Forum Rule Changes including Introduction of Infraction System

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Hate to agree with the zeitgeist, but this infraction system just isn't working. Even Cricsim has a system more consistant, fair and accurate use of infractions than this. If you're going down an infraction path you must have clear and concise frameworks for the moderator group to work within and for the forum populous to be informed of. This clearly isn't the case here and each "clarification" of the rules just makes it more confusing.

If this infraction system was being offered up on Dragon's Den then I'd be out.

 

[benchmark00]

It's been more inconsistent than it was before, no question.

Some of the moderators are ridiculous also, ftr.

 

[Jono]

Yeah, I also found it quite strange that the mod team found it within themselves to be able to decide what people should and shouldn't find offensive. As far as I'm concerned whether or not you find something offensive is down to you.
If somebody finds a post worthy of reporting that it deserves equal treatment and consideration as other more explicit posts (pending they're reported by the same number of people obviously).
At the end of the day it's at the discretion of the moderation team but if somebody finds something offensive there's no way on earth you can tell them to get over it one minute and then make a huge deal out of something equally trivial the next.

Especially since I find Prince EWS' avatar offensive and nothing has been done about it

 

[Fusion]

I'd like some clarification.

I think we all now know that the forum has decided to define buffoon as an insult even though the english language doesn't. Fine.

Why then when a member expressed offence at certain posts during the Eng-Ind game was he told that different people find different things offensive and basically to suck it up.

Surely this is a huge inconsistency? Help?

Sorry, but infracting people for use of the word "buffoon" and justifying it with "you might not think it's offensive, but other people do" then responding to complaints about trolling with "just because you found it offensive doesn't make it so" is complete bull****.

Since this is about my conversation with GF, let me provide an explanation. First, let's take a look at the posts in question:

Go and check the reported post subforum then.

And as you know, all reported posts are looked at and discussed. Just because you think something is offensive, doesn't automatically make it so. Anyway, let's not derail this thread further. You can email us to discuss it further if you wish.

So what I'm saying here is that you can, and should, report posts that you find offensive in any way. All reported posts are looked at and discussed by the mod team. We then use our judgement to decide whether the post deserves a warning, infraction, or no action. Surely that's common sense logic on how best to proceed? In the case of my specific conversation with GF, he thought a mod was trolling in the India/England series. That post was looked at by the mod team and we decided that it was not a case of trolling. You are free to disagree with that interpretation, but that was our decision. Are you seriously suggesting that ANY post that you report should automatically result in a warning/infraction? So lets say for giggles that Sir Alex reported posts about you two. Should we automatically infract you?

You are suggesting that there is an inconsistency because we took action against the buffoon post (because it was found offensive in some way), but did not take action against a post YOU found offensive. There is no inconsistency. We never said that each and every reported post would automatically result in an infraction. We decide action on each post on its own merit. In the case of GF's reported post, it was decided that the mod was not trolling (I personally was astonished that someone even thought that, but again, you are free to disagree).

Now this last part I'm going to say as just a member of the site, and not as a mod. GIMH - you had a strong disagreement about the warning/infraction regarding the "buffoon" posts and you perceived that England was being trolled in the WC forum and we didn't take strong enough action against the guilty parties. I disagree with you on both counts, but so be it. Disagreements happen, even strong ones. What I found specially disappointing and downright insulting was allegations of bias and implications that we were letting "racist" behavior slide. Wow. You've been a long-time member of this site and from what I can tell are friendly with many of the mods (certainly I consider us friendly). For you to imply that the mod team is biased and willing to tolerate racist behavior shocked me. I thought you knew us better than that.

Whether anyone believes it or not, in my time as a mod, I have not observed the mod team to have a bias against or for a group or team. The mod team does not play favorites and tries its best not to take the fun away from posting at CW. I don't know of a single mod that's trying to ruin the fun of anyone playing within the rules, and conversely let trolls get away with trolling. I hope everyone on the site can move on from this bad blood and we are able to enjoy the site and interact with each other positively.

 

[silentstriker]

Mine wasn't.

You weren't infracted because you insulted a player. You know that.

 

[Jono]

Sledger, you've probably got a case on various issues, but you often come to CC specifically to make fun of Indian posters and you know it. You really gotta stop this innocent act.

