Forum Rule Changes including Introduction of Infraction System

[James]

Due to input from many members as well as the moderator team, we are announcing a change in moderating rules which will become effective shortly. This announcement is being posted here in order for members to give the moderator team their comments on the proposed system prior to its launch.

The forums will move to an infraction based system - our hope is that this system will be more transparent and fair, and will address any feelings of unfairness or uneven enforcement of rules. In addition to this, we are going to be more strict on rule violations such as name calling to make sure an appropriate tone and atomsphere is maintained on these forums. This includes one-line posts towards other members such as "You're a ****".

With that in mind, we have created the following set of infractions for each of the rule violations. If a member reaches 15 infraction points, they will be banned for a short period of time (for example, a week). If they reach 30, they will be banned for a moderate amount of time (e.g one month). If they accrue 45 points, it will be a long ban (three months or more). At every point a member knows how many points they have on their account, so a long or short ban does not seem like it is 'coming out of nowhere'. Most infractions will stay on a member's account for six weeks (42 days), though that is variable depending on the infraction. With that said, here is the list:

Name (infraction points, number of days the infraction stays on)
General warning (0,42)
Inappropriate language (3,42)
Not posting in English (3,42)
Frivolous reporting of posts (3,42)
Off-topic discussion in thread (3,42)
Repetitive posting (5,42)
Avoiding swear filter (5,42)
Inappropriate ***ual references (5,42)
Trolling or baiting (5,42)
Plagiarism, not referencing sources (8,42)
Discussion of piracy (8,42)
Slander (8,42)
Ignoring moderator instructions (8,42)
Lack of respect for, insulting, or harassment of other members (8,90)
Continual disobedience (20,90)
Requesting/posting illegal downloads (20,90)
Posting offensive material (40,90)
Serial offender (40,90)
Advertising (40,42)
General spam (40,42)
Multiple accounts (40,90)
Disparaging comments on race/***uality/personal circumstances (50,90)

This is of course subject to change, and as it is put into action, we will keep a close eye on it and adjust as needed. As always, we welcome appropriate feedback, which can be given here or by emailing moderators@cricketweb.net.

Specific posts for moderators attention should still be reported using the "!" icon on the bottom left of the post. Each post that is reported sends us an email, and leaves a thread in the moderator forum, so we do read and discuss all reported posts.

New Forum Rules

Post in English: - We welcome members worldwide, but in order to avoid confusion, we ask that you make all posts in English. Posts made in languages other than English will be removed.

Trolls are not welcome: - Controversial opinions are welcome, so long as you present them properly. Flame-baiting and trolling, thinly veiled or not, are easy to see and the moderation team will not give the benefit of the doubt. Please note that repetitive posting of otherwise acceptable opinions in a manner that derails unrelated conversations or to annoy other posters will be considered trolling. Frac: Minor to Serious

Respect your fellow members:- Remember you’re interacting with real people so keep your posts respectful of one another. Don’t insult others (that includes insults towards individuals & groups) and don’t bait others or post to provoke aggressive responses. Calling others idiots/retards/morons, making disparaging comments based on race, personal circumstances, or ***uality is never acceptable and will results in an infraction. Publicly accusing a member of trolling or of being a duplicate account of another member is also unacceptable. Resorting to personal attacks in the midst of a discussion is particularly looked down upon – as a rule of thumb we ask members to argue with the post, not the poster. Posts or threads attacking other posters will be deleted and result in an infraction. Frac: Warning to Serious

Retaliation: - If you feel that someone has posted in an offensive or disrespectful manner towards you, or that they are trolling, it is not acceptable to respond in a manner that also breaks forum rules. Use the report post function or email the moderation team – the moderation team will not accept “but he started it” or “but he called me a ….” as an excuse for disregard for the forum rules.

Report posts:- If you think a post (or series of posts) breaks the CW rules or interrupts the flow of a thread, please report it using the report posts function (small red triangle) in the bottom right hand corner of the post/s in question. However, please note that the moderation team may not always agree with your view on a reported post, and reserve the right not to take action regarding any reported post. If you would like clarification of a decision regarding a reported post, please contact the moderation team via email. Frivolous reporting of posts (especially old posts) will see you receive minor-mid range infraction points.

