Forum Rule Changes including Introduction of Infraction System

[andyc]

Can't believe this conversation is still going.

For one, spammers need to be banned permanently. And some other posters have made it perfectly clear that the only purpose they're here for is to troll. If we think that a poster can come back and contribute eventually, they won't cop a perma, but sometimes it's the only way to go. Plus, as with Benchy and Burkey, if someone who has been perma'ed emails us after a couple of years and sounds genuinely keen to come back and toe the line, it'll be considered.

 

[morgieb]

Here's a circumstance worth considering. Say one member had been around for a while or was pretty new but hadn't posted much. They make a really bad post but haven't really got a track record and aren't considered spammers. But they get permabanned without getting a 2nd chance.

That person did get a 2nd chance, but what happens if they didn't? That's an interesting question worth considering. Permabans should only happen if it's clear they aren't gonna learn from their mistakes or if they are spammers or multis that are used to get around bans.

 

[four_or_six]

Here's a circumstance worth considering. Say one member had been around for a while or was pretty new but hadn't posted much. They make a really bad post but haven't really got a track record and aren't considered spammers. But they get permabanned without getting a 2nd chance.

That person did get a 2nd chance, but what happens if they didn't? That's an interesting question worth considering. Permabans should only happen if it's clear they aren't gonna learn from their mistakes or if they are spammers or multis that are used to get around bans.

I think this last sentence pretty much sums up when permabans are used - and that's very rarely.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I don't like the idea of perma bans.

 

[duffer]

Easy way not to make a typo is not to type the word. If I see it, it'd be a warning/infraction for avoiding the filter.

Tad police state.

 

[Furball]

Quiet you sack of rubbish

Sig'd.

edit: I'm tired and cranky.

 

[Furball]

Infraction system. Absolute rubbish. All the worst forums have this. Some of the more recent moderators are very poor and this will make them worse and even more haughty. Such a complex system is unnecessary and way too complicated for some of those entrusted with enforcing it.

This forum has it as well, it's just not been codified or formalised.

You feeling ok? This post is completely out of character.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Easy way not to make a typo is not to type the word. If I see it, it'd be a warning/infraction for avoiding the filter.

How would one know that said word is included in the filter?

 

[vcs]

How would one know that said word is included in the filter?

I'll see you next time when you've learnt to respect the rules.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

With all due respect, why do you bother posting on here?

Well let's see, James said in his opening post "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." As a "member" I gave my "comments on the proposed system prior to it's launch." Sorry if you found this confusing.

Generally I doubt I've made a dozen posts in the past year outside of the Division Three Comp thread for the reasons cited.

 

[andyc]

Would be keen to hear what you've got against the infraction system, LT. This is the only forum I've ever really been involved in so haven't really seen it in use.

 

[Shri]

Would be keen to hear what you've got against the infraction system, LT. This is the only forum I've ever really been involved in so haven't really seen it in use.

Should join cricsim and see it in action tbh. psst, sign for asia.

 

[andyc]

Get fed up reading all your posts here, tbh. Don't think I could handle a double dose.

 

[GIMH]

Will the Ban Announcements thread continue when these come into effect?

 

[Shri]

Get fed up reading all your posts here, tbh. Don't think I could handle a double dose.

Meh, your loss.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I'll see you next time when you've learnt to respect the rules.

 

[Turbinator]

Lol, the revolt against James in this thread sure has quite the resemblance to the current situation in Tunisia.

Reckon' the outcome will be similar.

 

[cpr]

Here's a circumstance worth considering. Say one member had been around for a while or was pretty new but hadn't posted much. They make a really bad post but haven't really got a track record and aren't considered spammers. But they get permabanned without getting a 2nd chance.

So this person doesn't post much, doesn't offend anyone and is usually quite bland/inoffensive.... Then to get said permaban then the must've broke every rule going twice in one post, to get a perm of one solitary post would require a post far beyond anything Sledger could ever have dreamed of, and if they can put something that bad in one go, they must be a pillock for not realising its potential to upset massively

(considering how many comments are allowed to slide on here, cannot imagine the level of offence needed)

 

[cpr]

Personally I reckon trail it for a month/6 weeks alongside the current system. Don't issue bans/warnings on the new points, still use the current rules, but tot up everyones points at the end of the trail and compare the two systems. Would be intrigued by the results personally, think some big names (and me) might see a fair few points for having potty mouths.....

 

[sledger]

In my experience, most banter isn't like that anyway, so this is much ado about nothing personally.

You could write down the extent of your life experiences on a bull's penis though.

****.