Forum Rule Changes including Introduction of Infraction System

[PhoenixFire]

Before I get another patronising evening-ruining email from you lot, I wrote that post (the one you deleted) before i saw Fusion's. Do not infract me for ignoring moderator instructions

Should be infracted for telling the mods what to do imo.

 

[GIMH]

Should be infracted for telling the mods what to do imo.

Haha whether or not the irony is deliberate, I like it

You're a mean person btw

 

[Fusion]

To all: there wouldn’t be a point in me deleting a post from a thread only for people to be re-directed to another location where it could be found. I know the pic is mild and I’m giving it entirely too much significance and raising the curiosity level by mentioning this, but please don’t post it anywhere.

 

[Smudge]

Before I get another patronising evening-ruining email from you lot, I wrote that post (the one you deleted) before i saw Fusion's. Do not infract me for ignoring moderator instructions

I do hope you're joking.

 

[Burgey]

Jesus, my post asking what the picture was, then another one have been deleted.

..... And he loved Big Brother.

 

[Adamc]

I know the pic is mild and I’m giving it entirely too much significance and raising the curiosity level by mentioning this, but please don’t post it anywhere.

Listen well: No matter what happens, no matter how great your curiosity, you are forbidden to look in this box. Forbidden! Pretty tantalising though...

Anyway, should be obvious from the response that Nath posted compromising photos of Fusion.

 

[Turbinator]

I'm one of the fortunate few who saw the picture before it got deleted, was amazing. Can't believe some of you are missing out on it.

 

[Burgey]

Lol.

 

[Spark]

I'm one of the fortunate few who saw the picture before it got deleted, was amazing. Can't believe some of you are missing out on it.

Grrr.

 

[Adamc]

Uploaded an encrypted version of the offending pic to wikileaks.org. The password is Burgey's mother's maiden name followed by Fusion's social security number.

 

[Fusion]

:Anyway, should be obvious from the response that Nath posted compromising photos of Fusion.

I have my finger on the delete and infraction buttons exactly for that reason.

 

[honestbharani]

Now that you've explained it I appreciate the intention, but I've always thought that deletion was reserved for particularly egregious posts or spam, of which Nath's post was neither (but if I hadn't seen it before it was taken down I would have thought it was far more offensive than it was). If that's not the case then fair enough. But thanks for actually responding and not dismissing my comments out of hand.

My issue with the infraction system in general is that it doesn't sufficiently allow for mods to deal with offences that don't necessarily fit into neat categories and therefore require more proactive or nuanced moderating. Thus obvious but minor breaches like filter avoidance are usually acted upon quickly, but ill-defined breaches which are far more damaging to a thread are generally not acted upon until the thread has long since been derailed. Again I'm aware that mods can't be everwhere at once and I take f_o_s' point about reporting posts, but coverage and consistency are nonetheless pretty important aspects of a well-moderated forum.

There is a way CC can improve.. You should start posting more there.


Great post and completely AWTA.

 

[honestbharani]

Before I get another patronising evening-ruining email from you lot, I wrote that post (the one you deleted) before i saw Fusion's. Do not infract me for ignoring moderator instructions

dude.. you juz seem to have gone from "funny take the piss" optimistic supporter of England to mean, grumbling and mumbling Bob Willis of CW.. You are much better than this.. cheeer up and start telling us why Flintoff is da greatest

 

[GIMH]

Well I was filthy when I wrote that post having received the most pathetic warning yet...all good now hb. You know Freddie is the best though so why should I have to explain

 

[Furball]

Hmm.

I haven't gotten involved in this debate but I have watched it closely. I've been involved in various forums for many years now, mostly on boards which are far more intense in the level, harshness and fierceness of debate. I realised I've not been here very long, but I think that I can add some cents worth.

I have no interest in getting involved in the mods being biased towards the subcontinental vs. the "Western" posters, it quite frankly looks like a manifestation of the mods being biased towards libs or conservatives debate I see on other forums. That's not to necessarily say there isn't (or for that matter is) any, it's just a bit tiresome and useless IMO.

Personally, I do not like a points-based infraction system. It's not a real biggie but if you were to force me to hand-on-heart lean one way or another, I would scrap it entirely.

DISCLAIMER: What follows may be unreadable, or tripe.