Keep it clean:- The forum is used by people of varying ages & cultures, be aware of this before posting. Posting racist, pornographic or excessively vulgar material will result in an instant 30 day ban or permanent for repeat offenders. Linking to potentially offensive material should only occur within a relevant and serious context of a discussion. Any linked material of an adult nature should come with a warning or disclaimer. Even if a disclaimer is given, the moderation team reserves the right to use their judgment to decide whether the link is appropriate. Fracs: Racist: Serious Adult/Porn: Instant 30 day ban, or permaban for repeated or particularly bad offences

Harassment is unacceptable:- Continually making negative personal comments regarding individual members, and conducting of 'feuds' across multiple threads are both unacceptable. Should the moderation team judge that you are harassing someone, you will be infracted or banned. Frac: Mid to Serious

Keep it legal:- Do not post illegal content or discuss illegal activities. This includes, but is not limited to links or discussion about illegal video streams, torrents, program hacks, drugs and other topics of that nature. Don't make up rumours about others, or post potentially slanderous statements you found on the web/heard from a friend of a friend etc. Be it against members of this forum, cricket players/officials/journalists/politicians etc. such comments have the potential to bring unwelcome attention to CricketWeb. You are responsible for what you post, and if necessary CricketWeb will take legal action against its members. Frac: Warning to Mid

No spamming:- Posts which offer nothing and bear no relevance to the discussion at hand are not allowed and will be deleted. This includes, but is not limited to, making the same post multiple times, the creation of threads that have no room for discussion, posts and threads intended simply to boost post-counts, and needlessly digging up old threads. The moderation team’s decision on what constitutes spam is final, and not up for discussion. Frac: Warning to Mid

Reference sourced material:- When posting articles/material from other websites you must give proper recognition to its owner, including a link. Claiming material written by others as your own is illegal and not permitted. Frac: Warning to Mid

Don’t avoid the swear filter: - Should you feel the need to swear, do not attempt to avoid the swear filter (eg. Sh*t is avoiding the filter). Continued avoidance will result in an infraction. Also note, the presence of the filter does not mean excessive swearing is acceptable, and it may also result in an infraction. Frac: Warning to Minor

Read before posting:- There’s always the chance that a current topic you’re interested in is already being discussed. Please ensure you check back over threads active in the past 7 days before creating a new thread. Persistent disregard of this rule by creating new threads to make posts that are either spam or which belong in an existing thread will be considered to be spamming and dealt with accordingly. Frac: Warning to Minor (Mid for persistent offences deemed as spam).

Stay on topic:- Keep your posts on the topic of the thread. If there is a new subject you want to cover either take it to the relevant thread, or create a new one. Idle back-and-forth chit chat is best left for chat rooms or instant messaging. Frac: Warning to Mid

No advertising:- Threads/posts advertising your website are not allowed and will be removed. Continued advertising will result in a permanent ban. If you wish to advertise on Cricket Web, email advertising@cricketweb.net Frac: Mid to Serious

Multiple accounts are not allowed - Each member creates their own unique username to suit their style, personality and this identifies them in the forum. Under no circumstances is a member allowed to have more than one account. Multiple accounts will be banned, and also result in an infraction on the users original account. Frac: Mid to Serious

Avatars & Signatures: - These are a luxury, do not abuse them. Keep offensive material out of them, and keep your signature short and in accordance with other forum rules. The forum’s staff reserve the right to remove or edit them as they see fit.

Testing forum: - If you want to practice or test whether a link, smiley, poll etc works, please use the Testing Forum, a sub-forum within Site Discussion area. Given the nature of this sub-forum, the rules regarding spam are relaxed there, however all other rules remain very much in force.

Help the Moderators Make the Forum a Pleasant Environment: - Please listen to directions provided by moderators within forum discussions – the aim of the team and these rules is to ensure a pleasant atmosphere for the many different users of the forum. There will likely be times when you disagree with a comment or decision from the moderation team, however responding in a dismissive or abusive manner will not assist matters and may result in an infraction.

If you wish to discuss a comment or decision, please contact a moderator via either the VM system on forum, or by emailing them - moderators@cricketweb.net.

