# Infraction System Changes - Eff. 12/2/2007



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 2, 2007)

As many of our members are aware, we use an points based infraction system as part of our moderation tools.  Since we first introduced it, there have been  critics on both sides of the fence.  Those receiving infractions have expressed concerns as to their merit, deservedness and impartiality.
Those issuing them have been concerned that they aren't effective. There has been confusion on what/when/why.

To answer those concerns and realign things we have completely revamped that system. We've established guidelines concerning how our staff is to use them, issue them, and what steps are to be taken to justify their use.

For our members, they will get an explanation of what was the problem with a post, a pointer to the specific policy being violated.

The points themselves have been reorganized. A detailed outline is in the support forum.

Members who receive 30 points will find their accounts restricted. No PMs, no signatures, avatars, or Supporting Member perks.

Members who receive 50 points will find their accounts suspended, and at 100 points you are banned from the site.

With a few perma-ban infractions, all infractions now have a finite expiration date, from a few days to several months.  

As part of this restructuring, we have reset -all- members counts to zero, a clean slate if you will. 

We believe the restructured system will remove past issues and help keep future issues to a minimum.

Any questions, let us know.


----------



## Tames D (Dec 2, 2007)

Read.


----------



## kidswarrior (Dec 3, 2007)

I had no idea. Thought it was just qualitative, didn't know it was quantitative. Don't know if my ignorance's bad or good. :idunno:


----------



## Ceicei (Dec 3, 2007)

Do people get to ask how many points they earn?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 3, 2007)

kidswarrior said:


> I had no idea. Thought it was just qualitative, didn't know it was quantitative. Don't know if my ignorance's bad or good. :idunno:



Here's an example:
Thread gets heated.
Those who go too far (it varies a bit based on each sections "flavor") will get a warning (no points) or an actual infraction (points). Most get warnings but someone went right for the throat. 
They earn " Rude or Insulting Post     5 Points -      30 Day(s)                                      "
A warning is also posted in the thread.
The festivities continue with the warning given all the attention of a UN arms inspector by the Bush Administration. (ie none).
They earn " Ignored Moderator Warning - 1st Offense     10 points     - 14 Day(s)               "
Their next reply is to post in that thread how much we suck for not seeing the wisdom of their dashing intellect.

They earn either " Debate of Board Policies Outside of Approved Means 10 points     -      14 Day(s)" or "
Disrespect of Forum Staff 10 points     -      3 Month(s)" (depends on the tone/etc).

There are now 20 points in play with a 2 week lifespan and 5 with a 30 day life. Total = 25 points. 3 infractions issued.

The next day they resume the attack and continue to attack the messenger and not the message as it were.

A second public warning is posted. This may be accompanied by a private warning as well.  Both are ignored.

This earns out friend " Ignored Moderator Warning - 2nd Offense     20 points -      14 Day(s) "

He now has 45 Infraction points.
20 for 14 days
20 for 13 days (yesterdays points)
5 for 29 days (yesterdays points.)

He is now in the restricted use group, and will remain there until enough points expire to restore his access.

If he's incredibly stupid, he will start arguing about how unfair it all is, in that same thread, thereby hijacking the thread away from it's purpose.
We then decide if he gets "Trolling or Steering Off Topic     5 points     3 Month(s)",                                   " Debate of Board Policies Outside of Approved Means     10 points     14 Day(s)" or "Disrespect of Forum Staff     10 points     3 Month(s)", depending on the tone/attitude/etc.  In any event he will earn at least 5 more points, putting him in the Suspended group, until enough points expire to put him back into either the restricted or regular group.

Unless he's a real dumb ***, and threatens to sic his lawyer on us, or come beat me up, or some such crap.  In which case we immediately ban him, contact his ISP, my lawyers, and a couple friends I have in law enforcement. 


Now, if this sounds like I'm being a smart ***, nope.  It's all happened before, more than once in fact.


So, hope this explains it, and for those who want to avoid it....it's easy.
Take your lumps as you earn em, respect the staff and your fellow members, put complaints in the proper place and count to 20 when your temper starts to flare. When there's a problem, report it and -LET US DEAL WITH IT-, and -DON'T REPORT AND SMACK THEM TOO-.  Or ignore them. 




Ceicei said:


> Do people get to ask how many points they earn?



Check in your usercp.  If you have any, they'll show up there.
Right now, no one has any. I kinda hit the delete-all button.


----------



## Sukerkin (Dec 3, 2007)

As ever, the strength of moderation is everyones friend here at MT :tup:.  

I've fallen foul of it myself once because a thread does not update whilst you're sitting there typing up your response (i.e. I worked on a reply for half an hour and posted after a mod had already stuck up a warning that I had not seen) but I'd still far rather operate under a regime of such oversight than one with none :rei:.


----------



## kidswarrior (Dec 3, 2007)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Here's an example:
> Thread gets heated.
> Those who go too far (it varies a bit based on each sections "flavor") will get a warning (no points) or an actual infraction (points). Most get warnings but someone went right for the throat.
> They earn " Rude or Insulting Post     5 Points -      30 Day(s)                                      "
> ...


