Forum Rule Changes including Introduction of Infraction System

[GIMH]

Your opinion of me is not wanted or needed on the forum and I think you are looking for a reaction. Post reported.

 

[Shri]

Point still stands. WA-mean-C.

 

[Furball]

Inconsistencies regarding my latest infraction have been brought to my attention.

 

[benchmark00]

YouTube - Scrubs - The annual "Who Caresies Award"

 

[GIMH]

By me, FTR.

I got a warning for the exact same offence he got infracted for.

FWIW I think it should be fine to tell someone all of their posts are ****. It's play the post not the poster but you can't play the posts? Or if we call someone 'mean' as a result of their post that is somehow playing the poster?

But regardless of that, the fact is, there is no consistency. Either I should have been infracted a couple of weeks ago, or Furball should be warned.

Nah, calling BS, you have no idea what you're doing and the place is turning into a shambles.

 

[Furball]

YouTube - Scrubs - The annual "Who Caresies Award"

You cared enough to post, ****.

 

[benchmark00]

You cared enough to post, ****.

I often talk to my girlfriend, doesn't mean I care about her tbf.

 

[Furball]

I often talk to my girlfriend, doesn't mean I care about her tbf.

That's a terrible thing to say about your mother.

 

[benchmark00]

That's a terrible thing to say about your mother.

She's your mother too.

 

[GIMH]

Cracking exchange

Should both be infracted for the content of the posts tbf

 

[andyc]

By me, FTR.

I got a warning for the exact same offence he got infracted for.

FWIW I think it should be fine to tell someone all of their posts are ****. It's play the post not the poster but you can't play the posts? Or if we call someone 'mean' as a result of their post that is somehow playing the poster?

But regardless of that, the fact is, there is no consistency. Either I should have been infracted a couple of weeks ago, or Furball should be warned.

Nah, calling BS, you have no idea what you're doing and the place is turning into a shambles.

Disagree. All people have to do to avoid being infracted or warned is to stop abusing other members or otherwise breaking the rules. It's really not rocket science. GF's post is never going to be appropriate, especially given that it was Tendulkar_200*'s first post in the thread.

You may have received a warning for your post to Cevno which was fairly similar, and maybe that's an oversight on our part, but if a poster has just come back from a ban, and has already been infracted for similar offences, they're going to be on a shorter leash.

 

[Spark]

However it's exactly my issue (one of them) with the system. The difference in the offences is small and mostly contextual, certainly not quantifiable, yet the difference in punishment is necessarily stark.

 

[GIMH]

Sorry, the shorter leash doesn't work when you are running an infraction system. What's the point in having accumlative points if your reputation is going to preceed you anyway?

and calling someone's posts **** isn't abusing them. Nor is calling them a mean person after they've said something cruel. You know this.

You guys contradict yourselves with each warning and infraction and then contradict yourselves

And when you get proven wrong by email, you stop replying

Honestly, to repeat myself, why has an infraction system turned good mods into bad ones?!!

 

[Furball]

Disagree. All people have to do to avoid being infracted or warned is to stop abusing other members or otherwise breaking the rules. It's really not rocket science. GF's post is never going to be appropriate, especially given that it was Tendulkar_200*'s first post in the thread.

You may have received a warning for your post to Cevno which was fairly similar, and maybe that's an oversight on our part, but if a poster has just come back from a ban, and has already been infracted for similar offences, they're going to be on a shorter leash.

Which would be fine if I actually insulted him.

edit: constantly being told to play the post, not the poster doesn't make any sense when this infraction is a classic case of playing the poster. You've just admitted that the reason I was treated more harshly is because I've just come back from a ban, which is ridiculous.

 

[four_or_six]

I'd be surprised if you didn't find that insulting if it had been posted towards you.

Anyway, as has been said, it's simple for everyone to avoid getting infractions (or warnings) and that's by not insulting people, baiting them, or trolling.

We are more likely to give a warning over an infraction to someone who has never contravened rules before, but if they do so again, the warning is there to remind us and it's likely an infraction will be applied. Obviously, though, it depends on the severity of what has been said.

And us getting one infraction off (if that is what you believe has happened) isn't going to have any impact whatsoever to a poster who is otherwise posting within the rules, since it's necessary to troll/bait/insult someone four times before even a short seven day ban comes into effect.

 

[andyc]

Am still confused. Have a read of GF's post; can you honestly tell me that that's not insulting? Whether it was posted now or six months ago, it was never going to be okay. Before the infraction system, a mod would have warned him in thread; the only difference now is that instead of the warning in thread, they get an infraction. Getting an infraction simply means that that kind of posting is unacceptable; receiving one doesn't have to be a big deal.

 

[GIMH]

I'd be surprised if you didn't find that insulting if it had been posted towards you.

Anyway, as has been said, it's simple for everyone to avoid getting infractions (or warnings) and that's by not insulting people, baiting them, or trolling.

We are more likely to give a warning over an infraction to someone who has never contravened rules before, but if they do so again, the warning is there to remind us and it's likely an infraction will be applied. Obviously, though, it depends on the severity of what has been said.