Make your case clearly and calmly and it will be given a fair hearing – that said, the moderation team as the representatives of the site owner reserve the right to apply the forum rules as they deem appropriate. Moderation team decisions are not to be discussed in-thread, as they often are an unwelcome disruption and often only take a thread further off-topic.

The creation of multiple accounts to get around a ban WILL see an increase in the duration of your suspension.

The administrators and moderators reserve the right to remove or alter your posts and threads at any time for any reason. We also reserve the right to suspend, restrict or completely block your user account at any time for any reason. If you don't receive a reason or notification of an action please ask.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

If you're infracting people for each offence, then surely having a separate offence for "Serial Offender" isn't really required? Also, if you're after consistency of approach, then having an arbitrary line of "Serial Offender" seems somewhat contrary to that.

Also, as a question, will these rules apply equally to all forums? For avoidance of doubt, the level of 'banter' in the Testing / Off Topic forums seems a bit more robust than the "Cricket Chat" forum, for example.

 

[Cevno]

Wasn't there a Infractions system here already?

I remember a few people getting infracted during the sydneygate in 2008.

Even i got infracted by SS for avoiding the filter to describe Bucknor for 0 points.

 

[NZTailender]

You're a ****

 

[benchmark00]

Poor move.

James, with all due respect (which tbf is probably little), you don't actually read the forum regularly and you don't understand the tone of discussions and relationships with certain posters.

You can say that there has been input from other moderators, but I know for a fact you were pushing this crackdown more than any of them.

Because of your dearth of involvement in the forum, realistically for the good of the forum you shouldn't actually be a moderator. But I understand as owner you want to be.

Infract me, doesn't bother me. But it's true.

 

[Burgey]

You're a ****

Beaten.

 

[NZTailender]

Beaten.

FYI I'll be employing you as my lawyer as I will no doubt rack up some infractions and I'll need you to get me out of the ****.

Because you're a ****.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Nice one guys, and you think Cricsim's immature

Seriously though, I can understand that there's been issues with consistency before and Infractions of specific amounts for specific offenses is one way round that.

 

[Fusion]

Disclaimer: I speak only for myself in this post and not the moderator team as a whole.

I would sincerely hope that the members here do not see these rule changes as some sort of a "crackdown". From all the discussions that I've participated in with the mod team, I can simply offer my perspective that it is certainly not intended to be any such thing. We are not looking to ban people or take the fun out of friendly banter. All we hope to do is clearly define the forum rules and be consistent in our application of them. I think we all realize that the members here define what CW is, not the mod team or any one person. As such, it was very important to us to solicit feedback from the CW community on this new system. I assure you we intend to take into serious consideration any constructive feedback we receive.

I can already tell that one of the more controversial aspects will be the discouragement on name calling, even when it's intended as a joke. I realize that context is important and two people friendly with each other may not think it's a big deal to call each other ****. It leads to problems though. First, newcomers may not realize it's just friends teasing each other and start thinking it's acceptable to use that type of language when debating with others. Second, some members have specifically spoken out that they feel uncomfortable with seeing every other post end with ****, even when they realize it's being used in a joking matter. Therefore, I personally don't feel it's asking too much to cut down on these type of posts. I think members here are certainly humorous enough to accomplish friendly banter without the tired use of curse words.

I would humbly appeal to all to give this new system a chance. I don't think our moderation approach is changing at all, just the methodology is. If you feel after a while it's not working or needs tweaks to improve it, reach out to us. We're all ears.

 

[biased indian]

Disclaimer: I speak only for myself in this post and not the moderator team as a whole.

I would sincerely hope that the members here do not see these rule changes as some sort of a "crackdown". From all the discussions that I've participated in with the mod team, I can simply offer my perspective that it is certainly not intended to be any such thing. We are not looking to ban people or take the fun out of friendly banter. All we hope to do is clearly define the forum rules and be consistent in our application of them. I think we all realize that the members here define what CW is, not the mod team or any one person. As such, it was very important to us to solicit feedback from the CW community on this new system. I assure you we intend to take into serious consideration any constructive feedback we receive.

