The new infraction system explained

[Turner]

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.

Of course. How can it be any other way?

 

[Fetus4188]

Of course. How can it be any other way?

Sophisticated algorithms, of course.




I don't really understand why people are complaining about moderators having to make judgment calls. That's the definition of a moderator.

 

[Dachs]

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.

If the mods were consistent, he would!

 

[Abaddon]

Banning a person for such a subjective reason is opening the door to potential moderator bias/abuse.

If we had moderators we respected we wouldn't worry about that. Also given the need for a consensus, not simply a single mod on a power-trip.. you mods should be able to make such a decision without harming the forum.

@ The "not nice" comment:

That was my point exactly. This place is too nice on problem causers. I'm sure the recent survey highlighted a pretty obvious bunch of people CFC would be better without.

 

[MobBoss]

Just some general replies to what's been said.

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

Heh, but Moss...thats simply begs the age old question of 'Who Watches the Watchmen'?

Or maybe 'discrection is in the eye of the beholder'....

Of course. How can it be any other way?

Well, since you ask.....a self-policing system ala the Inspector Generals purpose in the military or Internal Affairs office for the police could be instituted. That is, create a mod subgroup that their only purpose was to hear appeals, publish/disclose data in regards to appeals heard/granted, and be reportable only to TF and not be accountable to the other mods regardless of seniority. In other words exist solely to provide an air of transparency to the entire user subgroup.

Point being...there could be 'other ways' if enough thought is put into it.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Of course. How can it be any other way?

How could you completely not do that? Well, don't infract anything that's not directly listed in the rules. However, that wouldn't work, because people could easily and obviously skirt the rules.

But the clearer you make the rules, the less likely you'll have to do that. So IMO we should STRIVE to only infract things that are specifically breaking rules, and try to make the rules clear enough that you can do that. There were some improvements, but the "Inciting Violence" infraction is going to cause some trouble.

Also, I like Mobby's idea. Choose a group of mods with elite status, and take away their modding ability, and just have them do appeals. That would work well IMO.

If the mods were consistent, he would!

Also, this...

 

[Gogf]

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.

How would the staff feel about regularly releasing statistics like this?

I want to reiterate that I think the fundamental idea behind this system is bad. It basically seems like an ad hoc attempt to "get tough" on a few specific problem users while also placing the staff on very firm ground insofar as they can always justify what happens as "well it's an objective system, and the system has meted out punishment X." This sounds like a pretty good deal at first, but it essentially boils down to an abstraction of responsibility on the staff's part ("oh, the system was responsible for that"), and that's almost always bad. I understand the tendency to try to be as clear as possible about what behavior is acceptable and what is not—I'm sure whoever came up with this idea was trying to make things better. However, the proposed system is fundamentally dishonest, overly bureaucratic, and, as others have noted, creates perverse incentives that punish good posters and encourage bad behavior. Why can't we just drop the charade and ban the people the community wants to get rid of, on the grounds that the community wants to get rid of them? That's at least as fair as the system that's being proposed here, and it's a hell of a lot less complicated.

 

[Turner]

Well, since you ask.....a self-policing system ala the Inspector Generals purpose in the military or Internal Affairs office for the police could be instituted. That is, create a mod subgroup that their only purpose was to hear appeals, publish/disclose data in regards to appeals heard/granted, and be reportable only to TF and not be accountable to the other mods regardless of seniority. In other words exist solely to provide an air of transparency to the entire user subgroup.

Point being...there could be 'other ways' if enough thought is put into it.

You miss my point. Any judgment from a moderator at any level is going to be biased. There is no automated way to infract someone. Maybe in fifty years when we have AI it'll happen, but as long as the human is present in the equation there is going to be subjectivity.

That's why we have mods from all over the world, from different cultures, genders, backgrounds, education....as varied as we can make it. This hopefully makes it more fair by getting differing viewpoints.

 

[ainwood]

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.

By removing some of the vagueness around the various rules, then I would hope that there will be less to argue.

How would the staff feel about regularly releasing statistics like this?

So would a 1% rate of turnover on appeals be an indication that the appeals process doesn't overturn bad moderating, or that the appeals made are frivolous?

 

[Mathilda]

Why can't we just drop the charade and ban the people the community wants to get rid of, on the grounds that the community wants to get rid of them? That's at least as fair as the system that's being proposed here, and it's a hell of a lot less complicated.

I'm not picking on you Gogf, this opinion has been expressed by many people now.
So let's say we allowed a vote in OT twice a year to get rid of one poster and required at least 50% of the vote for one person to have them banned form OT. I've just re-read the survey results and even though we didn't ask the question specifically quite a few of those who replied did suggest banning of someone. Not one poster received over 1/3 of the vote.
I know most of you have a couple of obvious candidates of you'd like to get rid of, and because they are so obvious to you (generic you), you presume the list is the same for everyone. That's just not the case. Different people are annoyed by different things and are understanding of different things.
That is one of the reasons why "being annoying" isn't against the rules any more than "being stupid" is.
And in case you were wondering, if the staff had the vote, the candidates wouldn't even come from OT

 

[Mise]

I'm gonna repost what I said in the Rules Discussion group thread on this:

People are saying that we're expending an awful lot of time and effort designing a system that will permaban only a handful of members. But, as has been pointed out, these people are only here for 1 or 2 weeks inbetween 6 month bans. So they AREN'T the problem in OT. The problem is idiots who derail and destroy threads by posting moronic things and then replying incessantly without necessarily getting more than 2-3 points (8 or so on the new points system). We need to design a system that stops them, more than we need to design a system that permabans 2 or 3 individuals.

