• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Question on ban announcements

Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Gnske said:
You really should have made that announcement. It could have been so easy too, you could have worded better but here look:



Maybe a bit more detail, but you're not castigating anyone by simply addressing the theme of posting. But two reasons why you should have done it. The messages at least I have got, have been no more descript than the usual brief ones I get.



Now I read that as, I've got more than a few infraction points and I've made 15 smutty posts too many than I should have today, Dan's brain has broken. I've seen it before and I'll see it again probably.

The big and other reason is that moderating duties extend beyond what buttons reside within the infractions tab.

Engage with the community and be not fearful of it, personally and on a group level. We're not proud just rowdy. I think we respond far better to engagement than coldness and presumption of having the mandate of god. I'm only too happy to seriously stop for the good of the forum though, especially since this is the second time PEWS that you've had to intervene to bring a complete sense of clarity of a fiasco this year.
Click to expand...
Agree with this tbh. Especially the bit that blows smoke up my arse.

But seriously, in hindsight I definitely wish we'd made an announcement, or at least a post in here, about it. At the time we thought we could stop making it "a thing" by giving people some warnings and small infractions that didn't actually get them banned, but the horse had bolted.

The reason we (well, I say we, but this was just my rationale, I shouldn't speak for the others) was the lessons I'd learned from the Loony_BoB fiasco ages ago. The more you really crack down on this sort of stuff the more it tends to be contagious, so I thought it might be better to just moderate what I thought the actual problem was: the deliberate ***ual references for the sake of it by a small number of members. Giving the handful of people we thought were doing this 0-point warnings over the infraction system (and I think I just told sledger to can it over WhatsApp, haha) in my mind would at last slow it to the point where it wasn't an actual advertising problem. I was wrong.

In hindsight I definitely wish we'd made a post telling me to cool it and most importantly actually explaining why -- hell, maybe if we'd just told people why in the warnings we gave out it would have worked out okay, but I didn't do those so I wash my hands of it :ph34r: -- but I hope you can see why the decision we made at least made sense at the time. We were trying to avoid making it a big thing, but unfortunately it didn't work and people got banned. Dan is right that they(+you) were given enough warnings and small infractions to know the bans were probably coming, but I do think there's a difference in thinking you're going to get banned because the mods are ****s and... this reason, that we really should have made clearer.

One thing with people asking for more moderator transparency on the actual forum is that it doesn't really work when there are other members involved -- like I'm not going to explain that I agree that so-and-so is an absolute **** if he's still a member of the forum -- but in this case it's not actually about disputes between members at all, so I do think we should have been more forthcoming about the reasoning.
 
Last edited:
Flem274*

Flem274*

123/5
the google ads thing is sensible and i had that ban coming for at least a week.

not sure what im gonna post about if isr's are off the table tbh. i might need to develop a personality. nah cbf.
 
Neptune

Neptune

State Vice-Captain
Avoided the swear filter again. Forgot ‘****’ in the swear filter. Dumb on my part tbf.

On a side note, and this isn’t a dig, or a whine, how come you infract these posts yet you don’t delete them off the site. Surely the whole point is that these posts are deemed to offensive or ***ual to stay on the site, so why keep them on? Don’t make sense.
 
Last edited:
Spark

Spark

Global Moderator
Neptune said:
Avoided the swear filter again. Forgot ‘****’ in the swear filter. Dumb on my part tbf.

On a side note, and this isn’t a dig, or a whine, how come you infract these posts yet you don’t delete them off the site. Surely the whole point is that these posts are deemed to offensive or ***ual to stay on the site, so why keep them on? Don’t make sense.
Click to expand...
Often that breaks the flow of the thread completely and just confuses the hell out of people when there are obviously missing posts. An isolated post with swears in it here and there isn't a problem, it's when it becomes common enough for The Algorithms to pick up on it that the site runs into hot water.
 
StephenZA

StephenZA

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Spark said:
Often that breaks the flow of the thread completely and just confuses the hell out of people when there are obviously missing posts. An isolated post with swears in it here and there isn't a problem, it's when it becomes common enough for The Algorithms to pick up on it that the site runs into hot water.
Click to expand...
The sentient that is our google masters continues onwards...
 
vcs

vcs

Request Your Custom Title Now!
AI modding of forums is not too far off in the future IMO

<insert PEWS joke here>
 
Gnske

Gnske

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Is it really the end of the world if the suits retaliate to a few naughty words, even the Daily Stormer has sponsors ffs.
 
GIMH

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Fairly sure AI isn't designed to make the same mistakes it's been making throughout history so
 
sledger

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
Being completely serious here, but AI absolutely does make the same mistakes it's made throughout its relatively brief history haha, and this is often probably attributable to how it is designed.
 
StephenZA

StephenZA

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
sledger said:
Being completely serious here, but AI absolutely does make the same mistakes it's made throughout its relatively brief history haha, and this is often probably attributable to how it is designed.
Click to expand...
Continuing on from the same mistakes people have made throughout history, just in a more efficient manner...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top