Ideas / Suggestions - New System of Warning / Banning

[Alcar]

By now, many of you would know about Abe Babe's suggestion for a complete overhaul of the warning / banning system that we currently operate on. Essentially, is will make distinctions between the type of rules a member breaks, and adds a system of severity to it.

It kind of doesn't seem fair that someone can get a warning for borderline spam and then another person can get a warning for heavy flaming, and it's all worth the same. At ACF [another forum I admin at] we operate on a scaled warning system. Spam is worth 1-5 points [depending on how bad it is], flaming 5 points, posting porn/hentai 8 points, racist/offensive remarks 10 points, etc. A member has a total of 30 warning points. At 25% they get a one week suspension, 50% a two week suspension, 75% a one month suspension and 100% is a permanent ban.

What I'm really asking for, is the scaling of points for different offences. Basically, a port of the rules that I have quoted from Abe Babe.

And example may be, just as posted above: 1-5 points for spam, based on the severity. Etc, etc.

Alcar...

[SeaRex]

The only problem I'm seeing is that we actually have a system. Let me explain...

It seems to me that mods will often go on warnings alone instead of whether or not the person in question is actually a good member. If the member in question is OBVIOUSLY an annoying little twat, tell him/her to stop. If they continue, give them a temp ban. There. Simple. I never liked this "three strikes, you're out" system because it puts too much emphasis on itself. Deciding if someone is a worthy poster or not isn't such a complicated matter that it requires some grand scheme for judgment. You know if they're a good member. You just do. The number of strikes/warnings someone has is irrelevant.

We don't need a new system, when need less of the system we have now.

Heh... spoken like a true libertarian.

[Leeum]

Why not make an off-topic forum to keep this sorta stuff out of serious chat? Another regular forum of mine has a section named "Zobba Chat" where no rules apply and recently no post count increment.

[SeaRex]

Well... we already have an OT forum for starters.

But actually, Alcar, is it possible for a certain forum to not have its posts count toward a user's total post count? A spam forum like that wouldn't be such a bad idea.

Heh... you could call it "No Muds Land" or something. You know, OW reference.

I'm smart.

[Esus]

What I'm really asking for, is the scaling of points for different offences. Basically, a port of the rules that I have quoted from Abe Babe.

being the first to be on topic, I think:
Flaming should vary, depending on how rude or insensitive a particular flame could be. If you tell somebody to 'suck their Dad's dead cock', fully knowing that member's Dad recently died, then they should get about 8-10 points. Similarly, if they constantly tell somebody to 'Shut up.' in two word posts, or 'Fuck off' as we see so often by some members, they receive about 5 points.

Edit: At a forum I admin at, we tried a Spam forum for a very short while. You wouldn't believe how quickly that forum scored 6 thousand posts with people almost ignoring the fully workable Community(off-topic) Forum.

[Alcar]

It seems to me that mods will often go on warnings alone instead of whether or not the person in question is actually a good member. If the member in question is OBVIOUSLY an annoying little twat, tell him/her to stop. If they continue, give them a temp ban. There. Simple. I never liked this "three strikes, you're out" system because it puts too much emphasis on itself. Deciding if someone is a worthy poster or not isn't such a complicated matter that it requires some grand scheme for judgment. You know if they're a good member. You just do. The number of strikes/warnings someone has is irrelevant.

Ah, yes. But that would mean the staff have to make the judgement on whether a member is a good member or not. I don't see many members being very happy with a system like that, I can already see the numerous amounts of threads arguing the matter... In an ideal, totalitarian society, it would work, because the staff have complete judgement. But this isn't an ideal totalitarian society.

But actually, Alcar, is it possible for a certain forum to not have its posts count toward a user's total post count? A spam forum like that wouldn't be such a bad idea.

SeaRex, a spam forum would defeat the purpose of not spamming Just like the spam thread, when it was truly filled with spam.

Flaming should vary, depending on how rude or insensitive a particular flame could be. If you tell somebody to 'suck their Dad's dead cock', fully knowing that member's Dad recently died, then they should get about 8-10 points. Similarly, if they constantly tell somebody to 'Shut up.' in two word posts, or '**** off' as we see so often by some members, they receive about 5 points

That sounds great. Especially with the taking into relevance of happenings (refering to the dead father incidence).

Alcar...

[Wil]

We don't need a new system, when need less of the system we have now.

But we still need to deter breaking the rules, and at the same time punish those who habitually do so despite being cautioned. The new system will give members more of a chance before they are banned, and has the benefits of being fair. Double posting is clearly not as much of an offense as flaming, and yet under the current system, both are treated with one warning.

