|
||||
![]()
I had a feeling you guys wouldn't like it. Perhaps it'd be best to follow the rules and we won't have any issues.
Also, infraction points are always monitored by all moderators and administrators. This includes myself. Just going to modify the post a bit, Panini, to let users know they can use the contact form to send a message to my inbox if they think an infraction was unfair, users will get a faster response with that.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 50 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ~ Dream Address for AC: 4000-2145-2570 ~ |
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Your moderators have bad judgement in my opinion. They were before too, and you all were able to see who was banned by whom. It didn't stop abuse. I used that form three times, and have yet to receive an acknowledgement. |
|
||||
![]() Quote:
But seriously this is a lot better. Now there isn't a standard infraction value on all offenses. Isn't that what people were *****ing about before, anyways? |
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
I prefer the flexibility this system offers, so it has my full support. |
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
|
|||
![]()
I never complained about the infraction values being set.
All I ever wanted was each member to know in advance what posting something would do to their account. This is the exact opposite. I catch panini on a bad day, and I could be unfairly infracted. I catch her on a good day, and I'll get a lesser punishment. That's an example, I hope you can follow it as it's as simple as I can make it. |
|
|||
![]() Quote:
FOR CONTENT: So this is pretty much the era of no **** posting am I correct? Since thats the only rule that needs to be in place. |
|
||||
![]() Quote:
So now there shouldn't be any issues besides people now fearing that a mod will infract them depending on their mood. lolfear |
|
||||
![]()
This seems really open to mod bias. If a mod is the only one on, (s)he has no power limits. They can delete everything, claim the member was doing something really bad, give them a bunch of horrible infractions, and ban them. As a person who has been a victim of a mod going crazy before, we need more ways to make sure the mods act as one. This seems to make going rogue way too easy.
I have no problem against the idea of shifting values for infractions in principle though. Maybe you should have a standard set value for an infraction and require multiple mods to come on a consensus to increase it? |
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Thank you storm. |
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Foobrew is gone, so no more insanity. And I suggest all you conspiracy theorist wait this thing out or until you are unjustly banned, infracted, whatever to prove/disprove your point. It's not like you'll die for being unjustly whatever'd. |
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
|
|
||||
![]() Quote:
All infractions are moderated by the entire staff. I have also set the forum to automatically email me whenever a user is infracted so I can review them instantly. Your final idea, we've been doing that, actually. Discussion about infractions will now be even more frequent with this in play.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 50 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ~ Dream Address for AC: 4000-2145-2570 ~ |
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
With the current moderators in place I feel that I can trust them to be fair with their decisions. With this system, we could be more thorough when it comes to punishments. If 3 rules were broken within one post, we could create an infraction for all 3. When trolling isn't so harmful, we can create a lighter infraction. And when people are repeat offenders, we can create a harsh infraction. The point is that flexibility allows a more precise punishment. This will probably be the final infraction system change unless there is a major issue with it. (Sorry for taking a while to respond, I was at school when I wrote my earlier message and just got home.)
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 50 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ~ Dream Address for AC: 4000-2145-2570 ~ |
|
||||
![]() Quote:
The reason we needed a more flexible system is that more than once recently we've wanted to give a member less points points for an infraction, but couldn't because of the set values. If one mod really does go overboard, that's what the reverse function is for. |
|
|||
![]() Quote:
If they broke a rule they should get the same punishment as any other user. |
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
|
||||
![]()
I'm here for a few minutes
Quote:
"Hey guys, I have a history of censor bypassing. If you look at my infraction history, I accumulated over 17 infractions for censor bypassing, but I'm still here because the infraction is only worth one point and I can just wait a month for each one to expire, thus allowing me to censor bypass some more!" You could argue that by this point I could just move for a ban, but when people repeat the same thing, do you honestly feel the same punishment is going to do any good? Quote:
Honestly though, I don't think it's the infraction part that worries people so much. It's that permanent ban part. If you honestly feel like you're going to have your account permanently banned, then you're either just paranoid, or you're one of those constant offenders I keep using as an example in my posts. ______________________________ Oh and Storm, there is a unifier to Moderation in the form of a somewhat fluid handbook. To elaborate, infraction point values aren't going to necessarily increase, but rather stay within the same range of values. This change in system allows us to make a punishment harsher when necessary. You can trust us to not have a moderator intentionally hand out a 15 point infraction. |
|
|||
![]()
You obviously haven't read my threads then Blues.
