A Passerby Can't Even SEE What's Going On?

[Duff]

Most rafians like the added security, especially on the chat because now trollers and anonymous lurkers are at 0

There has never been a banning where the person didnt deserve it and wasnt asking for it, people arent disciplined for minor rule breaking they are disciplined for blatant disrespect

I agree though the forum should at least have limited viewing for non-forum members, i lurked for about a month before i finally decided to join, but if the guest thing is easy then thats fine

[Benioff]

Most rafians like the added security, especially on the chat because now trollers and anonymous lurkers are at 0

Anonymous lurkers??? Who cares if they're not members as long as they don't bother anyone?

There has never been a banning where the person didnt deserve it and wasnt asking for it, people arent disciplined for minor rule breaking they are disciplined for blatant disrespect

I don't know that whole story about what's gone on here or the seriousness of whatever some simple guy from the internet devoted to a semi-popular book series from years ago but banning a person from a website AND their IP address FOREVER just strikes me as really extreme.

Are they at least warned? Are they told first that they'll be banned so they won't come stumbling here only to be left completely dumbfounded?  If no to both questions, that's extremely disrespectful to the members here.

Who decides this? Just the moderators? There's not a vote among all the members here? A trial for the offender? Any other way isn't exactly very democratic, now is it?

That's just my opinion and not a knock on anyone. Thanks for informing me and it seems like this viewing problem for non-members has been solved. This is my last post on the matter here.

[esplin]

This isnt a democracy (among the staff it is, but members aren't included).  Yes warnings are issued.

[adamjared]

This isnt a democracy (among the staff it is, but members aren't included).  Yes warnings are issued.

what is that supposed to mean? you're saying that a democracy exists on this forum that doesn't include the people themselves? ok...

[wildweathel]

Well, I think Russ meant oligarchy.  Whatever.  I'm happy with it.  It may be a despotism, but it's a good despotism. 

[Richard]

I'm here trying to picture everytime a member offends another, or breaches the guidelines there is a vote by the members. lol

[esplin]

What weathel said,  The staff cooperates and we have casual votes but we cant include everyone.  Its a forum not your government 

[goom]

What weathel said,  The staff cooperates and we have casual votes but we cant include everyone.  Its a forum not your government 

exactly.

and i'll repeat again, none of the people IP banned deserve to ever come back on the forum.
disobeying rules or insulting another member might get you suspended, but those people stepped way out of line.
i'd consider RAF very lenient, on that part, actually. before i was a mod, every year all the bans were repealed and the members could come back.
it's changed since then, but still..

[adamjared]

I'm here trying to picture everytime a member offends another, or breaches the guidelines there is a vote by the members. lol

Oh ok, i didn't realize the original comment was about banning members, My bad!!