[Jacob]

I'm a bit worried about the "racist/offensive" part of that quote, considering i can be classed as racist/offensive but the majority of my posts are in jest.

I don't see why we can't just have a 3 chance system. Where they get three chances and if they screw up they get a weeks suspension. When that is up they get 2 chances and if they screw that up they get a months suspension. When they come back they get one chance, if that's screwed up they are then banned foreverrr.

I also think people who are under question of spamming/being offensive et al should have a chance to explain why they are doing something/saying something and maybe redeem themselves.

[Leeum]

I think it's a shame to loose every inch of humour from post content on this Forum, when i first stumbled upon it i admired the quality you are now stamping out. It's good to talk about Oddworld but we do need a place to unwind and post accordingly without rules. Is there no chance of a forum where we can post humour like funny conversations on IM Clients with friends etc. From the way we're going it looks like we're going to need a few laughs

[SeaRex]

Ah, yes. But that would mean the staff have to make the judgement on whether a member is a good member or not.

Isn't that what you're supposed to do anyway? I mean, the staff already decides if a post warrants a warning or not; why not step out of this veil of indecision and actually decide if a person is a good member? Why should a mere three posts determine a members worth? Mods are elected because of their good judgment. Therefore, they should judge... not on a couple of irrelevant conversations or two-word posts, but what the member in question has actually contributed to the community.

Directed at the "rebels," not Alcar: Like it or not, forums ARE dictatorships. At the very least, we're an oligarchy. We elect our leaders and provide feedback as to whether or not they're doing a good job. That should be more than enough! These pathetic notions of "total" democracy and "revolution" have no place in a privately-owned website. If people would quit acting like total smacktards, we wouldn't have this problem.

Directed at Alcar: I apologize. I've totally done a 180 and shifted from "libertarian" to "nazi." But my opinion still stands. I'm sorry, but all of this talk of your "questionable" modship and "new" rules seems useless to me, although I do applaud your taking initiative to please the masses, Alcar.

Look, the point is that we shouldn't have to adhere to these lame systems for bannings/warnings/whatever. If a person is a little bitch, tell them to shut the fuck up. If they continue in excess, maybe another nudge is in order; but beyond that, screw 'em. A 24 hour/week (depending on the offense) ban should get the damn point across. On the other hand, if they are a perfectly contributive member just having a spot of fun, I see no problem as long as they aren't disrupting conversation constantly.

However, I note my wrongness in suggesting a non-counting spam forum. I see that it would take away from OT now that (whoever) mentioned it. Sorry. I must sound like a total bitch. I haven't had a good strong stance on anything at the forums for a quite a while.

EDIT: I second Jacob's notion of potentially banned members having a chance to speak for their actions... although I have no idea how such a method would be implemented.

[Majic]

One last post before a banning, maybe? This whole technicality system sounds like it'd be more even in terms of relative punishment for offenses, but it's much too cut and dry. Too much of a system is trying to be set up, and in the end, is going to be somewhat ignored anyways. Surely, if I went and made several blatant spam posts around in GD, I would not get banned for a week? More than likely, I'd be asked for an explanation. Why should other members be given such a diffferent treatment? If a member is acting up, then it would surely be reasonable to judge what kind of poster they are, and if a ban would be an effective method of helping them.

With the current system, or even this one in the works, it should still be much more lax with warnings and point offenses, leaving up to moderators judgeship. But it'd be much easier to just decide, as a staff, what to do.

[SeaRex]

One last post before a banning, maybe? This whole technicality system sounds like it'd be more even in terms of relative punishment for offenses, but it's much too cut and dry. Too much of a system is trying to be set up, and in the end, is going to be somewhat ignored anyways. Surely, if I went and made several blatant spam posts around in GD, I would not get banned for a week? More than likely, I'd be asked for an explanation. Why should other members be given such a diffferent treatment? If a member is acting up, then it would surely be reasonable to judge what kind of poster they are, and if a ban would be an effective method of helping them.

With the current system, or even this one in the works, it should still be much more lax with warnings and point offenses, leaving up to moderators judgeship. But it'd be much easier to just decide, as a staff, what to do.

My point exactly... minuses several threats and explitives. Plus, the way you explained it makes more sense than the jumble of crap I said.

I basically agree with what Majic is saying.

