The new infraction system explained

[BSmith1068]

So first of all, the thing I think you need to recognize is that some infractions aren't really a big deal. These include, in my opinion: double post infractions, accidentally quoting a post that tripped the autocensor, very minor spam, quote-altering, exc. (I put these in order from least subjective to most subjective.) For these types of infractions, I see the current system of one point and 10-20 day expiration as good. If you don't agree, think about it, do you moderators REALLY want to make someone remember for a year that they accidentally double posted in some thread? I know it only gets one point, but with 5 points in 12 months for an infraction, it would be easy for someone to be banned for the "Crime" of accidentally double posting a few times! Now, if you want to infract things like that, fine, but it should be done lightly to avoid annoying us to death. Obviously double posting all the time isn't a great thing so it should be dealt with, but we shouldn't be targeting to "Ban people who double post too often."

If the threshold for the first ban is large enough, then I have no problem with the points lasting for a full 12 months. Frankly, if I make the same mistake over and over again, perhaps I deserve a little reminder that I need to pay more attention.

I do see your point, but still, being banned EVERY infraction for a 6 month period seems a bit much. I'd make the maximum ban window 5 points. So then 2 moderate infractions or 1 major one.

Remember that more than likely the poster will have points expiring as well. So it is really an incentive to not get infracted and wait until the point balance falls some before getting in trouble again (and hopefully learning not to be a problem in the process).

I am not so sure if I have much sympathy if someone earns enough points to get a 4 month ban in a very short time (and therefore won’t have any points expire anytime soon).

 

[DaveShack]

I don't see how planning for a number of infractions you can get in a year without being banned is in any way ok. Nobody's forcing you to post things that are infraction worthy. Each and every time you have a choice to hit post reply, or not.

 

[Perfection]

I don't see how planning for a number of infractions you can get in a year without being banned is in any way ok. Nobody's forcing you to post things that are infraction worthy. Each and every time you have a choice to hit post reply, or not.

Typically when I get an infraction, it comes out of left field as something I didn't anticipate. I don't think I should be banned because every 3 months or so I accidentally post something that a mod considers unacceptable.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

How will accidentally double posting be handled? Are you going to give an infraction that lasts 12 months to that as well?

Dealing with double posts has been / is being revised to be:
Consecutive posting as a reply to the thread or a single post is considered spam.
Replying to two different posts by consecutive posts is allowed.
The posts may be merged but the poster won't be infracted.
If such multiple posting seems excessive poster can be asked to curtail the habit and if the poster doesn't do so, can be infracted for "Ignoring moderator action or warnings (3 points)"

There may be some specific rules to specific treads that are stricter than this, but they'll be separately announced.

Overall, we are trying to shift the focus more on what is actually disruptive to the forums.
Accidental double posts rarely are.

Some folks have noticed that in most cases of double posting, I simply merge the posts together and go on with my day. But there are a few people who are chronic offenders and while it doesn't disrupt the forum, some people do consider it highly annoying.

What I have done regarding accidental double posting is tell people that if you notice you've done it, just report the post yourself and say something like "oops - double post - please merge" and no penalties would happen. I think that's fair; however, we shall see what the final version of the rules say about it.

In fact, from what very little I've read on here, its seems like some people who are now mods (Valka D'Ur comes to mind), may have been banned under this system.

To clarify, I have two warnings and one minor infraction on my record. The violations were for quoting a post that contained a censored word, and accusing another poster of trolling. Total number of points incurred during all the time I've been here: 1.

Typically when I get an infraction, it comes out of left field as something I didn't anticipate. I don't think I should be banned because every 3 months or so I accidentally post something that a mod considers unacceptable.

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.

 

[Camikaze]

To clarify, I have two warnings and one minor infraction on my record. The violations were for quoting a post that contained a censored word, and accusing another poster of trolling. Total number of points incurred during all the time I've been here: 1.

Under the new rules that would be at least 2, possibly 4 points. That would leave you just a very minor spam post or perhaps a signature violation in the latter case, or a troll post (perhaps in which you hadn't intended to break the rules) in the former case, away from a ban. That seems very excessive. Particularly when someone with more points would not be in the same predicament.

 

[ainwood]

Also, why is PDMA 4 points? Unlike other infractions, PDMA, quite frankly, IS infracted because of moderator's being offended.

It is most certainly not because "moderator's being offended". We don't allow it because of bitter experience of people with axes to grind who generally post half-truths and spin in an effort to show the world how unfairly they (believe) they have been treated. It simply doesn't work.

The PM system works, and we have now strengthened that with a more structured appeals process.

 

[GhostWriter16]

My apologies, it's not in the rules specifically. I was thinking of what Mathilda posted on page one:

Thank you, you are correct. Fair enough.