I don't know nor care about the buffoon issue. It sounds stupid but seemed to give you blokes enough material to go around for ages anyway. However this recent surge of describing "anything Indian related causes issues" is ridiculous.

 

[andyc]

Sorry, but infracting people for use of the word "buffoon" and justifying it with "you might not think it's offensive, but other people do" then responding to complaints about trolling with "just because you found it offensive doesn't make it so" is complete bull****.

No one has been infracted for using the word 'buffoon,' though. They're being infracted for directly insulting members, or for trying to get a rise out of other members.

Burgey's original post directly insulted another member. If someone is in the middle of a heated debate with someone and straight up calls them something insulting, whether it be 'buffoon,' 'idiot,' or '****ing ****,' it's inappropriate and will result in an infraction or a warning.

As for sledger's one, have a look at the post. You've been a mod; can you honestly say that that post wasn't trying to get a rise out of hang on?

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

This whole "getting a rise..." out of someone bull**** is so incredibly subjective. As I asked back here http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/2485921-post223.html and never, incidentally got an answer for.

I remember having a bit of a row with Thierry Henry once. He called me something, I called him something and it all got a bit heated for a bit. But, importantly for this, we sorted it out. Would we both get infracted nowadays? Look, James asked for feedback, and I asked a question which to me seems to hit at the problem that you're discussing with GIMP (oooh, does that get a rise out of him) & Sledgie, but James didn't elaborate on his previous announcement. To me, this doesn't seem like a reasonable approach.

 

[Fusion]

This whole "getting a rise..." out of someone bull**** is so incredibly subjective. As I asked back here http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/2485921-post223.html and never, incidentally got an answer for.

I remember having a bit of a row with Thierry Henry once. He called me something, I called him something and it all got a bit heated for a bit. But, importantly for this, we sorted it out. Would we both get infracted nowadays? Look, James asked for feedback, and I asked a question which to me seems to hit at the problem that you're discussing with GIMP (oooh, does that get a rise out of him) & Sledgie, but James didn't elaborate on his previous announcement. To me, this doesn't seem like a reasonable approach.

The answer is that of course context matters and any process judged by humans is subjective. As SS once stated, otherwise we could just program the system (or robots!) to automatically infract based on key words. That wouldn't make sense. We do have a mod team that is well represented of forum demographics in terms of age/location/ethnicity etc. I would say that provides some balance and fairness to the "subjective" decisions we make about reported posts.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

But that subjectivity causes problems. I'd generally like to think I'm thick skinned enough to take a few barbs here and there, and am less inclined to report certain issues than others. Does that mean that the person who does report an issue should lead to an infraction for another party more so than if that insult was thrown at a member with thicker skin?

 

[andyc]

This whole "getting a rise..." out of someone bull**** is so incredibly subjective. As I asked back here http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/2485921-post223.html and never, incidentally got an answer for.

I remember having a bit of a row with Thierry Henry once. He called me something, I called him something and it all got a bit heated for a bit. But, importantly for this, we sorted it out. Would we both get infracted nowadays? Look, James asked for feedback, and I asked a question which to me seems to hit at the problem that you're discussing with GIMP (oooh, does that get a rise out of him) & Sledgie, but James didn't elaborate on his previous announcement. To me, this doesn't seem like a reasonable approach.

Context plays a large role, as does the history between the two posters. If it's two people that have never got along that are throwing insults around, we're going to intervene. You saying that Wiseman > Heal to Nnanden isn't really the same.

As for your example with TH, self-regulation like that would be ideal, but in all honesty it doesn't tend to happen that much. If we came in halfway through your discussion and saw the insults flying in earnest, we'd probably say something because generally the argument will go unresolved and spill into other threads. It doesn't always do it, and sometimes like you said, everyone will sort it out themselves but more often than not they don't seem to. The easy solution here is obviously to just not insult other posters. But a man can dream.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

You saying that Wiseman > Heal to Nnanden isn't really the same.

Well, quite. But sometimes I think we've seen that these little jabs can spill into a larger problem in the long term - some of the crap in the Ashes threads between long term members who generally get on, the Pratters debacle etc. So, where do you draw the line when this happens?