[Alcar]

So you think we should leave it the way it is, just lighten down on the amount of warnings issued? I'm on both sides, because I can see the shortcomings of the current system in the way of fairness, yet it could just be a waste of time.

SeaRex, when we decide whether a post is spam / rule breaking we do so based on that post alone, not taking into consideration their past actions. This removes any partialness (is that a word?). By judging a member based on everything they've done, it requires us to make personal judgements that are far more open to interpretation and arguing than deleting a single post. It's hard to explain... It's just somewhat different.

My main argument is that members are going to start retailiating a helluva lot more when I have to ban them for being a continued nuisance, based on my personal opinion. As you can clearly see, my judgements are quite regularly opposed, unfortunately. I can only see more threads such as these arise

*eeek* I made this a little too personal... Hopefully you can understand what I'm trying to get at.

Alcar...

[SeaRex]

Too personal? Not at all. I can see what you are trying to get at just fine... I just don't necessarily agree with all of it.

If you feel a new system is necessary, however, I'll trust your judgment. I don't like the idea of these rigid systems, but it will make little difference to those of us who rarely spam.

I still think you should be a tad bit more lenient on contributive members, though...

[Al the Glukkon]

I don't Know. I like Abe Babe's and Alcar's idea but I also think it would allow people to get away with more.

[Majic]

It'd allow people to get away with more, if the moderator decides. Thinking about it for a few minutes, if a person makes a blatant spam post, but is otherwise good. THey can just be given a 1 point warning, even if it deserves more. If a member does it constantly, you could build up the worth of the warning. Sounds a bit snazzy, actually.

[Alcar]

I still think you should be a tad bit more lenient on contributive members, though...

I see what you mean, as contributive members should have their reputations for being a good member count towards something. But I can see how the younger members would feel unfairly treated, if they were to receive the same warning someone more repuable should have also received, but didn't.

I guess this is the basis of the new system in the works. People who do minor offences receive the same treatment as those who commit major offences. I'm glad Abe Babe brought it to our attention, as I was content with the current system. I didn't really see any shortcomings (until now)

Alcar...

[Mac the Janitor]

You have already heard my opinion on this matter. I attempted to dig up the old post but couldn't find it. Maybe I will. But I still stand by what I said and believe that that system should at least be considered.

[Alcar]

I found the post for you, or at least, I think it is the post you are referring to:

Exactly my opinion on this matter. Giving out warnings does no good. Simply crush the spam on the spot.

It's basically what SeaRex was suggesting We do crush the spam on the spot, the reason you see none is because we delete it straight away. However, the no warnings part is obviously where I'm most concerned. Say we were to not give warnings. But we would PM the member and tell them what they've done is wrong. Okay, good, closed - for the good, respectful members who can acknowledge their mistake.

But, the point I keep coming to, is repeat offendors. If we keep deleting posts, and sending PMs informing them of their mistakes, what incentive or force, do they have to stop? The argument then, is that we ban them. To do so, we still need an established system of banning, so that members are aware of what will happen to them should they break the rules. Essentially, that is how our rules were born. So that people couldn't dispute their punishment, as it is plainly written for everyone to see.

Not only that, but spam is not the only issue, but I can see how any issues could be applied to your suggestion

Alcar...

[Adder]

I have to say, a designated SPAM area is a good idea. It allows people to chat in forums without any post benifits, thus removing worthless threads from other areas.

However, a scale system of warning does seem a lot better than the current system. I think both should be tried simultaniously. If the spam area doesn't work, remove it and keep scaled warning. If THAT doesn't work, go back to the old system (which is debateable, but works.)

[Wil]

A designated spam area... What would that be used for? Spam is currently defined thusly:

...posting excessively, flooding, excessive advertising, double posting, posting irrelevant replies or posting replies containing the bare minimum of words.

Is that all that would go on in this place? That seems really pointless, in a drastic way. I would prefer to see a more concrete definition of spam, one that does mean posts that are "jokes" are deleted (this IMO is the strongest argument against the Rules Enforcement of late, and yet I still haven't seen any example of this).

[Cloverfield]

It seems like I've opened up a can of worms. That's why I wasn't sure if such a system would work here ... as it was designed to be used on a forum which is a lot busier and a lot more active members than this one. When a forum is larger, generally you need to impliment such in order to prevent chaos.

Both systems have their pros and cons. And with both systems, I believe that the moderator has to make his/her judgement on what they deem to be a warnable offense. At ACF, people do get away with a bit of spam and one liners, we don't exactly go around issuing a 1 point warning for every second post we see. We just have to make our judgements. Often, when we see that the member will have been spamming a few times, the warning will be given. But if they are a known member and don't usually cause problems, then we'll let it drop. This kind of incorporates SeaRex's suggestion. So as you can see, a warning system isn't as cut and dry as you spam, you get a warning, etc.