1. It enforces an arbitrary method of quantitative "value" to a offence, so is in a sense "standardizes" the whole thing. That would be fine if A. there were quantized levels of trolling/abuse whatever and you were able to use an comparative examples-based system for "comparing" whether one offence deserves X number of points based on comparing it to an example post displaying said offence which has been publicly pre-agreed on to be worth X amount of points. Of course you can't do it, because it's ridiculously time-consuming for a volunteer mod on an internet forum to be trying to do, but that's not the main issue. The other case is B. all trolls were equal and there was a clear distinction between posts that were made with the intention to rile/troll whatever. But it doesn't work like that - there is no clear line where a post is either trolling or not trolling. So you will not be able to accurately and justly enforce a system that sets a quantized - not to mention somewhat arbitrary - value on an offence because posts are so tied up in levels of context that may or may not be clear to anyone but the poster that what the precise, 100% accurate, fully understood meaning of a post is - which is what you get down to when you decide whether to infract one of these borderline posts or not. I mean, it's not like you have a "troll-o-meter" where you can enter a post and it'll spit out 0.613 or whatever on a trolling scale, and then decide that anything about 0.6 gets infracted for 5 points or whatever - that would work, but it's not possible. The point is this - with a necessarily quantized system, the line between "OK" and "too far" needs to be well defined. But it isn't. In answer to GIMH's point, no there is no double standard. There is no standard at all in terms of a definitive line that you cannot cross, because you can't draw the line, let alone find it.

2. Similarly, because of that quantized nature, you're going to have an incredibly difficult time making the punishment proportional to the crime. And it's no use breaking the system up into smaller point scales - that just increases the arbitrariness of the whole thing, especially when applying the same system to a variety of offences. It'll degrade into "well just how much is one point worth?" which is not a question you can answer fairly.

3. The mods are called forum moderators - not forum police. I hate to say it but this feels bizarrely like a demerits points system - get six points and your license is suspended for a year or whatever. It needlessly degrades forum atmosphere by overly unlevelling the playing field between members and mods - it puts them on a pedestal. It's not a good look.

4. It degrades the ban. Banning someone is supposed to be an extreme deterrent, a last-resort warning to clean up your act or face the ultimate penalty. It should not be used as a fairly minor punishment for a string of minor offences. Suppose a threshold of 40 points is set for a ban and a member is on 39 points. Then if he gets one more point, which is in all likelihood a very minor offence in the grand scheme of things, then he gets banned. This sounds to me, frankly, ludicrous. Bannings are exceptionally disruptive events. They can completely change the poster's posting style, his relationship with other members, mods (especially), and his general status within a posting community. They can also have a huge ripple effect amongst the wider posting community. Bans should only result from severe offences or an unacceptable repetition of notable offences. In the case above, the person should either have been A. banned for the offences that got him 39 points in the first place or B. not banned until a major offence. The "line of death" that comes about is IMO wrong. Bans should be enforced by a mod consensus that a member either needs removal or needs an extreme last-resort warning. They should not be handed out lightly, not handed out on a demerit-points basis and absolutely not on a somewhat automated basis as we have here.

There were a few other things I thought of whilst writing this but I've forgotten them now. I'll add if I remember them.

My cents.

Spark has it spot on.

 

[Furball]

Also, in light of the teething difficulties that the infraction system has had, I'd like to offermy services to the forum by proposing that James reinstates me to the mod team with immediate effect.

Some of you will remember what a resounding success the combination of me as a mod and a World Cup was last year and my presence on the team can only help distract the board at large from what a crock of **** this system is.

 

[Sanz]

No. We don't want Mohammar Qaddaffi type leadership in Moderation team.

 

[Shri]

Also, in light of the teething difficulties that the infraction system has had, I'd like to offermy services to the forum by proposing that James reinstates me to the mod team with immediate effect.

Some of you will remember what a resounding success the combination of me as a mod and a World Cup was last year and my presence on the team can only help distract the board at large from what a crock of **** this system is.

If moderation duties make you post less in the forums, James should go for it.

 

[GIMH]

As an outspoken critic of Furball's mod reign I support this campaign. He never did warn anyone for using mean terms like 'mean person'. Re-elect.

 

[Spark]

GIMH, you are a mean person.