Seraph84 permabanned from RSI forums - our response?

[Eris]

Through Fabian Winkler of the High Five Club I found out that Seraph84 (Seraph, Irate Pirate) has been permabanned from the RSI forums. Although I never encountered him very much, I'm not surprised by this because he always seemed hotheaded and he'd been temp banned a few times already. In response, Fabian decided to expel him from High Five as well on the grounds that anyone disruptive enough to get kicked from the forums is someone who does not meet the ethical standards of High Five.

Should We also kick Seraph?

I'm of a mind to say yes. The Enablers is supposed to stand for helping our fellow gamers to enjoy Star Citizen, and being disruptive does not demonstrate a commitment to that standard. However, we have no official policy on this, and indeed we have never adopted even so much as a formal mission statement for the Org, so I'm putting this to the Board. Here are the points I'm asking you to consider:

1 - Should Seraph84 be expelled?
2 - Should we adopt a formal rule that we expel people who get permabanned from the RSI forums?
3 - Should we adopt a formal statement of our mission and values to serve as a guide for the conduct expected of our members? Such a thing would not need to be a detailed list of rules, but rather something like a corporate mission statement.

I recommend "yes" to all three items.


If you are curious why Seraph got banned I can't say with certainty. I'm sure the mods won't confirm or deny anything, but I suspect that Seraph's final straw was this thread where he accused Ben Lesnick of intentionally lying to the community about the Gladius.

https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.c ... bt-that/p1

[Pathagarus]

Yeah, kick him. If he has been perma-banned by CIG and kicked by at least 1 other org. We don't known bad apples.

[Batgirl]

This seems cut and dry to me. If we want to uphold the standard then if someone is banned from the forums they should be immediately spend from the Organization and banned after a vote by the board.

[Captain Glume]

While I hate being mean I have seen his posts and he has quite the temper.

[Shank]

Yep,

I have come across him many times. He seemed to always be banned. He seemed to taunt the Mods to ban him at times

I have been on the receiving end of his rants a couple of times, one required mod intervention because of how he went off, and I was not the one who contacted them.

I am for having the ban on permabanned forum members, since they cause CIG enough issues that they have to be permabanned.


Do we want to put it before the members as a whole to vote on this time since we did not have a policy in place before, that way they do not feel we will arbitrarily start making up rules, even good ones?

Do we want to also start a thread for suggestions on what policies we should have as an Org. now that we have a good base of members?

[jaustin89]

I'd agree entirely with removing permabanned members; though as we didn't have the policy prior I think the vote may be a good idea in this case. Basically I think we should set the rule now and hold an open vote on whether to apply it in this case (probably with Seraph's name removed to avoid skewing the results in either direction).

[Reaper]

I would agree he does have to go how many times has he been warned by CIG already? and if someone can't stick to the rules i don't see a place for them here.

[Kagey]

Unfortunately, I could go both ways on this...

1) If he/she/it has not vented one's spleen in this Org, I see no reason to kick them.

2) I happen to subscribe to Wheaton's Law, and have little desire to cater to such individuals.

I agree with some of the others. General Vote, and set Policy.

[Eris]

Well, this appears to be a more contentious matter than I thought it would be and I don't really see any consensus on anything so far.

[Shank]

It appears that everyone is in agreement that there needs to be a rule about permabanned people. The question is that some believe we could have issues with members since it was not in place before this incident occurred, and believe we should put it before everyone this time since it happened before the rule was put into place.