The new infraction system explained

[BSmith1068]

This is a horrible idea...

If you want to ban someone, surely you can find a post of theirs that breaks the rules?

If you ban people for being jerks, then we will always be in fear of posting something the mod team doesn't like/agree with. We already have enough of that because the rules are vague and subject to interpretation. If the mods could just say "You are a jerk, I'm going to ban you" it could quickly become a popularity game, and even if it didn't, it would still not be a fair system.

It’s not like they are going to just up and decide to ban someone. The subject of such a ban should be able to see it coming.

 

[Abaddon]

If there was unanimous, or close to it, consensus, it would be fine, though primarily to get rid of "Hit and run" trolls which dodge the system.

If someone is just "Being a jerk" but no rule is being broken at all, they should be let be.

Several posters are a detriment to the forum, without breaking specific rules. I'm pretty damned sure they know who they are too.

Mods know who they are, everyone knows who they are. If the mods just kicked them, I am sure a lot more people would be happy.

Someone needs to take away TF's blankie and stop this soft culture we have on banning etc.

 

[MobBoss]

Several posters are a detriment to the forum, without breaking specific rules. I'm pretty damned sure they know who they are too.

Mods know who they are, everyone knows who they are. If the mods just kicked them, I am sure a lot more people would be happy.

Someone needs to take away TF's blankie and stop this soft culture we have on banning etc.

Ahem. Personally, the term 'unintended consequences' comes to mind in a very, very funny way as I read this......

Forums can indeed die a terrible death from over moderation. I dont think thats the intent here at all, but one should be careful of what they wish for. They might get it.

 

[Abaddon]

Heck, I accepted I could well have been banned a long time ago.. but i'd argue i've been nowhere near as detrimental as some. I'm top 20% i'd think, its the top 5% that needs skimming off.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Yeah, I'm probably in the top 5% in a lot of people's minds.

But seriously, a draconian forum that just kicked 5% of its posters without grounds would die a terrible and terrifying death.

 

[Abaddon]

No, 5% of people who create problems for CFC.. not all its members.

All this ho-har and nonsense about the rules is almost exclusively about OT, which is just a fraction of the site. The Mods should have to worry about banning a few posters now and then.

 

[Fetus4188]

My only concern is that the emphasis seems to be on punishing the repeat offense of any rules rather than the serial disregard for a single rule.

For example:

A poster breaks the language rule and is infracted; learns not to do that. Three months later he posts a spam thread and is infracted; learns not to do that. Another four months later he flames someone and is infracted; learns not to do that.

I do not think that is comparable to someone who were to show continual disregard for a rule:

Break rule X, three months later break rule X again, three months later break it again, and so on.


The former is a person who is unaware of the location of the figurative line; the latter is someone who has seemingly no respect for the rules. I don't think they should be receiving the same treatment.

Hope I got that across correctly.

 

[MobBoss]

Well, here's the thing. This system, like the one previous to it, is still based on the same thing: moderator discretion. At the end of the day, it doesnt matter what style or form the infraction system has, its still ultimately going to be based upon moderator discretion. As such, you can argue till the cows come how on why you shouldnt be infracted for a particular issue, but if your argument falls upon deaf ears, you are simply stuck regardless if you were right or not. You have to utterly rely upon a moderators willingness and sense of fairness here and thats that. And thats going to be the bottom line no matter what system you put into place with whatever rules you deem fit.

And since this site is privately owned thats absolutely the way it should be.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Remember though, there's an appeal process to the Supermods.

 

[MobBoss]

Remember though, there's an appeal process to the Supermods.

I remind you the old system had an appeal process too. This one is just more formalized.

I will tell you right now, supermods arent going to be prone to over-ruling other mods without VERY good reason. Overwhelming reason as a matter of opinion. Its just not going to happen except in the most extreme of circumstances. If I had to guess a percentage on it, it would probably be less than 3% or so where a supermod would over-rule something on appeal. Maybe even less.

