I think a better argument is correlation does not imply causation. Sure, you've been successful with the current policy. But perhaps you'd be doing even better with a different policy. If Microsoft regular burns money in an incinerator, it still doesn't make it a good business strategy even if they'd done it from the start - look where they ended up!

Unless users take action on the banner views then there are no advertisers. Ultimately advertisers pay for quality, not quantity. In fact advertisers complain when quantity is wasted, case in point the old Brandie threads were not popular in the eyes of some advertisers.

actually posters on 2+2 compromise only 1/16th of the traffic, the vast majority of visitors to Two Plus Two do not post. Last I checked 2+2 is the 14th largest forum in the world on any topic and the only poker forum in the top 200 (http://www.big-boards.com/), the traffic here is astoundingly huge. Losing one poster who was problematic and disruptive to the rest of the community is rarely an issue in the big picture, there are over 100 new users signing up daily and traffic continues to grow across the board every month; although there is no emperical evidence its assumed that the majority of users who are banned return with a new screen name (often avoiding the problems that they previously created). The results speak for themselves IMHO...

posters provide content on 2+2, and there is no denying that content is very valuable, but the loss of one user will not be felt when calculating page views. There were 2.78 million visits to Two Plus Two last month with over 30 million page views... and 20% of the traffic was from new IPs thats a lot of traffic!

redundant...plz delete

TT,

You have the same argument as Mason. Our traffic is huge! We can't be doing anything wrong!

We are discussing a leak here, not an overall failed approach. Leaks are sometimes hard to spot by looking at your results, especially with excellent game conditions.

Oh snap I've totally got a poker zinger here!

Banning poster too often is like accidentally folding a royal flush.



Seriously though, you're coming across pretty dumb here.

Jebus Christ, if we say you're right will you shut the **** up?

obviously he`s gonna have a hard time winning this argument, no mod is gonna say they ban 'too many people'

but i've seen a fair bit of frivolous banning and mods using and overusing the infraction point system... one only has to look in any month old thread to find at least someone who has been banned, often with hundreds or thousands of posts..

Roflmao, Gotta love it. POTD!!!

Lets try this his way

If banning one person who is disturbing a forum helps retain 10 , is that not more profitable?

k

amirite??

The OOT of two years certainly was ban happy. Anyone around would probably remember the ban waves propogated by the OOT split and Dynasty thing. Right now it's a bit harder to get in trouble. I remember getting double **'d in OOT for a bunch of nothing, but that was the atmosphere at the time.

Cam

without going into the database lets say there were 60 perm bans over the past year of users who were problematic (not new users who were actually spammers, etc). 2+2 has registered 149,606 forum members (up from 104,000 at the start of the year if my memory is correct- a 44% increase!) . Thats .04% of the user base which was banned in the past year. Thats kind of insignificant IMO. Nobody is denying that occasionally a user gets banned, there is a debate and the ban is lifted; a perma-ban is 2+2's way of inflicting the ultimate punishment, the removal of a users identity but you would be surprised to learn that usually the identity is actually returned to the user.

PS: much of the banning you were commenting about no longer occurs, such as the ones coming from OOT.

i would bet u a bunch that there have been alot more than 60 permbans in 1 year

and yet they still think we are ban happy.

I mean bottom line is it really that hard to not be a total douche in the select sub-forum that are a bit more harsh to its users?

TT even the "tyranical" OOT bans of yesteryear would still get banned today. You still can't come there and start wagging your dick around and expect for us not to do something. Even if you have 10k posts you don't get carte blanche. The fact is people know this and thus respect the ground rules.

The regular users of OOT are a bit more behaved but I still axe a problem or future problem pretty quickly


I also think the "ban happyness" exists mainly in the Community forums, strat forums rarely perm anyone.

With that in mind the community forums are run a specific way for a specific reason, that being the regular users of that forum like it that way.

fine 600

7123917923


50

5

20


the number it self was irrelevant to his point

it certainly makes him look better to say there have only been 60 bans in a year when the real number should be much higher.. and also looking at bans by mod would be real interesting..

This still misses the point that you're looking at numbers when it's not about that. You should care about people you believe provide quality posts being banned, not looking at the number and thinking, "Well that seems too high or too low." I don't even see how that goes anywhere productive for either side. Nobody is just a number.

There are people and situations involved here. Look at it that way instead.

sorry Killa, I wasn't intentionally singling out OOT, I was commenting on a previous statement.

ban count - if we are talking about actual users whose accounts are not temp banned, were active contributors to the forum, and who were banned not for dumb things like spam the total is probably much closer to 60 or lower than you suspect AlanDyer. of course if we are talking about total bans across the board then I agree with you, but thats not the issue at hand. In general moderators are very hesitant to ban anyone with a history of contributions, we regularly debate banning users who appear to be trollish yet have redeeming value and more often then not the user stays because redmeeming value to the community is priceless.

who watches the watchers!

The watchers dumbass.

I know but we (oot) are a fine example , I don't mind. OOT past, present and future will always be the ban king. If people wish to argue the point of banning or not banning they need not look any further

kinda ot but what did yvesaint do to get banned?

This is a very misleading statistic. What % of those have greater than 10 posts? What % have greater than 1,000? I don't know the answer but I know it can be summed up as 'not that many'

The % of those users being banned is what you should be looking at, not % of total users.