I can already tell that one of the more controversial aspects will be the discouragement on name calling, even when it's intended as a joke. I realize that context is important and two people friendly with each other may not think it's a big deal to call each other ****. It leads to problems though. First, newcomers may not realize it's just friends teasing each other and start thinking it's acceptable to use that type of language when debating with others. Second, some members have specifically spoken out that they feel uncomfortable with seeing every other post end with ****, even when they realize it's being used in a joking matter. Therefore, I personally don't feel it's asking too much to cut down on these type of posts. I think members here are certainly humorous enough to accomplish friendly banter without the tired use of curse words.

I would humbly appeal to all to give this new system a chance. I don't think our moderation approach is changing at all, just the methodology is. If you feel after a while it's not working or needs tweaks to improve it, reach out to us. We're all ears.

awta....

 

[biased indian]

Requesting/posting illegal downloads (20,90)

in lot of tour threads you will come across people... saying my streaming has just gone dead or i have better stream and then others requesting for the same like that... will the above come into action for such talks ?

 

[James]

If you're infracting people for each offence, then surely having a separate offence for "Serial Offender" isn't really required? Also, if you're after consistency of approach, then having an arbitrary line of "Serial Offender" seems somewhat contrary to that.

Also, as a question, will these rules apply equally to all forums? For avoidance of doubt, the level of 'banter' in the Testing / Off Topic forums seems a bit more robust than the "Cricket Chat" forum, for example.

That's exactly the kind of feedback we're looking for and is why we didn't suddenly implement the infraction system on the forum.

We'll discuss this and your other point around OT/Testing in the mod forum and will post back with some team thoughts.

Wasn't there a Infractions system here already?

I remember a few people getting infracted during the sydneygate in 2008.

Even i got infracted by SS for avoiding the filter to describe Bucknor for 0 points.

No there's never been an infraction system implemented before.

You can say that there has been input from other moderators, but I know for a fact you were pushing this crackdown more than any of them.

Because of your dearth of involvement in the forum, realistically for the good of the forum you shouldn't actually be a moderator. But I understand as owner you want to be.

Infract me, doesn't bother me. But it's true.

I'm not going to get into an argument you're obviously seeking but for the benefit of everyone reading this forum who think I'm solely behind this move to an infraction system. That simply isn't true and any of the moderators past and present will tell you this.

To give you all a bit of background, we started discussion on the implementation of an infraction system following an email from a former moderator in July 2010 and have continued discussion since. Every single moderator has had an input into this and not one has been against implementing this system.

Infractions will ultimately make it a lot easier for members and moderators in conducting and keeping the forum running smoothly. It isn't a crack down at all but what we believe is a better more consistent way of moderating the forum.

 

[Athlai]

Personally I'd be quite disappointed to see the banter begin to disappear in cricket chat. Some of my fondest memories of this forum are two members having a friendly crack at one another.

I understand the reasoning behind the system and that new members may not understand the relationships between established posters (and that the posts they read may be entirely in jest) but I think it's something the majority of posters get used to and even enjoy. I'd be even more adverse to a crackdown on banter in off topic.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Realistically, they can't get rid of banter. I guess they're just wanting to see an end to ones that are just direct abuse?

 

[four_or_six]

As Fusion said, my personal input here rather than speaking for the mod team.

With regards to it being a crackdown, it isn't intended to be. Having a system with points is about making it a lot easier to moderate. Instead of us having to update a thread in the moderator forum every time we give a warning to someone, and then ponder over it deciding if we need to give a ban, the infraction system is clearer as all the information is recorded in one place.

The system should also be clearer for posters. Personally, I think it should lead to fewer bannings - everyone can see exactly how many infraction points they have, and will get an email explaining what they are for when they are imposed. It is also possible for us to give an infraction 'warning' which is recorded the same way but does not impose points.

In terms of the gratuitous insults... I don't want it to be a crackdown on banter. However, I think there is an issue currently. For example, sometimes one person sees it as a joke and the other not. Also, more commonly, new posters come in and copy the insulting tone and this upsets everyone.

 

[benchmark00]

As Fusion said, my personal input here rather than speaking for the mod team.

With regards to it being a crackdown, it isn't intended to be. Having a system with points is about making it a lot easier to moderate. Instead of us having to update a thread in the moderator forum every time we give a warning to someone, and then ponder over it deciding if we need to give a ban, the infraction system is clearer as all the information is recorded in one place.