If you somehow are depending on this occurring, be prepared to probably be disappointed.

 

[Zelig]

My only concern is that the emphasis seems to be on punishing the repeat offense of any rules rather than the serial disregard for a single rule.

For example:

A poster breaks the language rule and is infracted; learns not to do that. Three months later he posts a spam thread and is infracted; learns not to do that. Another four months later he flames someone and is infracted; learns not to do that.

I do not think that is comparable to someone who were to show continual disregard for a rule:

Break rule X, three months later break rule X again, three months later break it again, and so on.


The former is a person who is unaware of the location of the figurative line; the latter is someone who has seemingly no respect for the rules. I don't think they should be receiving the same treatment.

Hope I got that across correctly.

I don't value CFC enough to alter my behavior based on infractions.

You're just lucky to be graced with my presence because the infraction system hasn't resulted in me being banned.

 

[shadowplay]

Well, here's the thing. This system, like the one previous to it, is still based on the same thing: moderator discretion. At the end of the day, it doesnt matter what style or form the infraction system has, its still ultimately going to be based upon moderator discretion. As such, you can argue till the cows come how on why you shouldnt be infracted for a particular issue, but if your argument falls upon deaf ears, you are simply stuck regardless if you were right or not. You have to utterly rely upon a moderators willingness and sense of fairness here and thats that. And thats going to be the bottom line no matter what system you put into place with whatever rules you deem fit.

I strongly agree with this sentiment.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I remind you the old system had an appeal process too. This one is just more formalized.

I will tell you right now, supermods arent going to be prone to over-ruling other mods without VERY good reason. Overwhelming reason as a matter of opinion. Its just not going to happen except in the most extreme of circumstances. If I had to guess a percentage on it, it would probably be less than 3% or so where a supermod would over-rule something on appeal. Maybe even less.

If you somehow are depending on this occurring, be prepared to probably be disappointed.

No its not likely, but do you think it would be less so than an admin would be?

Also, aren't they basically telling the supermods "Yes, overturn other mods if you have a good reason?"

 

[Moss]

Just some general replies to what's been said.

If you don't allow for moderator discretion, you might as well not have moderators.

As for the appeal procedure, I think some of you are incorrect in assuming that mods won't be overturned if they feel the infraction is wrongly issued. Contrary to what some believe, we do care about the members, we don't enjoy infracting people, and if a better way to do things or a better way to handle a situation can be found, we'll take that way. The super-mods, in reviewing infractions, will be looking for that better way. If it isn't found, then we can assume that the right (or best) decision was made by the initial moderator who issued the infraction.

 

[Mise]

Whether or not we are incorrect in that assumption is irrelevant -- it's the fact that we don't trust you that is the biggest obstacle to a working appeals system. You can have infractions reviewed and repealled til the cows come home, but if nobody trusts that you'll do the right thing in the next case they bring, then the appeals process will be a failure.

You guys need more transparency in the whole process. The clarification of the rules was a great first step (along with examples etc). The next step is to make the appeals process more open. It's absolutely essential that justice is seen to be done.

 

[JollyRoger]

It is pretty frustrating to only get 90% of one's infractions overturned.

 

[GhostWriter16]

It is pretty frustrating to only get 90% of one's infractions overturned.

Seriously? I don't believe you are that unfairly treated.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Frankly, I consider infracting double posts to be silly. The only problem I see with it is post count, in which case merging them solves the problem. If you feel someone is consistently double posting to boost post count, give their PC a hit (If you are able too.) Infracting them, especially under this system, is silly IMO.
...

Fair enough, but sometimes people won't notice they've double posted. Should they be infracted under this system? I think not. The problem is, ANY infraction lasting 12 months for a double post is ridiculous. In fact, the current 10 days is more than good enough.