Also, your example was a bit unrealistic. If someone has a history of censor bypassing and they've had 17 infractions with the scale of 1 infraction per month, that's a year and a half straight of just one infraction a month. That's not that bad at all... There's nothing seriously wrong with that. |
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
|
|
|||
![]()
My threads emphasized on trolling because that was the most outlandish one, but I main an appoint to say that it could apply to other ones too.
And ok, that's still not that bad. Censor Evasion isn't a big deal and certainly isn't banworthy if they're only doing it a few times per month. And 3 infractions a month would give a 3-day ban, would it not? If yes, I have a suggestion: For every ban, give the user a 1-point infraction that lasts for like 6 months. That way, repeat offenders won't be able to abuse the system because for each ban they get, they can afford to get one less infraction. Reach up to 3 and every infraction you get after will lead to a 1 week ban. Reach the 1 week ban and next one is permanent; end of story. |
|
|||
![]() Quote:
How about not allowing them to expire automatically, and have a moderator do the expiration manually. It's how it's done at other forums. |
|
||||
![]()
This will be my last post for now because I'm going some place tonight.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
I guess it's cool to try disrespecting the staff now. If the staff was as bad as users are trying to make us look like, then many of you would be banned.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 50 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ~ Dream Address for AC: 4000-2145-2570 ~ |
|
|||
![]() Quote:
You're, as always stuck on the whole "this hasn't happened here yet" thing. Which should be obvious, since this is a new rule being put into practise now, it hasn't been in use as of yet here. |
|
||||
![]()
Here's the thing though, the moderation here is trustworthy. I trust these moderators enough to give them this power. I am certain that there will be no corruption at all.
If corruption rises then it will be dealt with. End of story. My reply to those 2 users is that they are attempting to insult the moderation, as many other users have tried, and I believe it's simply to look "better" than others. To what Kikae said, moderators can and will (when necessary) give 2nd chances especially since infractions will be discussed among the moderators and confirmed by the administration, so why say there would be no 2nd chances? Panini is probably the most mature moderator of the staff so how could one even try and say she will become corrupted? It's simple. These users are just trying to get "likes" from the community. I hear your thoughts loud and clear, and I've said already that I'm prepared, if corruption does pursue.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 50 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ~ Dream Address for AC: 4000-2145-2570 ~ |
|
|||
![]()
I don't trust you to follow up on your promise to demote and possibly ban moderators who abuse their power as in the past you have done nothing.
You're going to ask when, and I'm not going to give you an answer because it'd be stupid since they're still moderators and now have the power to ban me in one swoop. I've emailed you and David many times with the information, check your inboxes for the information if you want to. |
|
||||
![]()
I'd like to add that the moderation isn't just one "hive mind" as some would like to believe.
We all have differing opinions. If a moderator thinks an infraction was too severe, we have a discussion to decide whether or not it should be reversed. So if I think a moderator becomes "corrupted" and starts abusing their power, I'll call them out on it. And the same thing would happen to me if I started being heavy-handed with the infractions. I trust my fellow mods/admins to not abuse their power and I have no reason to believe that they would ever become corrupt. @Nollog: Foobrew was demoted from a moderator and subsequently permanently banned for his actions. You accusations that "Kurtiss has done nothing" in the past is entirely untrue. Also, I believe admins and super moderators have always had the power to ban ANY member at ANY time. Last edited by Kinvara; 11-16-2011 at 08:51 PM. |
|
|||
![]() Quote:
I'd class that as more rouge actions as the rest of you seemed to be okay with allowing Storm to break the rule (which was a terrible "rule" to begin with), rather than abuse. But maybe there's a lot more to it than just that. |
|
||||
![]() Quote:
I think this update will ban me as soon as I brake a rule.
