The new infraction system explained

[BSmith1068]

The absolute minimum a ban should be is 24 hours. If it is only 12 hours, then the ban could happen when the offender is asleep and not online anyway, making the ban useless.

 

[GhostWriter16]

The absolute minimum a ban should be is 24 hours. If it is only 12 hours, then the ban could happen when the offender is asleep and not online anyway, making the ban useless.

Remember they are getting infracted as well. The point is for a "Cool off" period for a heated thread, rather than making it count uber-strongly towards longer bans in heated threads.

Obviously, if the moderator felt the flaming wasn't even excusable (Like if I flamed you for your suggestion above, which wasn't even a heated discussion) they could give 3, 4, or more points, or a longer ban.

That said, I'd be OK with 24 hours. But three days is too long for minimal offenses.

And if they don't go on during that time? Great! They had a chance to cool down!

Obviously, if the same person needs to be told to "Cool off" several times in a month, harsher measures could be taken. But under my suggestion, the trolling infraction would last 60 days anyway, so eventually they would get banned if it was a habitual problem.

 

[Mise]

I agree that short, sharp bans should be used more. Cooling off highly charged, fast-moving threads in the way that Dom3k is suggesting is the best way of dealing with the worst flaming in OT, and short bans do the job perfectly.

 

[Dachs]

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.

This system doesn't really change any of that; it just leaves somewhat less leeway for offenders. "Gaming the system" is still eminently possible. It seems to me as though it's not designed to get people to "change completely" (as though the rules could ever do that), but to simply evict them.

 

[Cutlass]

I'm of the opinion that simply evicting some of the worst offenders is about the best way of getting the point across to the others. As it stands now, there are no real consequences to being a serial rule breaker. And they all know it.

 

[.Shane.]

I agree that short, sharp bans should be used more. Cooling off highly charged, fast-moving threads in the way that Dom3k is suggesting is the best way of dealing with the worst flaming in OT, and short bans do the job perfectly.

I largely disagree. (my mod hat is clearly OFF in this post)

I think 3 strikes, you're out is a good approach.

1st ban is short, say a couple weeks. 2nd bad is more substantial, say 3 months. 3rd ban is permanent, although after a year the person can appeal.

Short, fleeting bans are akin to timeouts. Timeouts are for 5 year olds.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Are you suggesting three infractions should be a permaban? Or are you NOT suggesting a ban should be for one infraction?

Also, two weeks is a rather long ban. A "Short" ban would be like three days at most.

The point of the "24 Hour timeout" is because there are very contested threads, for example the thread on abortion. People say things they shouldn't say, and its not right but its understandable. I don't see it as a fair idea that we should either take them out for a week or give them an infraction that stays on their record for a year. And it would make it nearly impossible to post in these types of threads, because emotions DO run high in these threads.

You've really been leaning towards this type of thinking in your moderating when you've been giving "Timeouts" to contested threads and I feel this is a VERY good idea.

 

[GenMarshall]

And how would this new system work for the atoners of the forums who were (unintentionally) cronic rule breakers?

 

[Abaddon]

Several times in this thread Beej has stated that the slate will be wiped clean, but moderators will have a memory of those who have been bad in the past.

How can a poster possibly post unintentionally infractionable stuff, chronically? They must have been infracted on several occasions, how did they not get a clue the first few times?


#EDIT: Sorry CG, I was not meaning to refer to you individually, but it looks like our wires got crossed and replies got heated. I have edited this post to make my message clearer, no hard feelings?

 

[GenMarshall]

@Abaddon, this is not about me .

How can you possibly be unintentional, cronically. You must have been infracted on several occasions, how did you not get a clue the first few times?

I'm sure Perfection and others have brought this point up already in this thread.

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.

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.

 

[Abaddon]

No, they do it intentionally, cronically.

You can't possibly do things unintentionally after the first dozen infractions or so. You KNOW you are pushing the line, but decide its worth it.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I seldom know what I am doing after drinking loads of beer.

 

[GenMarshall]

You can't possibly do things unintentionally after the first dozen infractions or so. You KNOW you are pushing the line, but decide its worth it.

No I don't. Have you not read the quotes I edited in earlier? I do not and I keep myself from pushing the line. Like Perfection, there are times that an infraction comes right out of the blue. Sometimes a post can be misinterperated, as MobBoss pointed out early in the thread.

It's insulting to assume that I am a chronic rule breaker

 

[Abaddon]

No, I don't check your older posts incase you write something interesting to me in them.

If a single post comes out of the blue.. so what, its a single infraction which will clear with time.

A poster can only fear such posts if they disrupt their gaming of the system.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Handbags you two!

 

[Mise]

I largely disagree. (my mod hat is clearly OFF in this post)

I think 3 strikes, you're out is a good approach.

1st ban is short, say a couple weeks. 2nd bad is more substantial, say 3 months. 3rd ban is permanent, although after a year the person can appeal.

Short, fleeting bans are akin to timeouts. Timeouts are for 5 year olds.

The problem with a lot of threads is that two or three people go at each other in a way that drowns out reasonable discussion. Stopping those people for a day or two would allow reasonable discussion to return.

2 week bans the right strategy for some posters and for some problems. I don't see what's wrong with having another strategy for dealing with other problems. There isn't just one magic bullet that's going to solve problems in OT; some problems are going to need harsh action on chronic posters, while other problems are going to need short, frequent bans.

 

[GenMarshall]

You can only fear such posts if they disrupt you gaming the system.

Full stop, I don't game the system.

 

[Abaddon]

Then you have nothing to fear. Full Stop, CAPITAL LETTERS.

 

[Turner]

Moderator Action: Enough you two.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Dachs]

As it stands now, there are no real consequences to being a serial rule breaker.

In many cases, that's got more to do with inconsistent moderation than with posters deliberately toeing the line.