The Evariste Act to Prevent Douchebaggery and Retain Racial Purity for the Glory and Well-Being of the Third Rei.....TWC

[Evariste]

Inspired both by Manstein's baby and the revelation that, in its infancy, members of TWC could be banned simply for being idiots, I think it's time to bring something like this back.

Let's face it, TWC is getting dumber. Unlike the perceived "crisis" of last year, it's hard to argue that that isn't the case today.

What I propose is simple. If someone is found to be a terminal idiot, if their posts have no redeemable value, if their douchebaggery is so prevalent as to pollute TWC, they'll be banned.

Harsh? Probably.

Necessary? Definitely.

There are hundreds of ways to go about something like this. I chose the simplest, but it's (obviously) up for discussion.

To be added into the Constitution:

"Any citizen may start a thread in the Prothalamos calling for a member to be banned for stupidity. If the thread starter, or any of its supporters, prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the member in question is an idiotic douchebag after three days discussion, the member will be put to a vote to last seven days, requiring a 67 per cent majority for banishment. Should the vote pass, the member will be banned immediately, have his/her user title changed to "Idiotic Douchebag", and paraded down main street to be pelted with rocks."


Sorry if the formatting/wording's a bit off, I haven't written many bills.

[Erich von Manstein]

While I strongly disagreed with Sibs when he proposed the same idea a few months ago, that was before I saw the current state of the 'Pit and TD. I found it most unfortunate that it required a Curial proposal to ultimately ignite enoch's rather impressive self-destruction. I understand that Staff has an interest in maintaining some variation of "due process", but this is resulting in an overall devolution of the site's intelligence.

I support.

[Simetrical]

This is vetoed, of course. A Decision of the same text will (at least if I have anything to say about it) be allowed to pass or fail according to the Curia's opinion, but it will not be implemented either way, insofar as polls in the Curia explicitly calling a member stupid are against the forum rules and will be prosecuted as such.

If you would like to propose a Decision asking the moderators to consider making it a punishable offense in certain forums to post without providing evidence or attempts at reasoned arguments, that may or may not be implemented should the Curia approve it, but I don't think it stands any chance of being vetoed.

[removeduser_487563287433]

It's a pretty bad idea. People have been saying that 'TWC has been getting dumber' for longer than I have been here. We have a way of dealing with idiots on this forum, and it works fine, we educate them, harshly, if need be.

[Trax]

I support, but don't use the ban, a very long suspension will do fine.

[Captain Arrrgh!]

Sorryfriends, I can't agree on this for many things. First, the terms douchebag and idiot are just not in, especially since I make my living here acting like a pirate idiot.. But seriously, The very people who shouldn't be contributing on threads use derogatory words such as this.

Also, since these terms are not professional, it is highly open to interpretation as to who is a qualifiable 'douchebag'. Since many here are easily swayed by pomp and bombast, a member who has opinions alternative to the mainstream point of view can easily be defamed as a douchebag, by a bombastic few and their enthusiastic retinue.

Ferrets brought up a good point, there are existing ways to deal with these people. Enoch was an oddity, and admitably they do come along, that's why I suggested a 'jail' where they could rant away until they simmer down (or dry out) but Kelso pointed out we even have an already existing system for that as well.
I can see this 'douchebag' appelation being used for no good, by non other than actual douchebags.
As to TWC getting dummer, this has always been said. Create a thread, then, that encourages insightful dialogue. I've created a few where there has been nothing but impressive dialogue and mutual, uninpinged dialgue, with very little ...uh...'douchebagginess'. Often, the original first post of a thread already creates the scene for chaos and stupidity, especially on a site who's members span the spectrum of race, religion and philosophy - TWC's greatest strength, are these same diverse members.
One final thing, speaking as the Captain, I find a douche every other month is refreshing and cleans out my colon, aye.

[Gaius Baltar]

I have added some edits that could make your proposal more presentable. For lack of better words.

To be added into the Constitution:

"Any citizen may start a thread in the Prothalamos calling for a member to be banned for chronic disruptive posting. The thread will be left open for three days while support for the decision is gathered. If a Quorum of statements are gathered supporting the decision at the end of this time period, the member will be put to a vote to last seven days, requiring a 67 per cent majority for banishment. Should the vote pass, the decision will then be presented to the administration and current moderating staff for review.

