Abolishing the Infraction System?

[Zach Vega]

Or at least reforming it?

[Diabolical Minds Think Alike]

Good luck with that lol

[© Tweed the Younger]

you'd have to get the absentee landlord on board which is unlikely at best.

[So the Heroes Fall]

I'd like to hear someone make an argument as to how this has improved the moderation system in any way. Because really I find defending that about as easy and logical as opposing gay marriage.

[Nym90]

The thread explaining the system and Dave's logic behind creating it is stickied in this very board.

[So the Heroes Fall]

No what I'm asking how it has improved things at all since it was created. Because it was put in place because people were upset at the lack of action taken against people like a Redlands University student and HoffmanJohn. But only one person has been banned as a result of it (Derek, who wasn't even really a malicious troll, he just not too bright), and thanks to it we now have people throwing fits and complaint threads every time something is infracted, all sorts of paranoid accusations, and people who want to make it a goal to accumulate them or sort of play a game to see how many they can get without being banned or going on mod review, none of which exactly have helped things any.

[© Tweed the Younger]

^^ that's one of the more impressive points ever made on this issue.  props to BRTD.

[Grumps]

Sadly the system has not improved the discourse.  It's  made it worse, everyone attacking each other.

[Torie]

Sadly the system has not improved the discourse.  It's  made it worse, everyone attacking each other.

Maybe we are just sick of each other after all this time, and  can't stand it anymore, and lash out. I think there may be one poster around here, who at this point would love in a more perfect world to punch the daylights out of this particular arrogant know-it-all prick.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I find it “interesting” that as the Troll-in-Chief of this board, I find all this anti-Mod commotion to be WAY OVER BOARD.

The system works pretty well, my only complaints are:
1) the system needs to be slightly more tolerant to benign humorous trolling
2) the system needs to allow conflicts to be worked out through debate (which I think the Mods are now allowing)

In regard to Teddy's banning: making a physical threat against another poster with a detailed plan to carry it out…left the Mods no choice but to ban him, since he was using this board as medium for which to communicate his threats.

In regard to Keystone Phil: he simply needs to relax and not get so angry.  He's way too easy to spin up…and he resorts to conspiracies (“how much is Romney paying you?”) way too often, in order to help himself cope with someone having a different opinion.

In regard to the jmfcst:  he knows he carries his jokes too far…from time to time.

[Grumps]

Sadly the system has not improved the discourse.  It's  made it worse, everyone attacking each other.

Maybe we are just sick of each other after all this time, and  can't stand it anymore, and lash out. I think there may be one poster around here, who at this point would love in a more perfect world to punch the daylights out of this particular arrogant know-it-all prick.

You're my favorite know-it-all prick, you genuis you

[Nym90]

I agree that while the system was intended to create a systematic way of tracking violations and instill more objectivity to moderation, it hasn't really succeeded because the wide variety of the nature of the infractions makes it very difficult to have complete consistency in the points assigned, and thus we end up with "Poster Y got fewer points than I did for a post that was worse than mine, thus the mods hate me" type threads.

The other issue is that there are a massive number of posts made each day and neither the mods nor anyone else can possibly read all of them. So if for some reason certain types of posts or posts from certain posters are more likely to be reported than others, then we end up with "My posts always get reported and infracted but worse posts by poster x don't get reported or infracted, thus the mods hate me" threads.

The system does have the advantage of being a better way of communicating infractions than having to, say, manually PM members.

I think of it as a warning system more so than a punishment. It's a way of getting the point across that a particular post or posting style is out of bounds. The ultimate decision of whether to ban someone is always going to consider other factors as well such as length of tenure, "signal to noise" ratio (ratio of contributive to non contributive posts), perceived liklihood of the problematic behavior being corrected in the future, etc.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I find it “interesting” that as the Troll-in-Chief of this board, I find all this anti-Mod commotion to be WAY OVER BOARD.

The system works pretty well, my only complaints are:
1) the system needs to be slightly more tolerant to benign humorous trolling
2) the system needs to allow conflicts to be worked out through debate (which I think the Mods are now allowing)

In regard to Teddy's banning: making a physical threat against another poster with a detailed plan to carry it out…left the Mods no choice but to ban him, since he was using this board as medium for which to communicate his threats.

