Reporting Posts

[Furball]

One for each.



So you're suggesting a split of the infraction into, for example:

Lack of respect for, insulting, or harassment of other members (unprovoked): 5
Lack of respect for, insulting, or harassment of other members (provoked): 3

?

Perhaps, although I wouldn't term it lack of respect blah blah, to me if you're going to insult people that should carry 5 points regardless, there should be a lighter infraction for derailing a thread.

Maybe.

 

[Hurricane]

@Pews

Can you post the whole infraction point system - or provide a link to where it has been posted before?
If it is 15 points before you get a week long ban? If you can insult three different people before you are banned for a week then it seems like a system that should be revised given how difficult it is to get a clear cut example of trolling (see 4 or 6's post earlier)

I also don't really know what a warning infraction is - that Fusion referred to - whatever it was/is it had no impact on Bun.

Finally we have heard about Heef's reported posts on Bun - Was he the only person that reported Bun - did the rest of us just shudder and ignore him or were there other reported posts and if so how many?

 

[Fusion]

@Pews

Can you post the whole infraction point system - or provide a link to where it has been posted before?
If it is 15 points before you get a week long ban? If you can insult three different people before you are banned for a week then it seems like a system that should be revised given how difficult it is to get a clear cut example of trolling (see 4 or 6's post earlier)

I also don't really know what a warning infraction is - that Fusion referred to - whatever it was/is it had no impact on Bun.

The infraction system is explained here. A "warning" carries no infraction points. We usually give those out to alert a member that his/her posting is not acceptable and that in the future it may lead to an infraction (and possible ban).

Finally we have heard about Heef's reported posts on Bun - Was he the only person that reported Bun - did the rest of us just shudder and ignore him or were there other reported posts and if so how many?

Heath wasn't the only person to report Bun, but as far as I can tell, he was the first to do so. As I pointed out, Heath's reported post came several months and hundreds of posts after Bun had first signed on.

 

[Hurricane]

Name (infraction points, number of days the infraction stays on)
General warning (0,42)
Inappropriate language (3,42)
Not posting in English (3,42)
Frivolous reporting of posts (3,42)
Off-topic discussion in thread (3,42)
Repetitive posting (5,42)
Avoiding swear filter (5,42)
Inappropriate ***ual references (5,42)
Trolling or baiting (5,42)
Plagiarism, not referencing sources (8,42)
Discussion of piracy (8,42)
Slander (8,42)
Ignoring moderator instructions (8,42)
Lack of respect for, insulting, or harassment of other members (8,90)
Continual disobedience (20,90)
Requesting/posting illegal downloads (20,90)
Posting offensive material (40,90)
Serial offender (40,90)
Advertising (40,42)
General spam (40,42)
Multiple accounts (40,90)
Disparaging comments on race/***uality/personal circumstances (50,90)


@Fusion Were any of the ones in bold ever applied to him?

 

[Flem274*]

I'd like to make it quite clear the calls for more forum atmosphere bans, if we implement them, are a double edged sword. They don't just apply to the other person. I understand you guys are angry, but as a moderator I hope you understand that giving us more rope to be the opinion and personality police will affect everyone, not just the next Precambrian multi.

If we implement it, I can think of a couple of members who will be gone by lunchtime, and I'm sure the majority of the forum will be happy with that. However, if we had this policy in place during the India/England series, half the forum would have put themselves at risk because frankly it was a horrible advertisement for the forum. As moderators I feel we have to take some responsibility for this, and the idea crossed my mind to take the shiny new subforum away, but thinking Bun is a multi or thinking poster x is wrong is no excuse for the crap that was posted.

So be careful what you wish for. I'm willing to do it, but I want to make it clear the same rules will apply to everybody and I want to make sure everybody is on the same page before we consider implementing it.

 

[Hurricane]

Also just reviewing the list - trolling seems low at 5 points - and secondly where is forum atmosphere?

 

[Flem274*]

Also just reviewing the list - trolling seems low at 5 points - and secondly where is forum atmosphere?