Overall, I dont think the CVRIA should get involved in banning people. Not long ago the CVRIA would vote during an Ostrakon, I wasnt around so Im not sure how that worked.

[Trax]

"Any citizen may start a thread in the Prothalamos calling for a member to be suspended for three months for chronic disruptive posting. The thread will be left open for three days while support for the decision is gathered. If a Quorum of statements are gathered supporting the decision at the end of this time period, the member will be put to a vote to last seven days, requiring a 67 per cent majority for banishment. Should the vote pass, the decision will then be presented to the administration and current moderating staff for review.

No ban, a ban is like capital punishment, but stupidity is a curable disease so a suspension will suffice.
This means, that when we have enough of someones mental vomiting we send him away to read a book or something.

[Shaun]

Utterly opposed. Things like bannings should always be left to moderation staff, not the CVRIA. I hope I do not need to explain why this is.

[Captain Arrrgh!]

After recently narrowly escaping with tousled hair and rent toga, the wrath of a fellow member, I agree wholeheartedly. Should be left to moderation.

[Medicus]

Utterly opposed. Things like bannings should always be left to moderation staff, not the CVRIA. I hope I do not need to explain why this is.

QFT.

This is ridiculous. The Curia, banning people? Leave it to the mods.

[Ragabash]

And we could aways let these suspended people come back with alternative accounts. Only smarter this time.

But to be honest, as much as I hate (well, don't hate but anyway) ignorance and "stupidity" it shouldn't be punishable.

[Last Roman]

I think my support goes without saying, but I'll say it anyways.

[Obi Wan Asterix]

I think this should expressly be reserved for whiners who say TWC is getting dumber....

[Halie Satanus]

I like this idea, can I suggest some additions,

Any citizen may start a thread in the Prothalamos calling for a member to be banned for stupidity, being Black, physically or mentally challenged, ginger, left handed, doesn't like Monday's, Jew's, Muslims, Psycho pharmacologist's, The Irish, Under 18's, non-drinkers, Aqua man, Dingo the Dingo dog, The Bonzo do da dog band, Homosexuals, Heterosexuals, Potato lovers, The lactose intolerant, the generally intolerant, the colour blind, the Shaolin Monks, Harry Monk, Monkey, The Happy Monday's, The Irish (again, but we must be sure) George Orwell, Oral Hygienists, Hyena's (laughing or not) Ben and Gerry, Vanilla Ice, Vanilla RTW, Goat's (especially the old one's) and last but not least, anyone who doesn't know "douche bag" is two words not one. If the thread starter, or any of its supporters, prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the member in question is an idiotic douchebag, Black, physically or mentally challenged, ginger, left handed, doesn't like Monday's, a Jew, a Muslim, a Psycho pharmacologist's, Irish, Under 18's, non-drinker, Aqua man, Dingo the Dingo dog, The Bonzo do da dog band, Homosexual, Heterosexual, Potato lover, lactose intolerant, generally intolerant, colour blind, a Shaolin Monks, Harry Monk, a monkey, a Happy Monday, Irish (again, but we must be sure) George Orwell, Oral Hygienists, a Hyena (laughing or not) Ben and Gerry, Vanilla Ice, Vanilla RTW, a Goat (especially an old one) and last but not least, anyone who doesn't know "douche bag" is two words not one. after three days discussion, the member will be put to a vote to last seven days, requiring a 67 per cent majority for banishment. Should the vote pass, the member will be banned immediately, have his/her user title changed to "Idiotic Douchebag".

If I missed any thing/one please feel free to add to the list, I think we have a Wiiiina here.



Oh oh I just thought of another...

[Lord Condormanius]

I cannot support this, even though I can understand the frustration involved with trying to debate with someone who uses the I am right because I am right argument or someone who needs something explained to him 17 times before coming back and asking for an 18th. I think there is too much potential for abuse. How do we define stupid?

Also, as Sim already mentioned, opening a poll in the Curia to determine whether or not a member is stupid is against the ToS on many levels.
These things usually take care of themselves. Stupid people usually slip up and will end up getting in trouble for something else anyway.