Forum Rule Changes including Introduction of Infraction System

[GIMH]

Surely the punishment gets worse when you get to a ban?

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Well, if you've been infracted for something and you keep doing it, the punishment should get progressively worse, or at least stay for longer. That was the thought behind it (and it's been like this since implementation AFAIK).

I personally think that you're double-infracting for the 2nd offense by doing this; which I don't think is on for the majority of cases. Where someone is blatantly taking the piss by continuing to do the same thing wrong, you have other infractions that you can use to make this clear (looking at the list of infractions) so why extend the length as well. What if the poster has had previous infractions expire after a pretty arbitrary period? Why not re-start those infractions as well? I personally think restarting an original infraction for doing something similar is absolutely ludicrous when you've got so many other weapons of mass infraction as your disposal.

 

[James]

Well, if you've been infracted for something and you keep doing it, the punishment should get progressively worse, or at least stay for longer. That was the thought behind it (and it's been like this since implementation AFAIK).

I personally think it makes sense, but if people have other feelings about it, I'm open to being convinced otherwise, and I'd be happy to listen and bring it up with other mods.

As SS said, it's been like this since the beginning. I posted a quick announcement yesterday because someone who got infracted queried it and I notice we didn't specifically mention this in the original post.

We're happy to hear feelings about it, but the reason for it being decided to be done this way is mentioned above.

 

[Athlai]

Isn't there an infraction points thing for repeat offenses anyway?

 

[silentstriker]

Isn't there an infraction points thing for repeat offenses anyway?

Generally that'd probably be overly harsh I'd think, considering the # of points that is. It'd result in quicker bans/infractions if we started using that more often (so far I don't think we've used it at all, partly 'cause the system is new, so people haven't had a chance to repeat that many times).

 

[fredfertang]

Having just read through all this again, well some of it anyway - couldn't face the whole lot, it seems pretty clear this infraction system causes more trouble than its worth

So I suggest you abolish it in that it is no longer a tariff, but keep it in the sense that it's a guideline that the mods can use and that the populace can be aware of - the mods can just go back to exercising their discretion unfettered by a tariff

Put another way it can't be right if there is a situation where for exactly the same post a long standing member with an unblemished record, who has just happened to have a bad day and, for once, bitten back when baited, gets the same punishment as an habitual pain in the arse whose disciplinary record has more entries than Corryn has had VMs

This thread could then be consigned to history and you could add another rule that disciplinary decisions will only ever be discussed with the individual concerned

 

[silentstriker]

This thread could then be consigned to history and you could add another rule that disciplinary decisions will only ever be discussed with the individual concerned

Considering some of the furore, I really don't think that works because people keep pointing to other posters who they believe have done similar things and asking if they've been equally punished. It would be completely non-transparent, which is not what most would prefer I would tend to think.

 

[benchmark00]

Nah let's face it - It's a **** up.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

As SS said, it's been like this since the beginning. I posted a quick announcement yesterday because someone who got infracted queried it and I notice we didn't specifically mention this in the original post.

With all due respect, Jimmy, it may have been the rule since you implemented the infraction system but the members have only been made aware of it today. I just don't buy it - you keep saying you're happy to hear feedback but don't really answer the point when someone queries it. You keep getting infracted, you get banned, your previous infractions extend. The whole thing is a farce. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure each case is looked at individually and you don't show jury members what the defendant has been convicted of in the past.

Members will soon rack up a ban if you keep infracting them without having to move the goalposts each time you do so.

 

[silentstriker]

Actually, when it comes time for sentencing, past behaviors are most definitely taken into account.

And during trial, if the accused takes the witness stand, he can be asked about past convictions.

At least in the US.

 

[fredfertang]

Considering some of the furore, I really don't think that works because people keep pointing to other posters who they believe have done similar things and asking if they've been equally punished. It would be completely non-transparent, which is not what most would prefer I would tend to think.

The bolded word is the point - you make your decisions in the light of all the circumstances and particularly the previous record of the person concerned - if you can't discuss all that personal stuff, which obviously you wouldn't and shouldn't be prepared to do, then you're never going to be able to explain properly what's happened anyway

 

[GIMH]

A better analogy would be driving offences

 

[silentstriker]

The bolded word is the point - you make your decisions in the light of all the circumstances and particularly the previous record of the person concerned - if you can't discuss all that personal stuff, which obviously you wouldn't and shouldn't be prepared to do, then you're never going to be able to explain properly what's happened anyway

I know what you're saying. I'm not sure how much support that would have with the larger CW community.

I mean I wouldn't mind it. From my pov, I don't really care if we go to that 'Sorry no discussions' type system where nothing is ever discussed about any decision except directly with the person. But as I said, I'd be interested in hearing other peoples thoughts because I'm not sure if that'd have large support.

 

[fredfertang]

A better analogy would be driving offences

On the face of it but as they are by their nature riddled with technicalities, and "special reasons" and "exceptional hardship" arguments are always available for smart arse lawyers to try and exploit (sorry officer I needed a piss and my name is Sir Alex anyway), then I actually think that's an illustration of why an infraction system doesn't work, because as soon as you try and put checks and balances in the system to make it fair it becomes totally unwieldy - but we don't need Human Rights on an internet forum like we do in every day life so if a mod has a problem with me and bans me capriciously, lets say that Cribb and I fall out over his relationship with my daughter, then that's just my tough luck - I shouldn't be allowed to debate the rights and wrongs of that on the forums - I've just got to take it on the chin

 

[benchmark00]

On the face of it but as they are by their nature riddled with technicalities, and "special reasons" and "exceptional hardship" arguments are always available for smart arse lawyers to try and exploit (sorry officer I needed a piss and my name is Sir Alex anyway), then I actually think that's an illustration of why an infraction system doesn't work, because as soon as you try and put checks and balances in the system to make it fair it becomes totally unwieldy - but we don't need Human Rights on an internet forum like we do in every day life so if a mod has a problem with me and bans me capriciously, lets say that Cribb and I fall out over his relationship with my daughter, then that's just my tough luck - I shouldn't be allowed to debate the rights and wrongs of that on the forums - I've just got to take it on the chin

We still talking about Crabb and your daughter, Tangy?

 

[silentstriker]

I shouldn't be allowed to debate the rights and wrongs of that on the forums - I've just got to take it on the chin

Err, now I definitely think this won't get much support.

I'd be shocked if I'm wrong, but hey, it's happened before.

 

[fredfertang]

We still talking about Crabb and your daughter, Tangy?

... we are benchy - as you can probably imagine I'm still spooked by volty's comment in that other thread about my becoming a grandfather

 

[fredfertang]

Err, now I definitely think this won't get much support.

I'd be shocked if I'm wrong, but hey, it's happened before.

No I don't expect it to get any support, but I do often wonder why you guys put up with all the crap that gets thrown at you, although I suppose some of that can be quite entertaining - as if it wasn't I wouldn't even be in this thread

 

[Smudge]

... we are benchy - as you can probably imagine I'm still spooked by volty's comment in that other thread about my becoming a grandfather

I was just stirring the point.





Successfully, it seems!

 

[Furball]

Considering some of the furore, I really don't think that works because people keep pointing to other posters who they believe have done similar things and asking if they've been equally punished. It would be completely non-transparent, which is not what most would prefer I would tend to think.

And the reason people do that is because the system as it stands isn't transparent.