The new infraction system explained

[GhostWriter16]

We kinda took a holiday break and have restarted the infraction system discussions and are currently thinking about a 2 tier system where most posters are in one tier and a smaller group are in another. The points awarded, expiration and ban lengths would be different for each tier. This approach might solve some of the issues raised by posters in the previous discussions and would separate newbies and generally well behaved posters from the more chronic rule breakers. We are talking about what the thresholds might be for making the transition from Tier 1 to Tier 2.

The rules need just a few tweaks.

So would people be starting in Tier 2, or would they have to get themselves there by future misbehavior? Because I personally think if you're radically changing the system, people should get a fresh start.

I'm assuming you would have to be at least in the upper-right quadrant of the political compass.

So I'm good?

 

[Birdjaguar]

So would people be starting in Tier 2, or would they have to get themselves there by future misbehavior? Because I personally think if you're radically changing the system, people should get a fresh start.

It has not been decided yet, but i assume it will be on a case by case basis for those with a checkered history; everyone else starts at Tier 1.

 

[Mise]

Thanks for the updates!

IMO what Shane's been doing in OT with closing a thread early before it gets too far out of hand, and then reopening it in a few days if people still want it, is the best way to deal with the problems in OT. The infraction system we have at the moment works fine as it is, maybe with a longer default expiry, but no need to overhaul the infraction system. Better to change the way you guys moderate a little bit instead, in the direction that Shane's been taking.

 

[GhostWriter16]

It has not been decided yet, but i assume it will be on a case by case basis for those with a checkered history; everyone else starts at Tier 1.

OK, if someone starts in tier 2, are they stuck there or can long term good behavior eventually get them out?

Also, will the people in tier 2 be aware they are in tier 2?

EDIT: I agree with Mise. Also, I could see the times being longer than they are, maybe even a lot longer, but a year is WAY further in the other direction then it should be. Why not leave the very minor infractions at 10 or 20 days, but make the bigger infractions last longer?

 

[Plotinus]

Why not leave the very minor infractions at 10 or 20 days, but make the bigger infractions last longer?

Because the lightness of the minor infractions is already reflected in the fact that they are worth fewer points.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Because the lightness of the minor infractions is already reflected in the fact that they are worth fewer points.

Under the new system, there's literally no such thing as a minor infraction. Under the new system as it currently stands, you could have one post every 2 months that is ever so slightly off topic, and you'll be banned.

On the other hand, genuine trolls will only be set back a year, its harder to game, but it will still be done by a few people. A few people may decide it isn't worth the effort, but at what cost? Banning people who don't even deserve to be banned?

Under this system, the difference between me posting something in this thread that technically didn't belong, and me calling you an idiot, would be merely the points involved. But I'd remember both for just as long, a year.

I think you guys are targeting the wrong thing. Yes, spam infractions have a place so it doesn't get out of control, but occasionally depending on the situation, spam is acceptable. The main problem with spam is the sheer amount of it. But spam is sometimes accidental, and a thread sometimes naturally goes off topic.

On the other hand, trolling and flaming are bad in all cases.

I think it seems like the new system is trying to make as many people as possible face the banhammer at least once. I know its not the goal, but that's what its going to accomplish.

I should also say, trolling or flaming is MUCH WORSE than mere spam or an out-of-place joke. So we should have less tolerance for these types of infractions. That a spam infraction would stay on your record for longer than a month is ridiculous.

With trolling or flaming, you're on the right track, though 12 months is still too much.

 

[downtown]

Thanks for the updates!

IMO what Shane's been doing in OT with closing a thread early before it gets too far out of hand, and then reopening it in a few days if people still want it, is the best way to deal with the problems in OT. The infraction system we have at the moment works fine as it is, maybe with a longer default expiry, but no need to overhaul the infraction system. Better to change the way you guys moderate a little bit instead, in the direction that Shane's been taking.

Yeah, I just want to echo that. I think he's been doing an outstanding job, and that proactive approach really does help the readability of the forums.

 

[spryllino]

We are talking about what the thresholds might be for making the transition from Tier 1 to Tier 2.

Please just use your discretion. You mods have quite enough of it, and numbers have very little.

 

[Abaddon]

I agree. Trying to create a thin black line would be very hard, and just something to be argued about. Just use your discretion.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Please just use your discretion. You mods have quite enough of it, and numbers have very little.

I agree. Trying to create a thin black line would be very hard, and just something to be argued about. Just use your discretion.

We tend to use descretion alot, but some folks also need a line in the sand so they know where they stand. Some mods also do better with harder lines than grey areas provide. By establishing a hard edge to the move from tier 1 to tier 2, we also create a point around which we can discuss the appropriateness of the change. Such an edge means the switch gets made unless we change our minds.

As I see it the change should involve total points earned, total infractions earned and the time involved in accumulating those. This assumes that everyone goes to zero when the new system begins. I can also see if a poster goes some length of time withoiut an infraction (6 months?), they should be moved back to tier 1. I cannot imagine more than a few dozen posters moving to tier 2.

 

[ainwood]

Thanks for the updates!

IMO what Shane's been doing in OT with closing a thread early before it gets too far out of hand, and then reopening it in a few days if people still want it, is the best way to deal with the problems in OT. The infraction system we have at the moment works fine as it is, maybe with a longer default expiry, but no need to overhaul the infraction system. Better to change the way you guys moderate a little bit instead, in the direction that Shane's been taking.