The system should also be clearer for posters. Personally, I think it should lead to fewer bannings - everyone can see exactly how many infraction points they have, and will get an email explaining what they are for when they are imposed. It is also possible for us to give an infraction 'warning' which is recorded the same way but does not impose points.

In terms of the gratuitous insults... I don't want it to be a crackdown on banter. However, I think there is an issue currently. For example, sometimes one person sees it as a joke and the other not. Also, more commonly, new posters come in and copy the insulting tone and this upsets everyone.

When has that ever happened though?

I've never, well very very rarely, seen someone call someone 'a ****' and been serious. They're far more likely to insult them by calling them a troll, a fanboy or Jono (if they're being especially derogatory...)

So by trying to get rid of people calling people a '****' you're simply cracking down on banter, not abuse.

I'm sure there are a small minority of precious posters who hate it. Far more have no problem with it then. Gotta start to think, what type of people do you want on the forum? Fun people or whingers?

 

[andyc]

When has that ever happened though?

I've never, well very very rarely, seen someone call someone 'a ****' and been serious. They're far more likely to insult them by calling them a troll, a fanboy or Jono (if they're being especially derogatory...

So by trying to get rid of people calling people a '****' you're simply cracking down on banter, not abuse.

I'm sure there are a small minority of precious posters who hate it. Far more have no problem with it then. Gotta start to think, what type of people do you want on the forum? Fun people or whingers?

It happens a fair bit, tbh. Even sometimes when all members directly involved are fine with it, a third party may not be.

Edit: Whoops, my response was to your post before you edited in the extra part. The bolded section

 

[Teja.]

Personally I'd be quite disappointed to see the banter begin to disappear in cricket chat. Some of my fondest memories of this forum are two members having a friendly crack at one another.

I understand the reasoning behind the system and that new members may not understand the relationships between established posters (and that the posts they read may be entirely in jest) but I think it's something the majority of posters get used to and even enjoy. I'd be even more adverse to a crackdown on banter in off topic.

Yeah, Strongly AWTA.

 

[Flem274*]

I can understand why this system is being brought in, but I do not think it will work for what it's intended to do.

The way I see it, posters aren't unhappy with the moderation happening, they're unhappy with its application. From what I've seen, there appears to be a feeling among some members that moderation is inconsistent.

An infraction system is not consistency, it is a tool that must be applied with consistency. Applying such a system is a step sideways rather than a step forward, and I can't see anything changing on the fronts the moderation team would like to see change.

I don't mind the system coming in, because it sets a framework that is a little less subjective, but the system is still applied by people, and they make mistakes. What is trolling or flame baiting to one person is a controversial opinion to another.

I don't think we need a new system, we just need good moderating.

Now, moving on to the discouragement of banter aspects. Bad move imo, very bad move, and I can't support it. Apart from alienating many posters who are set in their ways and will never change, you can't change CricketWeb culture now, it's too late (and it is a part of CW culture). Calling each other a **** in friendly banter, whether using the word or an abbreviation like WAC or GAGFC, is not going to go away easily and I think it would be a shame if it did. Apart from anything else, it's the only label Athlai deserves, the ****!

I can understand posters being uncomfortable with the use of swearwords in general conversation, and it merits a discussion. If concerned members made a thread in site discussion, it would be a very worthy thread and I would encourage everyone to read it and see the other side of the fence, so to speak.

On another forum I'm a member of (not cricsim), no word is censored. The rules there are very strict, but posters are trusted with how they use words and the context they use them in. Moderators are quick to jump on abuse and administer appropriate punishment, but friendly banter is recognized and on the whole left alone. There are very few problems there and I can't help but think it might have something to do with the level of trust the administrators put in the forums members.

 

[silentstriker]

Wasn't there a Infractions system here already?

I remember a few people getting infracted during the sydneygate in 2008.

Even i got infracted by SS for avoiding the filter to describe Bucknor for 0 points.

Yes, we can add infractions but it wasn't official - it was just a way to track what we did, and we didn't really use it all that much (that might have been one of the few times I've used it to be honest).