Forum Rule Changes including Introduction of Infraction System

[sledger]

Again, with due respect... and again, little... I know more than you think I know. You think just because you post in the moderator forum I don't know what is said? Quite naiive tstl.

I don't care if it's James or anyone else... was only saying the other day that the forum's moderation has been the best it's been since I've been a member at CW, and that's because the moderators are actually active and have some idea about the feel of the place.

James, who isn't active, will not be able to get a good feel of the place. That's not a slight on the person, it's just a fact. It was the same as looney bob when he was moderator.

James wanted to ban me the other day, that's common knowledge, so it's obvious he has been a large driver of getting rid of the '****' banter.

By saying that the forum has degenerated are you saying that you and your fellow moderators have failed? Ofcourse you're saying that, and personally I think you're wrong because it's been better moderation than ever before.

Also, a massive lol at the family forum rubbish. If it's a family forum, why do moderators always tell people to 'grow up'? Most ridiculous piece of terminology on le internet.

Summing up, I will not be changing my posting style. If you infract me until I'm banned, so be it.

I'm not really sure where I stand on this entire issue to be honest, but in truth I don't really disagree with a lot of what Murphy has said here. That's not to say I wish to drag James into this, I don't, but he's right that it's not desirable to have modding done by someone who doesn't really appreciate the atmosphere of the boards (whether that is the case with James or not I do not really care to discuss). Imo the modding is at the moment the best it has been in probably 3-4 years (or whenever it was that PY and that lot were on the books). Generally the level of tolerance is as it should be at the moment, we don't have the likes of that Mancunian **** (who shall not be named) or Proxcambrian running around spouting their inane drivel everywhere and clogging the site, neither do we have Herr Towns running around handing out warnings/bans for people saying things like "poo". The infraction system may not neccessarily end this spell of good modding, but to me it seems a case of "if it's not broke, don't fix it". I'm generally not in favour of these points based sorts of systems in any aspect of life, as it reduces an incident of any sort to a statistic, an approach which I'm sure many would agree with me in saying is not altogether desirable. It may solve the problem of out of the blue bans, but, provided moderators keep people up to date with warnings etc...(as has been the case recently I have noticed) there's no reason why this cannot be done under the current system.

Also, what is meant by "slander" in the rules? Surely nobody has ever slandered anyone on here, unless we are applying something other than the legal definition of the term.

 

[Burgey]

I'm not really sure where I stand on this entire issue to be honest, but in truth I don't really disagree with a lot of what Murphy has said here. That's not to say I wish to drag James into this, I don't, but he's right that it's not desirable to have modding done by someone who doesn't really appreciate the atmosphere of the boards (whether that is the case with James or not I do not really care to discuss). Imo the modding is at the moment the best it has been in probably 3-4 years (or whenever it was that PY and that lot were on the books). Generally the level of tolerance is as it should be at the moment, we don't have the likes of that Mancunian **** (who shall not be named) or Proxcambrian running around spouting their inane drivel everywhere and clogging the site, neither do we have Herr Towns running around handing out warnings/bans for people saying things like "poo". The infraction system may not neccessarily end this spell of good modding, but to me it seems a case of "if it's not broke, don't fix it". I'm generally not in favour of these points based sorts of systems in any aspect of life, as it reduces an incident of any sort to a statistic, an approach which I'm sure many would agree with me in saying is not altogether desirable. It may solve the problem of out of the blue bans, but, provided moderators keep people up to date with warnings etc...(as has been the case recently I have noticed) there's no reason why this cannot be done under the current system.

Also, what is meant by "slander" in the rules? Surely nobody has ever slandered anyone on here, unless we are applying something other than the legal definition of the term.

TBF, stats aren't the full story. They're the only story.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Also, what is meant by "slander" in the rules? Surely nobody has ever slandered anyone on here, unless we are applying something other than the legal definition of the term.

My interpretation of it was more in terms of spreading rumours/innuendo that defame more public figures.

 

[Burgey]

Are there double demerits on public holidays?

Or when Australia plays India?

 

[Hurricane]

I am still relatively new on this site but I appreciate the culture of the web site and the efforts that go into moderation to maintain the atmosphere.

Thank you

(Except for the banning of Bruce Campbell - when is he coming back?)

 

[Lillian Thomson]

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.