If the threshold for the first ban is large enough, then I have no problem with the points lasting for a full 12 months. Frankly, if I make the same mistake over and over again, perhaps I deserve a little reminder that I need to pay more attention.

Well the problem is, there's a difference between a troll or a flame and spam. With the former, they just aren't tolerated, and with rightful reason. With something like spam, a limited amount is tolerated in certain places. Now, if someone accidentally crosses the line, I can see them getting in trouble, but 12 months? Really?

A full out troll or flame on the other hand I can see. Though still, 12 months? I think 6 (As Camikaze suggested), combined with your suggestion of 15 points would be good. Or maybe even 4 months combined with your 15. That's still only one troll a month and you'll still be banned. I don't see a compelling reason it should be harsher than that.

I don't see how planning for a number of infractions you can get in a year without being banned is in any way ok. Nobody's forcing you to post things that are infraction worthy. Each and every time you have a choice to hit post reply, or not.

Well the problem is, first of all, people will get angry and post something against the rules once in awhile. If you banned everyone who did this, you would only have a small core group of elites and the newbies left, and ban 2/3rds of the regulars.

Also, the rules aren't crystal clear, there is obvious things against the rules, and obvious things within the rules, but some things are borderline, even if you say them in the best way possible. Sometimes its hard to tell. So infractions will happen.

Some folks have noticed that in most cases of double posting, I simply merge the posts together and go on with my day. But there are a few people who are chronic offenders and while it doesn't disrupt the forum, some people do consider it highly annoying.

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.

What I have done regarding accidental double posting is tell people that if you notice you've done it, just report the post yourself and say something like "oops - double post - please merge" and no penalties would happen. I think that's fair; however, we shall see what the final version of the rules say about it.

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.

To clarify, I have two warnings and one minor infraction on my record. The violations were for quoting a post that contained a censored word, and accusing another poster of trolling. Total number of points incurred during all the time I've been here: 1.

Then you wouldn't have been banned, but at one point you would have been close. And my point being, you'd actually have been one of the better posters on here and still get CLOSE to being banned. So my point is, should we ban average posters, or just continual rule-breakers. I'd go with the latter. Under the new system, most people will be banned at least once a year, even the above-average with the rules people.

It is most certainly not because "moderator's being offended". We don't allow it because of bitter experience of people with axes to grind who generally post half-truths and spin in an effort to show the world how unfairly they (believe) they have been treated. It simply doesn't work.

The PM system works, and we have now strengthened that with a more structured appeals process.

Valid point, and I can see a case where someone is looking for a fight and you need to ding them with 4 points, but some cases aren't really obvious or intended PDMA, but the post happens to have something that's technically PDMA. The mods should have the option of giving less points, but currently they do not.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

The mods should have the option of giving less points, but currently they do not.

We do.

There's such a thing called a customized infraction, where we can set any points we want, and any expiry period we want, including permanent. (Interesting possibilities here...) If I want to, I can set your points above or below 4. And it'll pass so long as I can justify it.

The set infractions are only for the more commonly occuring ones, so that we don't have to manually key in the details everytime for these.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Do you actually ever give permanent infractions to non-spambots?

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Not at the moment, but we can always change that.

In fact I am thinking if there really are posters who're so motivated enough to try to game the system over 12 months, we can just make a list of these people, and then make all their infractions permanent with no expiry period.

But for now, we're trying to get the basic system up...

 

[.Shane.]

I really do appreciate all the effort, thought, and consideration that went into this. And I like that some infractions carry more weight. I'll agree w/ the others that the way bans are given out is the problem.

I like BSmith's approach. Let me offer mine... Its predicated on a few things:

1. You have too many levels of bans. Simplify.
2. You are too forgiving. This will rarely lead to consequential bans of problem posters. Other than adbots I don't see anyone being banned until 2019.
3. As BJ noted in one of his first replies, the real PITA posters will always find a way to skirt the law, so why worry about a system that is so generous to these very people?

20 points: 1 Month.
Next 10 points: 2 Months
Next 10 points: 6 Months
Final 10 points: Permaban

I know people worry about permabans coming back w/ dupe accounts. But the funny thing is these types of posters are typically attention whores so, either they come back truly changed (which isn't so bad as all we're really dealing with here are personas anyway) or they will make themselves obvious right away and you re-ban. Do that enough and they will give up.

Couple this w/ broader liberties for custom infractions/bans and you're set.