Actually, we're trying a combination of both.

 

[Plotinus]

Under the new system, there's literally no such thing as a minor infraction. Under the new system as it currently stands, you could have one post every 2 months that is ever so slightly off topic, and you'll be banned.

Yes, but it's only a brief ban. It's no big deal. People get bans of that length all the time as it is and it doesn't generally seem to do them much harm.

The point is that infractions, and the associated points, are (in themselves) meaningless. There are plenty of people who don't care about them in the slightest; it means nothing to them to get them, as long as they don't actually get banned, of course. These people may or may not game the system accordingly, getting plenty of points, but never actually getting banned.

One of the differences with the new system is that, yes, if you get points, you are much more likely to get banned. This removes, or at least minimises, the possibility of consequence-free rule-breaking, where people amass points but never actually get penalised in any tangible way.

It seems to me quite reasonable that a person who breaks the rules in the way you describe should ultimately get a brief ban to reinforce the fact that those are breaches of the rules. It's no big deal; it just means that the infraction points do actually mean something.

Also, a lot of your argument seems to be based on the idea that breaking the rules and picking up points is just natural behaviour for most people. But it's not. Most people don't break the rules, or get as many infraction points, as you envisage.

 

[Kyriakos]

The new system sounds quite good
Maybe the three chances to known trolls is not really needed, kind of pointless to have to pass 8+ months before they can be banned for good imo.

 

[useless]

2 months is not a brief ban regardless of how you try to spin the propaganda

 

[GhostWriter16]

2 months is not a brief ban regardless of how you try to spin the propaganda

He's talking about the three day ban IIRC.

Still, IMO this is ridiculous. But its also my opinion that this is being taken too seriously. Why is it a GOOD THING that people are getting banned.

Also, a year is a LONG time to live with a mistake. I haven't even been on here for a year yet...

 

[Birdjaguar]

Long bans and long expiration times are for those who refuse to learn from their mistakes and keep repeating them day after day, week after week and year after year.

 

[Plotinus]

He's talking about the three day ban IIRC.

Still, IMO this is ridiculous. But its also my opinion that this is being taken too seriously. Why is it a GOOD THING that people are getting banned.

It's not good that people get banned - but it is good that people's actions result in appropriate consequences. We don't want people to be acting in such a way that they get banned, but it is right that, if they do act in that way, there should be tangible consequences for doing so.

We don't want anyone to be getting banned. But that's because we don't want anyone to be breaking the rules! The whole point of having infractions and bans in the first place is to make rule-breaking have consequences. One of the motivations behind the new system is to strengthen the link between rule-breaking behaviour and the consequences, while still keeping the consequences proportional to the behaviour.

It means that minor rule-breaking behaviour is now that much more likely to lead to a minor ban. That means that you should either accept a minor ban as the price of minor rule-breaking behaviour, or if you're not willing to do so, refrain from rule-breaking behaviour (our preferred option!). Either way, you must face the consequences of your own behaviour.

Similarly, the long expiration time means that gaming the system will be much harder; that too means that actions are more likely to have appropriate consequences.

Also, a year is a LONG time to live with a mistake. I haven't even been on here for a year yet...

Well, don't break the rules, and you'll be fine.

Honestly, there are plenty of people who have been here far longer than you, and who have never amassed enough points to be banned under either the old system or the new one. It's not difficult.

 

[Dachs]

I've never understood the complaint about "gaming the system". As far as infractions go, "gaming the system" just means moderating one's activity until the infractions have expired. Isn't that a good thing? What's the problem with that, exactly?

 

[Abaddon]

The preference is for people to simply post in a manner that does not break the rules. Toeing the line is still detrimental to the forum, just at a rate carefully calculated not to get a ban. YES, in one way it does show the rules work, since someone would otherwise post a lot worse.. but ideally they'd change completely.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I've never understood the complaint about "gaming the system". As far as infractions go, "gaming the system" just means moderating one's activity until the infractions have expired. Isn't that a good thing? What's the problem with that, exactly?

I think there's a point to what Dachs is saying, and this is (Somewhat) why I'm trying to say. I guess what I'm saying is, who cares if someone breaks the rules once in awhile? Its not the best, but a spam comment once a month (I'm not talking Ad Spam obviously, I'm talking about a borderline case), does NOT break the forum. To which I say, give them the infraction for X amount of time (Should probably be longer than 10 days, but closer to that then a YEAR) and if they do it often enough that leads to a ban, they get banned. If they don't, its not all that big of a deal. I don't see any reason to worry about it. I spend a LOT of time posting here, but even I don't take it that seriously. I don't see it as worth overhauling the system for.

However, CERTAIN types of infractions, even committed sparingly, DO break the forum, notably trolling and flaming, and while I still see a year as too high, in these the goal is to ELIMINATE infractions, while in cases like spam, I don't see it as problamatic unless excessive.

I would suggest having the minimum ban be 12 hours, and be activated for ANY trolling or flaming comment. For spam, I'd rather see a system where the occasional offense is accepted, but too much is punished.

So I'd rather see infractions similar to how they are now, but an instant 12 hour ban for trolling or flaming, as well as 2 points, and a spam infraction just 1 point (Each point could also last double the time they do now.) I feel this would be better targeted towards rulebreaking, while not targeted at eliminating posters.