In most cases I just merge the posts and don't say anything. In a few cases I will PM the member and explain that double posting is something they are not supposed to do, and explain further how double posting can be avoided. In still fewer cases I have issued warnings or infractions for really chronic cases (ie. 5 double posts on the same page) or many consecutive posts.

I've posted in this forum on more than one occasion how you can avoid double posting (or fix them fast).

This is a horrible idea...

If you want to ban someone, surely you can find a post of theirs that breaks the rules?

If you ban people for being jerks, then we will always be in fear of posting something the mod team doesn't like/agree with. We already have enough of that because the rules are vague and subject to interpretation. If the mods could just say "You are a jerk, I'm going to ban you" it could quickly become a popularity game, and even if it didn't, it would still not be a fair system.

I agree. Banning a person for such a subjective reason is opening the door to potential moderator bias/abuse. I've seen this happen on other forums, and it can divide a forum thisfast. But we hope people won't act like jerks anyway, just because it's not a civil thing to do.

Someone needs to take away TF's blankie and stop this soft culture we have on banning etc.

Now that wasn't nice.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I agree. Banning a person for such a subjective reason is opening the door to potential moderator bias/abuse. I've seen this happen on other forums, and it can divide a forum thisfast. But we hope people won't act like jerks anyway, just because it's not a civil thing to do.

Naturally we should try not to be jerks, but Abbadon (And a lot of other people) are advocating banning people for it. That's what I'm fighting against. Not to mention "Being a jerk" is an unprovable accusation, saying you insulted someone or your post was off topic can be proven.

 

[Maniacal]

You've been here almost nine years and have 42,473 posts. I should think by now that you would have a better idea than almost anybody what a mod would or would not consider acceptable.

Sometimes you don't realize that your post will get infracted, I've had that happen a few timed and I've never tried to break the rules. Twice I, unknown to me and entirely unintentional, accidentally flamed someone (I think you know of the second time that happened). And a couple of times for something in which was again entirely unintentional and I still maintain it did not qualify for warning (one of which was pretty moot anyways since it wasn't like I go around posting jokes in serious buisness threads nor was I.. whatever doesn't matter much anymore.)

Valka, I dont think thats a given at all. Sure there is always room for improvement - for everyone. That doesnt mean that we, i.e. posters and mods, are always going to agree or see things the same way even under the most optimal circumstances.

In other words, I think what Perf is talking about is sometimes what you post can be greatly misinterpreted, and even when you try to explain your point of view on how you said what you said to the mod giving the infraction, sometimes they will simply be unwavering in their decision.

While I think its great that user opinion be solicited, its still TF site and the Mods are in charge. Our suggestions are merely that.....and nothing more.

For myself, my only recommendation would be a consideration that if we are indeed going to revamp the infraction system to this degree, then in turn the appeal/review process for infractions needs to be revamped as well....especially if one is facing a multi-month ban. Some neutral oversight in order to help mitigate misunderstandings would be nice.

I assume we can still dispute them via PM, however as I said above I've gotten a couple of minor warnings that I still think were a waste of the mod's time and not hurting anything (but whatever, as long as it doesn't happen again I'm fine).

Though besides those times I've had no issue.

Whether or not we are incorrect in that assumption is irrelevant -- it's the fact that we don't trust you that is the biggest obstacle to a working appeals system. You can have infractions reviewed and repealled til the cows come home, but if nobody trusts that you'll do the right thing in the next case they bring, then the appeals process will be a failure.

You guys need more transparency in the whole process. The clarification of the rules was a great first step (along with examples etc). The next step is to make the appeals process more open. It's absolutely essential that justice is seen to be done.

I've generally had no issue, though I've had a mod simply not reply a couple of times, I only let the matter drop because it was a yellow card. Still think it was an incorrect warning. I could see not replying if it was a problem poster or they wrote horrible 'appeal' PMs that really didn't help them, but afaik that isn't me and if it is then I wonder how bad most appeals are.