It's not there. When we perma, we just use the spamming 150 point infraction. I think some of the bigwigs like James have more moderation tools than I have though.

 

[Burgey]

I'd like to make it quite clear the calls for more forum atmosphere bans, if we implement them, are a double edged sword. They don't just apply to the other person. I understand you guys are angry, but as a moderator I hope you understand that giving us more rope to be the opinion and personality police will affect everyone, not just the next Precambrian multi.

If we implement it, I can think of a couple of members who will be gone by lunchtime, and I'm sure the majority of the forum will be happy with that. However, if we had this policy in place during the India/England series, half the forum would have put themselves at risk because frankly it was a horrible advertisement for the forum. As moderators I feel we have to take some responsibility for this, and the idea crossed my mind to take the shiny new subforum away, but thinking Bun is a multi or thinking poster x is wrong is no excuse for the crap that was posted.

So be careful what you wish for. I'm willing to do it, but I want to make it clear the same rules will apply to everybody and I want to make sure everybody is on the same page before we consider implementing it.

Why have you turned into some ultra-conservative, Protestant preacher Flem, all gloom and doom?

 

[Flem274*]

Why have you turned into a conservative, Protestant preacher Flem, all gloom and doom?

Haha why Protestant?

 

[Burgey]

Oh cos I'm thinking of the really conservative Baptist hellfire and brimstone ones.. You know, "Mark thee well!!! If you wish for these things, to hell you will go!!!!"

 

[Furball]

Oh cos I'm thinking of the really conservative Baptist hellfire and brimstone ones.. You know, "Mark thee well!!! If you wish for these things, to hell you will go!!!!"

Ironically I read that in an Irish priest comedy voice.

 

[Furball]

I'd like to make it quite clear the calls for more forum atmosphere bans, if we implement them, are a double edged sword. They don't just apply to the other person. I understand you guys are angry, but as a moderator I hope you understand that giving us more rope to be the opinion and personality police will affect everyone, not just the next Precambrian multi.

If we implement it, I can think of a couple of members who will be gone by lunchtime, and I'm sure the majority of the forum will be happy with that. However, if we had this policy in place during the India/England series, half the forum would have put themselves at risk because frankly it was a horrible advertisement for the forum. As moderators I feel we have to take some responsibility for this, and the idea crossed my mind to take the shiny new subforum away, but thinking Bun is a multi or thinking poster x is wrong is no excuse for the crap that was posted.

So be careful what you wish for. I'm willing to do it, but I want to make it clear the same rules will apply to everybody and I want to make sure everybody is on the same page before we consider implementing it.

Methinks you should take Cribb's advice and stop sidetracking the issue by talking about multis.

As for your England/India point? Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.

A forum atmosphere ban doesn't necessarily need to be longer, a forum atmosphere infraction could carry 15 points that automatically triggers a ban of the appropriate length. All it takes sometimes is for a poster to get a couple of weeks off for them to have a think about what they're posting and whether they can improve. The infraction system could maybe improve here as well - I think the bans that get triggered are too regimented - with regards to my ban Cribb mentioned that there was a bit of a reluctance to infract me for some minor stuff because it would trigger a month's ban for posts that while poor, probably didn't merit that level of ban. In my case, had you guys had the option of giving me a week off, that might have worked out better - my poor posting could have been nipped in the bud a lot quicker (most of the posts cited as being particularly poor were posted a week to 10 days before I was actually banned) and if I'd come back after a week's cooling off and continued being an arse, you could have turfed me for a month - or longer.

I don't know the ins and outs of how the infraction system works and whether the system could be tweaked so that bans happen when you trigger a certain number of points are set by the moderators rather than just being automatically generated.

 

[Fusion]

@Fusion Were any of the ones in bold ever applied to him?

Yes, he received an "Ignoring moderator instructions" infraction.

 

[Burgey]

Ironically I read that in an Irish priest comedy voice.