A good moderator doesn't need a points totting up system, they just need common sense. A good moderator only moderates when they have to and a bad moderator looks for things to moderate. One usually has common sense, the other is usually on an ego trip. A points system doesn't help the good moderator and makes the bad moderator worse. This is why for example Prince and Vic are good moderators and Furball and Fusion were/are poor.

 

[GIMH]

What's Fusion done wrong?

 

[four_or_six]

A good moderator doesn't need a points totting up system, they just need common sense. A good moderator only moderates when they have to and a bad moderator looks for things to moderate. One usually has common sense, the other is usually on an ego trip. A points system doesn't help the good moderator and makes the bad moderator worse. This is why for example Prince and Vic are good moderators and Furball and Fusion were/are poor.

I think your points would be more appropriate if there was a single moderator, working full time, and awake 24 hours a day. As there are a number of moderators, a points system should enable more consistency between us. It should also mean that moderators have more time to browse the forum, instead of trawling through threads on the moderator forum working out if/when/why someone has been warned or banned previously.

 

[James]

This is why for example Prince and Vic are good moderators and Furball and Fusion were/are poor.

Hardily very appropriate to single out Fusion and Furball for that matter. If you've got a problem with a moderator in particular take it to email rather than bad mouthing them like this.

As four_or_six mentioned, remember all the moderators are volunteers and give up their valuable time for the benefit of the community. Often with no thanks at all.

 

[four_or_six]

Guys, can this not be a discussion of 'this mod is good' and 'this mod is bad' please. The thread is for constructive feedback on the infraction system and forum rules, which we really would like.

If you have a problem with a decision that a moderator has made, report the post or email moderators@cricketweb.net, and it will be discussed.

 

[Craig]

Count me in as a yes for the new system. I know I'm not a mod, never been one, and I'm pretty sure I don't wish to be one, but if I were, I can see why the individual Test threads, or the threads that have a lot of discussion in them, can be a right pain in the backside to keep in check with things, especially if people are being naughty.

 

[Burgey]

Craigos. Such a suck hole.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Hardily very appropriate to single out Fusion and Furball for that matter. If you've got a problem with a moderator in particular take it to email rather than bad mouthing them like this.

As four_or_six mentioned, remember all the moderators are volunteers and give up their valuable time for the benefit of the community. Often with no thanks at all.

Okay, ignoring individuals and speaking generally, a bad moderator doesn't benefit the community or deserve any thanks whether they're giving up their valuable free time or not.

Anyway I think the infraction system is a bad one for the reason I've stated - and that's my last word on the subject except to say that if it's implimented you'll all hate it and it won't last a year.

 

[Adamc]

I give up my valuable time to post here, tbf. Often with no thanks at all.

 

[sledger]

How many times could I call LT a **** under the new system before I get banned?

 

[GIMH]

See, this is what I meant when I said:

(this is sledger we're talking about though, so you can't be sure)

 

[BoyBrumby]

Meh. If it increases transparency then I guess it wouldn't be without merit. Although, as only the mods and the perp will know I'm not sure it will.

Has anyone copped any infraction penalty points thus far?

 

[Furball]

A good moderator doesn't need a points totting up system, they just need common sense. A good moderator only moderates when they have to and a bad moderator looks for things to moderate. One usually has common sense, the other is usually on an ego trip. A points system doesn't help the good moderator and makes the bad moderator worse. This is why for example Prince and Vic are good moderators and Furball and Fusion were/are poor.

broken record.jpg

Really at a loss as to how any of the current crop deserve criticism.

Also, when did Clapo give up being a mod?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

broken record.jpg

Really at a loss as to how any of the current crop deserve criticism.

Must be a flimsy record then, I've very very very rarely said anything about moderators and then only when asked - as in this thread.

How many times could I call LT a **** under the new system before I get banned?

It looks like an 8 pointer which expires after 90 days. So as long as your other myriad of offences doesn't take you beyond the 15 point mark I reckon you're good for one about every 91 days.

 

[sledger]

Must be a flimsy record then, I've very very very rarely said anything about moderators and then only when asked - as in this thread.



It looks like an 8 pointer which expires after 90 days. So as long as your other myriad of offences doesn't take you beyond the 15 point mark I reckon you're good for one about every 91 days.

Hmmmm, I may save it for a more opportune moment. But it's nice to know that this proposed system would allow for me to be intentionally abusive towards someone and not end up sitting on a ban.