There's not going to be a test on this, is there Bob?  And if there is, does it include parallel parking?  Seriously, sounds like you've thought of everything. Guess I'm just lucky I've never been on the wrong end of anything.



			
				Sukerkin said:
			
		

> ... I've fallen foul of it myself once because a thread does not update whilst you're sitting there typing up your response


Hard to believe even given the accidental circumstances. Mark, you're truly the most gracious fellow poster I've ever seen, and that includes several boards. :asian: As before, I still can't reward you the magnificence of my two points of power. But you have my highest respect, and that ain't always easy to get.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 3, 2007)

Sukerkin said:


> As ever, the strength of moderation is everyones friend here at MT :tup:.
> 
> I've fallen foul of it myself once because a thread does not update whilst you're sitting there typing up your response (i.e. I worked on a reply for half an hour and posted after a mod had already stuck up a warning that I had not seen) but I'd still far rather operate under a regime of such oversight than one with none :rei:.


That's one of the issues we're trying to resolve.  Unfortunately, we can't know if someones sitting there typing for a bit, or just skipped over and fired anyway.  But we're trying.


----------



## Sukerkin (Dec 4, 2007)

kidswarrior said:


> Hard to believe even given the accidental circumstances. Mark, you're truly the most gracious fellow poster I've ever seen, and that includes several boards. :asian: As before, I still can't reward you the magnificence of my two points of power. But you have my highest respect, and that ain't always easy to get.


 
I'm very happy to hear that my 'real' reputation, the sort that isn't quantified by numbers, is so healthy :rei:.  That means a great deal to me.

Just in case a wrong impression may have been given, the warning I received was for continuing an off-topic tangent in a thread (it was that *Exiles's* fault, honest ) when a "Stay on Target!" post had been put up whilst I was structuring my reply.

I think its useful, in a Public Information fashion, also to say that I followed up the 'infraction' warning with a couple of PM's just to make sure I knew what had happened and also to clarify with the moderators that it hadn't been a deliberate example of ignoring 'official' advice.  

I found that a very useful thing to have done and would recommend such a course to anyone who gets 'caught in the gears' during their posting here.  If I hadn't enquired, I could very well have decided to flounce off in a wounded-pride-huff and would've thus missed out on everything that has ensued since (I'd not been here very long at that point {"You *still* haven't, greenhorn!" chorus the long-standing members :lol:}).


----------



## exile (Dec 4, 2007)

Sukerkin said:


> Just in case a wrong impression may have been given, the warning I received was for continuing an off-topic tangent in a thread (it was that *Exiles's* fault, honest ) when a "Stay on Target!" post had been put up whilst I was structuring my reply.



You see? Contrary to general rumour, it's not alway's _Lisa's_ fault! :lol:




Sukerkin said:


> I think its useful, in a Public Information fashion, also to say that I followed up the 'infraction' warning with a couple of PM's just to make sure I knew what had happened and also to clarify with the moderators that it hadn't been a deliberate example of ignoring 'official' advice.
> 
> I found that a very useful thing to have done and would recommend such a course to anyone who gets 'caught in the gears' during their posting here.  If I hadn't enquired, I could very well have decided to flounce off in a wounded-pride-huff and would've thus missed out on everything that has ensued since (I'd not been here very long at that point {"You *still* haven't, greenhorn!" chorus the long-standing members :lol:}).



There are other people who run into this problem, I suspect, but in a different way than you did, S.: it seems as if they open up the thread for the first time at the very last post and take off from that one, without looking over the whole thread to see who's said what before (the giveaway is that they bring up points which have been done to death earlier in the thread and which everyone's moved on from). That kind of habit can get them into trouble if the first post that hits their eye is one that gets them angry enough to respond in kind, because if there's an in-thread warning earlier in the thread, they'll miss it, and get smacked for ignoring a mod warning. 

This is yet another reason why it's a good idea for people to read through the whole thread before responding for the first time...


----------



## Lisa (Dec 4, 2007)

Certain posts were off topic and have been split off and can be found here


----------



## Gentle Fist (Dec 12, 2007)

Sounds good to me....


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 12, 2007)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Here's an example:
> Thread gets heated.
> Those who go too far (it varies a bit based on each sections "flavor") will get a warning (no points) or an actual infraction (points). Most get warnings but someone went right for the throat.
> They earn " Rude or Insulting Post     5 Points -      30 Day(s)                                      "
> ...




Just to let you know, Bob has presented this in a non emotional and straight forward and simple manner. You would not believe how out of control some of the private messages and replies to warnings or infactions there can be. The staff faces this all on a voluntary basis. This is not said to get kudos for the staff or to make up to them or even to say I had it tough when I was on staff. It is said just to let all the normal every day users who have no idea how bad mannered and insulting some people can be. The talk of Lawyers and visits is pretty normal although I hope it has decreased in the last couple of years.


PS: Good example Bob


----------