That's cos you're a Scottish **** trying to avoid guilt by association

 

[GotSpin]

Why doesn't Precam get a ****ing life. What a tosser

 

[Burgey]

Is there an infraction for frivolously/ maliciously reporting posts? Like a vexatious litigant declaration?

Was wondering this in light of one of the Mods saying earlier there was an inundation of reports at some point or other.

 

[Burgey]

Why doesn't Precam get a ****ing life. What a tosser

Was pondering this as I played with my Wii at 1 a.m this morning

 

[GotSpin]

Was pondering this as I played with my Wii at 1 a.m this morning

At least you weren't banned from your wii and then made Burgey multis so you could still participate in some way

 

[benchmark00]

While this may seem to go against what a mod has said in before, you shouldn't have to ignore trolls; you shouldn't have to see them post at all. This isn't PlanetCricket or CricSim; you should be able to come into Cricket Chat here and not get baited into responding by keyboard heroes deliberately trying to antagonise people. While this doesn't mean you have any more right to lay into someone you think is a troll than someone you don't, or that it's an any way mitigating when it comes to your punishment if you do such a thing, it does mean that we do endeavour to remove trolls and don't expect part of your CW experience to be wading through pages of trolling and troll-reactions. People you simply don't like are of course different and we encourage you to ignore those..

Hahahahahahahahahahah.

 

[Cevno]

Just to quote the old post of mine about Forum Atmosphere Bans -

If that is done fairly and objectively it will just raise **** storms and more accusations again because some old posters who have a good number of friends could stand to be banned. Even now with a infraction system in place every infraction and in some cases really bad ones are contested, the banning of members straightaway would lead to more accusations of biasness, partiality, catering to new markets and what not from all sides.
Including way more threads like the one in which we are currently posting and another one which was created in a similar regard(not judging either thread or what was said ftr).

Also then there is a risk of a group of people ganging up on someone and asking for their banning openly because they are not conforming with the view of the vocal majority in that regard and saying this and this was banned straightaway, so why not he?
Almost happened to me, as it is even in the current system in one of the threads in the Eng - India subforums where was accused of being ridiculously biased to "Was i this bad when i was banned in the winter?" to getting all kinds of abuses and taunts. Because Me,Shri,Bun and a couple other less regular members who just made one or 2 posts were the only ones to argue over a pedantic issue with a quite ardent and vocal majority. And i will still stand on my point of view over every decision and aspect of it that was argued, and was even supported by host of commentators including Nasser Hussain,Alan Wilkins,Sanjay Manjrekar among others. Though the views were polarized there too in some regards. And this is just a example.

This sort of thing only works where you want to run the Forum as not a open one and a private sort of thing where you can arbitrarily judge quality of poster under such pressure and polarized situations. And even in such forums there is a massive thread about each banning with 1/2 members getting banned as a result of it. Infact, i think i have mentioned it before somewhere, that on quite a popular football club forum i resigned as a moderator and then got banned because i disagreed massively on a particular main admin banning someone who was a opposition supporter and i felt as a result was being picked on unfairly by the majority of fans despite being useful in many regards.
As it turned out many agreed with me on it,even if it not be the majority who couldn't care less and the admins were caught in a fix when there was division amongst them too as a result of the subsequent thread that resulted and a points that were raised.And That forum had this quality control program because it was getting too many members more than anything else.

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/2653316-post226.html

Don't have any problems if the standards mantained for everyone are the same though, without pressure.

Though another Problem would be what happens when say there is a England - South Africa series and there are 4/5 Englishs fans who are biased, and know each other and along comes one biased South African fan who has completely the opposite view on most issues. Now there are disagreement galores and it clouds the match thread etc.. Obviously, for the English Fans the threads and the "forum atmosphere" would be better if he was not there, as they could agree on most things and all will be jolly and probably for most of the neutrals too, who would not have too see many drawn out arguments. But does that mean the South African Fan must be banned for having a dissenting view, and not conforming to the popular view while expressing it? And because some reckon him not being there means that there are more like minded and so a better atmosphere, so to speak where they can taunt etc.. more freely too?