And us getting one infraction off (if that is what you believe has happened) isn't going to have any impact whatsoever to a poster who is otherwise posting within the rules, since it's necessary to troll/bait/insult someone four times before even a short seven day ban comes into effect.

At the time I received the warning for calling Cevno's posts **** I had one infraction and two warnings on my record so it's not going to wash. It's a classic case of inconsistency. Either upgrade my warning or downgrade his infraction or it's an open farce.

 

[Fusion]

Whether it’s the infraction system, or the old system, moderator decisions are made by humans and thus there is always the methodology of “best judgment” used. The infraction system was introduced to address concerns that a member didn’t know where they stood in relation to a ban until they actually got banned. In many cases, we received complains that “the ban came out of nowhere”. With the infraction system, that should no longer be the case. The other key reason we introduced the system is to be as consistent as humanly possible. It does serve as a sort of an auditing system. It keeps a record of how many points each member has accumulated and if they go over a set threshold, they will incur a ban. This wasn’t the case with the old method, as we would often just debate something along the line of “well he/she has received enough warnings, we think, so now it’s time for a ban”.

Having said the above, have we eliminated ALL inconsistency and achieved perfect moderation? Of course not. It’s frankly ridiculous to analyze EACH infraction and compare it against all others to try to find perceived inconsistencies. Like I said, this is a system applied by humans. We are trying to be as consistent as possible and we use our best collective judgment when handing out an infraction/warning. This was exactly the process before, and it is the process now. The only thing that’s changed is that we now have a record of “warnings” that we give out and the members are aware of how many “points” those warnings (now called infractions) equate to. Sure the points we assigned to the infractions are arbitrary. Again, we used our best judgment to assign them (and we are open to tweaking them if need be). But at least they are published and everyone is aware of what each infraction is worth.

Something that’s more amusing to me is that the latest discussion is not even about contesting whether GF actually insulted someone, but whether that insult should have been a warning or an infraction. The main point, surely, should be to not insult other members? Instead of trying to find loopholes and perceived inconsistencies in the moderation system, wouldn’t we all be better if people simply treated each other with respect? I say this without any intention to be snarky, but I’m sure it would be a lot more fun for members here to focus on the cricket instead of having a go at the mod team and other members. It’s very simple: if you don’t break the rules, you won’t get the warning/infraction.

 

[GIMH]

Tbh Fusion I think if you read a few posts you'll see both me and GF have an issue with the fact you can't call someone's posts rubbish, given that we're always told to play the post not the poster.

And yeah it's a small issue but it amuses me to see the mod team finding all mother of excuses for such an inconsistency. The decent thing would have been to downgrade his infraction once the inconsistency was highlighted; I pointed it out politely in the match thread.

And I'll argue until my face turns blue that the 'mean person' post I was warned for broke no rules and I received no adequate argument to the contrary - just a nonsense response from Cribb, and a few emails from fos that were polite enough but as soon as I countered her points I got nothing back. So it's all well and good saying 'if you don't break the rules' but it'd also be simple if you lot stopped warning people for not breaking rules then there'd be less discussion around infractions in general.

And to repeat, I don't believe telling someone their posts are **** constitutes a personal insult but whatever

 

[Sanz]

Whether it’s the infraction system, or the old system, moderator decisions are made by humans and thus there is always the methodology of “best judgment” used. The infraction system was introduced to address concerns that a member didn’t know where they stood in relation to a ban until they actually got banned. In many cases, we received complains that “the ban came out of nowhere”. With the infraction system, that should no longer be the case. The other key reason we introduced the system is to be as consistent as humanly possible. It does serve as a sort of an auditing system. It keeps a record of how many points each member has accumulated and if they go over a set threshold, they will incur a ban. This wasn’t the case with the old method, as we would often just debate something along the line of “well he/she has received enough warnings, we think, so now it’s time for a ban”.

Having said the above, have we eliminated ALL inconsistency and achieved perfect moderation? Of course not. It’s frankly ridiculous to analyze EACH infraction and compare it against all others to try to find perceived inconsistencies. Like I said, this is a system applied by humans. We are trying to be as consistent as possible and we use our best collective judgment when handing out an infraction/warning. This was exactly the process before, and it is the process now. The only thing that’s changed is that we now have a record of “warnings” that we give out and the members are aware of how many “points” those warnings (now called infractions) equate to. Sure the points we assigned to the infractions are arbitrary. Again, we used our best judgment to assign them (and we are open to tweaking them if need be). But at least they are published and everyone is aware of what each infraction is worth.

Something that’s more amusing to me is that the latest discussion is not even about contesting whether GF actually insulted someone, but whether that insult should have been a warning or an infraction. The main point, surely, should be to not insult other members? Instead of trying to find loopholes and perceived inconsistencies in the moderation system, wouldn’t we all be better if people simply treated each other with respect? I say this without any intention to be snarky, but I’m sure it would be a lot more fun for members here to focus on the cricket instead of having a go at the mod team and other members. It’s very simple: if you don’t break the rules, you won’t get the warning/infraction.

5 Infraction points for stating a ridiculously obvious point.

J/K. Well Said.