Of course there are also exceptions to the system in the way of banning/suspension. Something like this would be a member who joined with the intent to flame and/or cause problems.

When you look at it though, the system isn't too different to the current system. We already have a system of three warnings = suspension, then ban, etc. The only difference with the suggestion is that it is scaled. Therefore something harsh is worth more points than something like a double post.

The last thing I want to do is to make people feel like they can't voice their opinions. Far from it. I think what we really need to cut down on is just the nasty comments. So for example, you could criticise someone, but as long as you aren't flaming them [i.e. saying it in a nasty or degoratory way], then it's fine. The same goes for where Jacob expressed concern about how he sometimes uses racist comments. I think we are all mature enough to accept such comments in the way of normal conversation. But the comments I was more referring to in my example was where someone made a racist comment for the sole reason of flaming another person. How to say this right ... but Jacob's comments often have a more light hearted approach to them, like when he refers to muffies for example.

Of course the other option is what Max refers to ... which is the deletion of a post if it is of a questionable manner. However we had done this in the past and we got people complaining about topics being closed and posts deleted.

As for a "spam" forum. Well, we have one of those on ACF as well. It's generally used to house crap topics that we luckily don't get much of on here. Things like the person above you thread, rate the avatar above you, party thread, hell ... the list goes on. It actually does work quite well on that forum, but I really don't think a small forum like OWF needs something like that. I think they are more suited to larger forums or forums that consist of many sub-forums so it evens out the spam with the discussion areas.

Abe Babe...

[Adder]

The idea of a spam area is to post all really-off-topic stuff, like that image, or that flash file over there.

It's somewhere to post things without purpose like "I'm so bored and I think you're all fat". It's "Random Randomness" in one forum I'm on, and "SPAM PIT" on another.

It's designed for people who feel they MUST post, but have nothing to say. It's basicaly a SAFE area to post in, since no-one cares! You're not breaking Spam rules, since it's designed not to have any.

[Nate]

As a disclaimer, whilst that may be a good or bad idea (I'm not passing judgement) it isn't the reason for the spiced ham thread. That is there to enable free conversation without the restriction of a rigid topic. If someone feels they MUST post they should start a blog somewhere that we can easily ignore.

[ClaireBear]

As a disclaimer, whilst that may be a good or bad idea (I'm not passing judgement) it isn't the reason for the spiced ham thread. That is there to enable free conversation without the restriction of a rigid topic. If someone feels they MUST post they should start a blog somewhere that we can easily ignore.

Sorry Nate but as the creator of the ORIGINAL (now sadly defunct) spam thread...

Adders definition is indeed correct... I intended it as a place for people to post random thoughts, ideas and feelings... without feeling like they'll get whupped by warnings....

Its somewhere to take offshoots of topic away from the main thread rather han use PM as more than one person may be interested... it is essentially a dumping ground!

Its for those of us who rather than feel we MUST post.. have essentially nothing better to do than post or have something we want to air without it becoming a real topic/thread.

[Alcar]

Its for those of us who rather than feel we MUST post.. have essentially nothing better to do than post or have something we want to air without it becoming a real topic/thread.

And we have told everyone time and time again, that we do not want, nor need such threads that are pointless. If you have something to post that urgent, create a blog, so that we can choose to ignore it.

Alcar...

[Mac the Janitor]

It seems like the intoleration of spam is causing more trouble than the spam itself. Heh.

I feel that we should be much less strict on this matter. The Aquabats Message Board is about 20x less strict upon it, yet I enjoy their community much more; it's a lot closer and friendlier, and not posting in fear of being "warned". I dunno, but I'd just like you to check out their system and see how it works; it's honestly the best message board I have ever been to. There I am the Benson by the way.

[ClaireBear]

And we have told everyone time and time again, that we do not want, nor need such threads that are pointless. If you have something to post that urgent, create a blog, so that we can choose to ignore it.

Alcar...

WTF is a blog?


And why should you a minority of one tell us the general posting members what we do or don't want!

[Cyber-Slig]

I dunno what a blog is either and why make one if people will ignore it .........

[Hobo]

A blog is like an online journal - most are full of crud and are only read by about 5 people once every quarter.

I side with Peter here, you got random stuff to say, keep it away from here.