What I'm saying is, don't bother trying to create a system that will permaban certain users. Try to create a system that will encourage better discussions.


Reposting what DT said: "A system that promotes and rewards GREAT POSTING will do more to improve the forum, not to mention mod's workloads, than elaborate punishment schemes. "

 

[GhostWriter16]

How would the staff feel about regularly releasing statistics like this?

Your point is valid. So is Ainwood's, what would a low turnover rate entail?

I want to reiterate that I think the fundamental idea behind this system is bad. It basically seems like an ad hoc attempt to "get tough" on a few specific problem users while also placing the staff on very firm ground insofar as they can always justify what happens as "well it's an objective system, and the system has meted out punishment X." This sounds like a pretty good deal at first, but it essentially boils down to an abstraction of responsibility on the staff's part ("oh, the system was responsible for that"), and that's almost always bad. I understand the tendency to try to be as clear as possible about what behavior is acceptable and what is not—I'm sure whoever came up with this idea was trying to make things better. However, the proposed system is fundamentally dishonest, overly bureaucratic, and, as others have noted, creates perverse incentives that punish good posters and encourage bad behavior. Why can't we just drop the charade and ban the people the community wants to get rid of, on the grounds that the community wants to get rid of them? That's at least as fair as the system that's being proposed here, and it's a hell of a lot less complicated.

No it isn't fair, because you have a right to be unpopular here. While you (Rightly so) have limited rights to speech on this website, the website is designed for people of different opinions and viewpoints. "Being stupid." Is not a good reason. Especially since if rather than banning people we try to teach them to be more open-minded, they can learn something.

And besides, its TF's site, not yours. So, such a "Popularity vote" would be fine if only TF got to vote. Since its not, the mod team has to work within the rules.

By removing some of the vagueness around the various rules, then I would hope that there will be less to argue.

You've done that somewhat, but IMO there is still vagueness.

So would a 1% rate of turnover on appeals be an indication that the appeals process doesn't overturn bad moderating, or that the appeals made are frivolous?

Probably a lot of frivolousness, but even though I'm not sure, I believe that moderators in general make mistakes on well over 1% of their decisions.

 

[Maniacal]

I also think that 12 months is a bit long for an infraction to expire unless it was for something really serious.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I'm gonna repost what I said in the Rules Discussion group thread on this:

People are saying that we're expending an awful lot of time and effort designing a system that will permaban only a handful of members. But, as has been pointed out, these people are only here for 1 or 2 weeks inbetween 6 month bans. So they AREN'T the problem in OT. The problem is idiots who derail and destroy threads by posting moronic things and then replying incessantly without necessarily getting more than 2-3 points (8 or so on the new points system). We need to design a system that stops them, more than we need to design a system that permabans 2 or 3 individuals.

What I'm saying is, don't bother trying to create a system that will permaban certain users. Try to create a system that will encourage better discussions.


Reposting what DT said: "A system that promotes and rewards GREAT POSTING will do more to improve the forum, not to mention mod's workloads, than elaborate punishment schemes. "

The infraction system, as you say, is only part of the solution. We are working on other parts that we think will address the issues you raise.

1. Improved rules
2. More effective infraction system
3. Better mod guidelines
4. Improved review process
5.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I didnt read all the thread but I think 12 months is a little too big.

 

[Zelig]

I'm not picking on you Gogf, this opinion has been expressed by many people now.
So let's say we allowed a vote in OT twice a year to get rid of one poster and required at least 50% of the vote for one person to have them banned form OT. I've just re-read the survey results and even though we didn't ask the question specifically quite a few of those who replied did suggest banning of someone. Not one poster received over 1/3 of the vote.
I know most of you have a couple of obvious candidates of you'd like to get rid of, and because they are so obvious to you (generic you), you presume the list is the same for everyone. That's just not the case. Different people are annoyed by different things and are understanding of different things.
That is one of the reasons why "being annoying" isn't against the rules any more than "being stupid" is.
And in case you were wondering, if the staff had the vote, the candidates wouldn't even come from OT

I don't buy this argument.

Choosing to ban *nobody*, is as much a choice as choosing to ban any specific poster, and the mods/admins bear just as much responsibility for the problems resulting from a lack of bannings as they do from carrying out any bannings.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I don't buy this argument.

Choosing to ban *nobody*, is as much a choice as choosing to ban any specific poster, and the mods/admins bear just as much responsibility for the problems resulting from a lack of bannings as they do from carrying out any bannings.

No they don't. There is no "Responsibility" issue, its TF's site, and he can ban whoever he likes.

TF's EMPLOYEES, however, have a responsibility to ban within the rules TF set.

 

[Moss]

TF's EMPLOYEES, however, have a responsibility to ban within the rules TF set.

We get paid?

 

[GhostWriter16]

We get paid?

OK, TF's VOLUNTEERS.

Happy?

 

[Moss]

OK, TF's VOLUNTEERS.

Happy?

Actually, I would prefer we were paid.

But a question for you: if TF's rules specifically said (as they do) that moderator discretion is allowed and will be used (in interpreting the rules, etc) would that be okay?