__________________
Unban Buramu and ban me. Bring back Buramu! |
|
|||
![]()
http://3dsforums.com/feedback-7/why-...vorites-27907/
Here's a thread which illustrates why the moderators here shouldn't have free reign in anything, let alone something which would stop a user from being able to post here. |
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Contact Starless for clarification on this one, because you got it all wrong. That or you're just twisting it to make an argument for moderation bias and corruption. Quote:
If I happen to like you, I'm very willing to do some extra work and cover for you. Of course, I'll still tell you to not repeat whatever misdeed you did and maybe slap a formal warning on you. Some people accidentally post an image that censor bypasses, and I just edit the image so that the profanity isn't seen. Of course, there's a limit to how much I'm willing to do. At some point I am going to infract you or ban you. I'm not a tool to be used as insurance against the other moderators. If I sense any of that, say farewell to your profile and whatever "affection" I may have had for you because I'm not covering for anyone like that. Fortunately, everyone I do like (well except one >_>) has an easy time following the rules, so I'm not forced to punish them. That's just me though. I highly doubt any of the other moderators would enjoy constantly covering for a constant offender, and serving as their tool against forum consequence. The propaganda here is interesting to read and all, but anyone who can think would ask for some concrete examples of this. Oh, and this thread isn't about staff corruption and bias by the way. I would like to keep it emphasized on the infraction values, so if you really want to argue that, bring it to Feedback. |
|
|||
![]() Quote:
When you give a moderator the right to ban a user on the spot for doing anything at all, you open the door to discussing moderator bias. The bias is why this new rule is rotten to the core. |
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Moderation corruption and bias is a whole other topic capable of "eating" this one whole. Essentially, you're opening a door to a new topic. |
|
||||
![]() Quote:
|
|
|||
![]() Quote:
The moderator had a script to follow for trolling (2/3 points), being funny (11 points), etc. Now they can make anything up. |
|
||||
![]() Quote:
|
|
||||
![]()
I don't see what the problem is. If you think you were treated unfairly by a mod, then just contact an admin. If they think that you were treated unfairly then they will have the ban/infrac reversed. And I'm sure that if they notice a trend with that mod, and believe they may be abusing their powers, then they will be demoted(i.e. Foobrew). Also all of this can be avoided if you just stay outta trouble.
__________________
Last night I cut the light off in my bedroom, hit the switch was in the bed before the room was dark. |
|
|||
![]() Quote:
As always you guys be missin' the point. You'll see what Storm, GWJumpman, and myself mean eventually here, don't worry about that. Last edited by Nollog; 11-17-2011 at 10:05 PM. |
|
||||
![]()
What point would that be? As I've said if a mod is abusing their power, I'm sure they will be dealt with. It's not like the ban/infrac can't be reversed.
__________________
Last night I cut the light off in my bedroom, hit the switch was in the bed before the room was dark. |
|
|||
![]() Quote:
You're assuming I'm bringing this up for the sake of bringing it up. You're assuming I'm bringing this up because of things which have happened in the past, to me personally. Look back. My problem is why is kurtiss thinking of what he will do if this new rule is abused, rather than thinking of a better way to get rid of the users he and other moderators personally dislike? Last edited by Nollog; 11-17-2011 at 10:26 PM. |
|
||||
![]() Quote:
![]()
__________________
This is what the truth feels like |
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Last edited by Kikae; 11-19-2011 at 04:46 AM. |
|
||||
![]() Quote:
__________________
Drink up me hearties, yo ho! |
|
||||
![]() Quote:
That and some of us that don't break rules have seen things happen that have seemed less than fair to other members before. Just because someone has never gotten in trouble on this forum doesn't mean that they can't have concern for these new policies. It's not just your post, it's a few others thought this thread that seem to imply that people shouldn't care if they have never even had an infraction. I like a fair system for all. While this system could work well for a while, things could easily be abused in this and cause unfair punishment. I'd hate to see that even if I still go on to never have an infraction the entire time I am somewhat active on this forum. Though I'll say that I do like the effort you guys are putting to try to make things better. |
|
||||
![]() Quote:
