked you to leave when the debates started turning more and more sour. The first one was definitely uncivil conduct.
If you scroll up a little, I've kinda changed my mind on the "specific thread" ban, more to a "cooldown period" where both arguing parties were not able to talk to eachother for a while until either they calmed down and apologised, or completely obliterated the thread and forced it's locking.
And I was referencing both you and Busaio, since you can both be rather explosive when debating with eachother. The original idea was that you could have a thread you blocked people out of like me or whoever, and then busaio could have a thread, and then I could have a thread, and no one treads on eachother's toes again and no more getting the things closed.