I've been lurking these forums for quite some time now, and while I think it's generally a pretty cool place I can't help feel that the super strict moderation is a detriment to the site.
First off, the ten strike warning system. Though it has relaxed slightly since it's initial implementation, it remains to be a ticking time bomb over the heads of many frequent posters. Now I know that someone is going to refer to those polls that state that the majority of posters have no strikes against them; however, those polls have no indication of the posting habits of those that respond. Take me for example, I have no warnings, but I also have very few posts to my name. I also vote in every poll I see. So you can see how this throws the validity of the poll into question. I feel that the ten strike warning system is bound to take out most of the frequent posters eventually, or at least the more interesting ones because, really, everybody slips up now and again and depending on how much they post it may be more often than within *six months* of their last mistake. Six months is a really long time to lose one strike and two years to erase them all is completely absurd, most of the current posters haven?t even been here two years! A more reasonable time frame would be one or two months to get rid of one infraction and one year to erase them all. One last thing about the ten strike system, and the thing that burns me the most about it, is that it gives the same weight to every infraction. I can't stand to see someone get banned for a low-content post and yet it seems to happen quite frequently.
Next, for the most part it seems that when a regular user gets banned, it only detracts from the conversations that take place here on the Escapist. A lot of the frequent posters I've seen banned seem to have opinions that differ from the norm. I believe that they are more likely to get banned because they tend to be ganged up on, get frustrated, and therefore (understandably) resort to acting a bit more like a jerk than they usually would. Also, I believe that people are more likely to report people they disagree with rather than ones that they are in alignment with. This leads to a homogenization of opinion and I for one don't think it makes for interesting conversation when everybody stands around agreeing and patting each other on the back. Another thing people that get banned tend to have is passion. Passionate posters make more interesting posts that are usually reasonably well defended. Weeding these people out leads to those remaining in the forum to be wishy-washy posters who don't really take a firm stand on any topics.
The Escapist is a place to have interesting semi-intellectual discussions about a wide variety of topics. However, discussion is not always neat and agreeable and tends to get tempers up. To cut out this aspect is to neuter discussion itself. By all means ban those that solely intend to start trouble right from the start, but those that have proven themselves to be worthy contributors over time by making frequent well defended posts should be given some leniency when it comes to the permanent ban. I feel it really is the people who are a little bit controversial that forces people to defend and re-evaluate their positions and make for the most interesting conversations. Is the purpose of the ban not to improve the quality of these forums? I believe it is. I must then ask: Does banning someone with 10 minor infractions over the course of years really improve the Escapist?
Edit: actually it's eight strikes, not ten
(Yes I'm still bitter about that after 3 years) 2) I think that stupid permaban avatar is incredibly immature.