I posted earlier in this thread that this mostly affects existing members who have accumulated an unhealthy number of warnings and infraction, and still continue to break the same rules. The idea behind this change isn't to simply increase specific infraction values, but to provide flexibility in how we issue infractions and warnings. Trust me when I say that none of us are going to intentionally be issuing 5 point infractions. Even 4 point infractions are going to be a rare occurrence. I think the misconception here is that infraction values will rise, but the reality is that they're still within the same range of values. Quote:
|
|
|||
![]() Quote:
You're also saying you changed the system to encourage abuse of moderation when you already could abuse the system to give infractions to users as much as you like. I, personally have an infraction for trolling, and was explained to me it was for harrassment. You banned me for a day by error, and infracted me for the two-point "trolling" because you noticed the error a full day after you admitted the error took place. This story shows you could infract however many points you want, and give whatever reason you want months ago. There's no need for a change, you could get rid of the people you don't like easily before, it just wasn't as clean-cut. This system will make it easier is all. So: 1. don't get the point 2. seems it's just to get rid of people 3. opens to far less hassle in abuse 4. New members now have no idea what offense gives them how many points, and how many times they can do it without them getting banned. [inb4 you say they shouldn't be breaking the rules regardless] [some people just like to know what they are allowed to do and not, it's not about actually doing it] Quote:
Last edited by Nollog; 11-19-2011 at 01:02 PM. |
|
||||
![]()
Maybe (just maybe) those who worry about being unjustly judged should make sure they don't take risks so that they aren't judged at all? I just get the impression that some are complaining about being punished wrong for breaking rules, when they could just make sure they don't break them at all. Really I think it's tough stuff if you don't think you were infracted right, you shouldn't of broken the rules at all.
__________________
:> |
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
|
||||
![]() Quote:
__________________
:> |
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Also, I don't see anyone in this thread complaining about how they were treated, except for Storm and he only mentioned it like once. |
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Oh and before I meant people being worried about being punished incorrectly in the future, when they shouldn't be taking risks that could get them punished in any way at all.
__________________
:> Last edited by Zuper; 11-19-2011 at 02:49 PM. |
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Others have other ways of thinking. |
|
||||
![]() Quote:
__________________
:> |
|
||||
![]()
you guys know if you dont break the rules (what? blasphemy!) then even if a mod does unfairly infract you, there is a record and can be reversed? there is only 1 unfair infraction ive ever received, and immediatly after telling the mod it was reversed, no big deal, if you think one mod is out to get you talk to another mod about them, and what they did, and no problems, this is just a way for mods to fairly punish people based on what they did, not on who they dislike, if you follow the rules this wont affect you at all, so i dont see why so many are upset
|
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Last edited by Starless; 11-20-2011 at 01:17 AM. |
|
||||
![]()
Moderators could always abuse their powers even before this change. They could easily infract you an infinite amount of times, or just go into their mod panel and perm ban you instantly, lol.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 50 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ~ Dream Address for AC: 4000-2145-2570 ~ |
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Hell, the Mod PC is a faster means to do it, too. |
|
|||
![]() Quote:
mod: oh yeah, that's because you've done it twice before and we haven't infracted you before because we didn't see it as a problem but the third time was just too much. member: so it's worth 3 points to post an image? mod: it's worth whatever I want it to be because I can bend reality using my words and what I say is trusted more since I am a moderator and you are just a member. The preceding was a dramatisation. |
|
||||
![]() Quote:
__________________
This is what the truth feels like |
|
||||
![]()
Generally, when you can't stand your boss any longer, you quit.
Generally when you can't stand the leadership on a forum for young people, you leave. Stop nitpicking. You're not really accomplishing anything.
__________________
Loki'd |
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
|
|||
![]() Quote:
George Washington, Abe Lincoln, Obama, they all thought like that. That's why the USA is still under the control of the British and your taxes are so high. inb4 you say "internet, lol". I'm just using these names to show how ill thought out your point is. |
|
||||
![]() Quote:
__________________
Loki'd |