The new infraction system explained

[MobBoss]

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.

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.

 

[ainwood]

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.

We already are / have.

 

[MobBoss]

We already are / have.

Are those explained anywhere as I dont really see anything in the OP regarding it?

 

[ainwood]

Yes. Here.

 

[MobBoss]

Yes. Here.

Heh, thanks. Found it just as you replied.

EDIT: Btw, would this be an appropriate thread to discuss hypotheticals/issues for infractions? I have a question in regards to this one:

10 Advocating violence/ threats to other posters

 

[GhostWriter16]

I don't think they defined that one yet. Though I can see it being abused very easily..

 

[Turner]

EDIT: Btw, would this be an appropriate thread to discuss hypotheticals/issues for infractions? I have a question in regards to this one:

10 Advocating violence/ threats to other posters

Here, or the rules discussion social group. What's your question?

 

[Abaddon]

Anyway you tweak it, there will still be a minority who games the system.

 

[Turner]

Of course.

 

[Abaddon]

My point is that its all well and good trying to tackle it that way, but essentially you need a more direct method..

Mods should have more power to simply say "stop being a jerk, here's a week ban"

 

[GhostWriter16]

My point is that its all well and good trying to tackle it that way, but essentially you need a more direct method..

Mods should have more power to simply say "stop being a jerk, here's a week ban"

No! Then they'd ban people they don't like/agree with without cause...

 

[.Shane.]

Anyway you tweak it, there will still be a minority who games the system.

And, to me, a contributing factor is that when you create a bigger, more complicated system, the rules nazi's will try to find even more ways around it. They will find more to nitpick and complain about.

 

[Turner]

My point is that its all well and good trying to tackle it that way, but essentially you need a more direct method..

Mods should have more power to simply say "stop being a jerk, here's a week ban"

Technically we have that right. I'd like to see it used more myself.

 

[GhostWriter16]

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.

 

[MobBoss]

Here, or the rules discussion social group. What's your question?

Well, I understand advocating threats against forum members part, however, what about in discussing possible/probable violence of public figures in media?

For example, if person in media does X, and comments along the lines of a possible (or probabiity thereof) assassination (or other similar violent act) are mentioned, is that to be interpreted as 'advocating violence'? Or say, making a comment ala 'I am not sure why they havent just assassinated that guy yet' or words to that effect considered a call to violence? Or does it also depend on the figure being discussed...for example, the military strikes against Saddam Hussein as opposed to some other rather peaceful figure?

I guess what I am asking is a light clarifcation of what 'advocating violence' means. Is it solely in regards to other forum members? Public figures? Certain demographs (all demographs)? I wouldnt want to be accused of advocating violence in merely discussing the possibility of someone getting whacked, say, by Russia, Israel or even the USA for something they have done to upset the powers that be in those nations.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I would like to reiterate Mobboss' question, but also, what about the personal side of it. Is advocating self-defense "Advocating violence?" What about advocating the death penalty?

 

[Abaddon]

@Dom. Has been stated before, people can be jerks without actually breaking the rules. There HAS to be overlying mod power to combat that. It would not be a single mod decision.

1. Poster increase's their Jerk Profile
2. Mods discus situation
3. Upon coming to a consensus, act or not.

 

[GhostWriter16]

@Dom. Has been stated before, people can be jerks without actually breaking the rules. There HAS to be overlying mod power to combat that. It would not be a single mod decision.

1. Poster increase's their Jerk Profile
2. Mods discus situation
3. Upon coming to a consensus, act or not.

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.

 

[Turner]

Well, I understand advocating threats against forum members part, however, what about in discussing possible/probable violence of public figures in media?

For example, if person in media does X, and comments along the lines of a possible (or probabiity thereof) assassination (or other similar violent act) are mentioned, is that to be interpreted as 'advocating violence'? Or say, making a comment ala 'I am not sure why they havent just assassinated that guy yet' or words to that effect considered a call to violence? Or does it also depend on the figure being discussed...for example, the military strikes against Saddam Hussein as opposed to some other rather peaceful figure?

I guess what I am asking is a light clarifcation of what 'advocating violence' means. Is it solely in regards to other forum members? Public figures? Certain demographs (all demographs)? I wouldnt want to be accused of advocating violence in merely discussing the possibility of someone getting whacked, say, by Russia, Israel or even the USA for something they have done to upset the powers that be in those nations.

It comes down to moderator discretion. I'm not going to sit here and give examples of what would and would not be allowed, because it's too variable to say with any certainty. But we realize the difference between "I'm going to kill you" and "Serial Killer X should be executed for his crimes."

 

[Zelig]

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.

Well, yeah, the point isn't to be fair to posters who degrade the quality of the forums, it's to ban them.