 

[Mise]

Here's my proposal:

Automatic ban triggers at:

21 points - 3 days
24 points - 3 days
27 points - 3 days
30 points - 3 days
33 points - 5 days
36 points
...
42 points - 7 days
45 points
...
51 points - 1 month
...
60 points - 2 months
62 points
...
70 points - 4 months
72 points - 4 months
74 points - 4 months
76 points - Permaban

The idea of the 3 point intervals between bans is:
a) You can't realistically "hover" within a 3 point limit.
b) If you tried to "hover" like that, you would be limited to only posting minor offenses (1 and 2 point infractions).
c) It doesn't unnecessarily or over-harshly punish people who come off a ban and then get hit with a 1 point infraction for having a signature that's 6 lines instead of 5 on a 1024x768 screen (seriously, who has those anymore?!), or any other minor offense.
d) It goes up to 2 point intervals after 60 points, and there's still the "3 strikes" rule at the 4 month point.
e) It gets the persistent people to cool down or GTFO.

Infractions should expire after 3 months under this proposal. 3 months would punish long-standing trolls without clipping the wings of newbies; any longer would be far too harsh in any case. When you get to 60 points, infractions should expire after 6 months. It assumes that "minor" infractions are actually used, BTW.

The general strategy isn't so much to permaban people, but rather to keep smacking people when they do stuff wrong, and to keep a troll away long enough for the thread he just trolled to move on. In fact, I don't think permabanning anyone is a good idea at all, but I know I'm in the minority in that respect.

For me, the problem is people who go at each other incessantly and drown out valuable discussion. And for those people, I think short "time-outs" of a few days would be a good idea, if only to clear out a thread of all the waste and garbage and allow some valuable discussion to be had.

Tell me if this is stupid.

 

[GhostWriter16]

With 12 month infractions, an entire month of exile is too much for 20 points of infractions is a bit much. I also am generally against permabans and think that the ban window needs to be closed. I don't think a permaban option should exist in the system (Except something for adbots. Just set it at like 300 where it will never hit normally.) Mods can permaban if a majority of mods agree with it and they've already went through a lot of long bans. The highest ban shouldn't be permanent.

So, IMO we should do 6 month expirations for real offenses like trolling, PDMA,flaming, serious spam, and 30 days for pseudo-offenses that you'd just rather not happen too often (Like mild spam or quote-altering.)

And the ban ladder, IMO, should look something like:

12 Points: 4 Days

20 Points: 1 Week

27 Points: 2 Weeks

33 Points: 1 Month

38 Points: 2 Months

43 Points: 6 Months

No permaban, it seems to me six months is already long enough to get rid of almost anyone. Obviously ad-bots would be permabanned, and the mods still reserve the right to do so manually if there is a strong consensus to do so, but I personally think for non-adbots its unneeded.

You can also make points freeze during bans if you like. That's actually a good idea.

And if you do go with the freeze points idea, then every five points more would trigger another 6 month ban (So you can't just sit happy above 43)

EDIT: I just saw Mise's idea, and that looks good too, but you shouldn't get banned with only three points for the second ban.

 

[Mise]

One more thing: I've looked over my infractions since 1st January 2008, and on the new points system, I'd be on 41 points now. I'd have been banned in Dec 2008 for 3 days, Aug 2009 for 5 days, Dec 2009 for a week, Feb 2010 for 2 weeks, and Dec 2010 (yesterday) for 1 month. From now on, I'd have a strong incentive to acquire 41 points over the next 12 months, in order to avoid more bans in the future.

The idea that having a sig 6 lines instead of 5 lines is such a heinous crime that it shouldn't be forgiven for at least a year is completely ********, btw. Same with all of your other 1-2 point infractions.

 

[GhostWriter16]

@Mise- I agree with that last line. As I said, those things should be 30 days. Though the two point infractions could be six months I GUESS (I'd lean toward 3.)

But a Signature violation? That shouldn't even be on the list, especially since not everyone uses the same computer screen. That should simply be met with a request to change the signature, and an infraction only if they refuse.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

The idea that having a sig 6 lines instead of 5 lines is such a heinous crime that it shouldn't be forgiven for at least a year is completely ********, btw. Same with all of your other 1-2 point infractions.

The 1 point infraction for signature is for those who refuse to change their sigs, or keep changing their sigs back, or troll and flame in their sigs, and whatevernot - it's not about sig sizes.

For sig sizes, we use warnings. Or PMs.

We'll have sentencing guidelines up, for internal use, to clarify on these details to all mods, as part of the consistency thingie.

 

[Mise]

Are you saying that you will be more lenient than you have been in the past, in terms of what crosses the line and what doesn't? I'd expect you to be, given that a 1 point infraction is no longer a "slap on the wrist", but a semi-permanent black mark that stays with a person for an entire year. Will we see these sentencing guidelines?

 

[BSmith1068]

In fact I am thinking if there really are posters who're so motivated enough to try to game the system over 12 months, we can just make a list of these people, and then make all their infractions permanent with no expiry period.

I was thinking about suggesting something like this, but you beat me to it! Another option would be a custom infraction with enough points to boost them to the next ban level.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Like I said, the sentencing guidelines will be for internal use.

 

[shadowplay]

This is becoming way more complicated than it needs to be.