In regard to Keystone Phil: he simply needs to relax and not get so angry.  He's way too easy to spin up…and he resorts to conspiracies (“how much is Romney paying you?”) way too often, in order to help himself cope with someone having a different opinion.

In regard to the jmfcst:  he knows he carries his jokes too far…from time to time.

I will now accept my brownie points...

[Badger]

My biggest concern about the system is it really doesn' punish anyone for wrongdoing. It creates a lot of forums for someone to scream about persecution, but really has very little teeth for repeat offenders in all but the most egregious circumstances.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

My biggest concern about the system is it really doesn' punish anyone for wrongdoing. It creates a lot of forums for someone to scream about persecution, but really has very little teeth for repeat offenders in all but the most egregious circumstances.

why would we want the current system to target anything other than the most egregious circumstances? 

 

[Badger]

My biggest concern about the system is it really doesn' punish anyone for wrongdoing. It creates a lot of forums for someone to scream about persecution, but really has very little teeth for repeat offenders in all but the most egregious circumstances.

why would we want the current system to target anything other than the most egregious circumstances? 

 

In terms of long term/perma-bans, no one. But basically the current system doesn't even permit minor sanctions to repeated, but not irredemaable, offenders. It remainds me of the medieval legal system where 90+% of the time the only penalties where death or nothing.

[Nym90]

Well, we have done temporary bans before; if you're saying we should use them more often as a compromise solution, I'm definitely open to that idea.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Well, we have done temporary bans before; if you're saying we should use them more often as a compromise solution, I'm definitely open to that idea.

as your own personal consigliere, I feel it is my duty to advise that that idea might not be productive

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Well, we have done temporary bans before; if you're saying we should use them more often as a compromise solution, I'm definitely open to that idea.

as your own personal consigliere, I feel it is my duty to advise that that idea might not be productive

Why?  You would've been perma-banned if it weren't for the possibility of temp-bans...

[© Tweed the Younger]

Well, we have done temporary bans before; if you're saying we should use them more often as a compromise solution, I'm definitely open to that idea.

as your own personal consigliere, I feel it is my duty to advise that that idea might not be productive

Why?  You would've been perma-banned if it weren't for the possibility of temp-bans...

confessed sinner jmfcst believes the Forum would be better off without him.  I vehemently disagree.

[Badger]

Well, we have done temporary bans before; if you're saying we should use them more often as a compromise solution, I'm definitely open to that idea.

That's a succinct summary of what I was getting at, plus more ready use of temp mod review status.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I may have misunderstood Nym...thought he was saying there would be more temp bans to give the system some more teeth.

[Badger]

I may have misunderstood Nym...thought he was saying there would be more temp bans to give the system some more teeth.

Um, I believe he said held consider that option, yes.

What's the confusion?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I may have misunderstood Nym...thought he was saying there would be more temp bans to give the system some more teeth.

Um, I believe he said held consider that option, yes.

What's the confusion?

then I guess I didn't misunderstand.  it would be an unnecessary and unproductive development.  there's nothing really going on except Phil spinning himself up.  Mods just need to ingore and/or lock the threads....you're not going to reach agreement with Phil

[Badger]

I may have misunderstood Nym...thought he was saying there would be more temp bans to give the system some more teeth.

Um, I believe he said held consider that option, yes.

What's the confusion?

then I guess I didn't misunderstand.  it would be an unnecessary and unproductive development.  there's nothing really going on except Phil spinning himself up.  Mods just need to ingore and/or lock the threads....you're not going to reach agreement with Phil

My opinion here has nothing to do with the recent philsplosion you referenced. I've had this feeling for a while, but this is the first thread I've followed in a while raising the question.

The point is to impvove the system by not permitting chronic violators to 'game the system' by timing their trolling/offending conduct to avoid a deathban, but still screw with the community wth near immpunity.

Wouldn't you agree that's a desirable goal, jmfcst?