sadly enough, I bet the BBR has already thought of this. they just don't care
*sigh*
We need better PR (aka, I think Pierce needs to get a freer hand, but that's neither here nor there).
Yes we care.
Isn't it funny when you've suggested this idea multiple times, yet someone else suggests it every 2-3 weeks and people jump on the idea.
I didn't suggest the proposal here, I doubt pure awesome is being a biter here, and it's a pretty solid proposal, my point was "this train of thought isn't as new as you think".
We need to set a goal that we can get 60% of the community to agree to. I'd express a I don't care attitude if >39.99% disagree. Most from the fact disagreement is going to happen no matter what we do at this point.
Precisely, but there's two major issues:
1. Finding a line that 65% of the community will be willing to say "past this is banworthy".
2. Getting a ton of current pro-ban to agree to it, because a lot of them believe much lower standards are needed for ban and the metagame will die if he passes a level above their point, but that doesn't hit the line.
Getting pro-ban to agree to a line is just as frustrating as anti-ban.
This is partly why I think a temp ban is a bad idea. There are going to be major problems when the time limit runs out.
Oh limits up unban him,
we don't want to unban him,
wtf unban him,
no leave him banned,
flame flame,
rage rage,
We're better off going to a theoretical level and looking at tournament results, figure out a 60-65% agreeable line to be crossed and continue.
Nah, at a certain point we need a concrete experiment, and if the community can stand a ban in the first place, they can stand a prescribed end AS LONG AS IT'S VOTED UPON AND TOLD TO THE COMMUNITY WITH THAT IN MIND.
The real issue is, again, getting supporters of the temp ban to agree on paper.
Honestly, there's no way that a large enough amount of anti-ban will get on board to make it happen without a prescribed end-date, but a reasonable amount of pro-ban doesn't wanna hear it.
Hence the dilema.
It's unavoidable, I say just get a 60-65% agreement level and go from there.
Getting 60-65% of pro-ban alone to agree to the specifics of this so a proper vote can be had is hard enough....
As much as I don't like going off of theory, I really think it's our only choice when testing is kinda impossible without causing the example I made above.
Again, this is more an "agreeing to a proposal idea".
Think about it this way, moderates in pro and anti ban vote yes, hardcore in both vote no, no 50% let alone 2/3rds.
Enjoy!
My bad, I really need to stop trying to multitask so much.
Essay writting>read argument>write more essay>answer argument>essay writing again really destroys my reading abilities.
Still, your proposition is insane. Forcing people to accept a temp ban is O.o. It is contradictory in itself. You cannot claim to be open minded and force closed minded people to be open minded.
Eh, you're looking at the philosophical implications of it as opposed to the results that it's supposed to achieve.
But I don't think it's supposed to force people to be open-minded, rather it forces the existence of the data so everyone else can deal with it.