I've said this before that I don't envy you guys, but I do think things were working better before the infraction system was rolled out (at this stage, anyway)

 

[benchmark00]

There's no point suggesting improvements to the system itbt. Moderators are convinced its going along swimmingly.

The problem is that the mods are the one who are too precious, not the posters.

For some reason the mods get offended at a little barb and not the actual poster who it's aimed at.

 

[andyc]

But that subjectivity causes problems. I'd generally like to think I'm thick skinned enough to take a few barbs here and there, and am less inclined to report certain issues than others. Does that mean that the person who does report an issue should lead to an infraction for another party more so than if that insult was thrown at a member with thicker skin?

It definitely does cause problems, but that's why if it's not an obvious issue, we discuss it as a group. We're never going to be able to moderate the forum perfectly and keep everybody happy (as we've seen recently), but we feel that this system should help us get a bit closer once we get used to it all.

A post doesn't have to be reported for us to act on it either, and we won't act on every post that is reported, but in all honesty, if you're not reporting posts then yeah, there's a chance an insult directed at you won't be acted on as opposed to an insulted directed towards someone else. It's not always the parties directly involved reporting posts though, you'd be surprised how often someone else will report a post.

 

[Burgey]

No one has been infracted for using the word 'buffoon,' though. They're being infracted for directly insulting members, or for trying to get a rise out of other members.

Burgey's original post directly insulted another member. If someone is in the middle of a heated debate with someone and straight up calls them something insulting, whether it be 'buffoon,' 'idiot,' or '****ing ****,' it's inappropriate and will result in an infraction or a warning.

As for sledger's one, have a look at the post. You've been a mod; can you honestly say that that post wasn't trying to get a rise out of hang on?

You blokes must be awake 27 hours a day, if you're going to have time to deal with every post that deals with someone like that.

If you're going to infract people for calling someone that, it's absurd frankly. Utterly absurd.

As for "getting a rise out of someone", I take it then the other protagonist in the discussion for which I was infracted was dealt with for repeatedly posting "See, Bradman is god" and other rubbish. What else could it have been other than to get a rise from people? It certainly wasn't to put something positive at all towards the discussion.

 

[Jono]

So tempted to make rise out of someone ***ual connotation joke right now.

 

[benchmark00]

So tempted to make rise out of someone ***ual connotation joke right now.

Am proud to admit that one of my infractions/warnings was for 'Inappropriate ***ual references'.

 

[andyc]

You blokes must be awake 27 hours a day, if you're going to have time to deal with every post that deals with somone like that.

If you're going to infract people for calling someone that, it's absurd frankly. Utterly absurd.

As for "getting a rise out of someone", I take it then the other protagonist in the discussion for which I was infracted was dealt with for repeatedly posting "See, Bradman is god" and other rubbish. What else could it have been other than to get a rise from people? It certainly wasn't to put something positive at all towards the discussion.

But we're not infracting people just for calling someone that. We're infracting people for directly insulting another member. When you began your post to Migara saying 'You're a buffoon,' was it meant as a compliment?

For your other question I'm not 100% because I haven't really been around all that much with uni and the like, but I'm not saying we're doing a perfect job and we may well have missed something that could have been infraction/warning worthy. That's what the report post function is there for though.

 

[benchmark00]

But we're not infracting people just for calling someone that. We're infracting people for directly insulting another member. When you began your post to Migara saying 'You're a buffoon,' was it meant as a compliment?

For your other question I'm not 100% because I haven't really been around all that much with uni and the like, but I'm not saying we're doing a perfect job and we may well have missed something that could have been infraction/warning worthy. That's what the report post function is there for though.

That's what youre not understanding though. People are getting infracted when noone has reported a post. That's horse ****.

People should get infracted when someone in the forum has a beef with the post. That's not to say all reported posts should be infracted, but if no poster has a problem with a post, there's no reason why a mod should.

 

[Adamc]

Context plays a large role, as does the history between the two posters. If it's two people that have never got along that are throwing insults around, we're going to intervene.

I was under the impression that the history between the posters was irrelevant under the new rules, i.e. all 'you're a ****' posts are supposed to attract censure regardless of a lack of malicious intent. Obviously it hasn't panned out this way, but again, some clarity would be useful.