StiffMittens wrote:Sorry if this is repetitious (I haven't had a chance to read through the whole thread), but It sounds like a probationary system is emerging in this discussion. I think that may be the right way to go. Here's a possible scheme:
Minor infractions begin with a formal warning. A second minor infraction results in a 24 hour forum ban after which, a one month probationary period begins. During that probationary period is when the escalation process works. another minor infraction results in the next level of ban (say 72 hour) and after that ban is up the one month probationary period starts again. This escalation process continues up to the maximum sentence of 6 months forum ban, and after each ban the one month probation begins again. If the user cannot make it through the final probation period without an infraction, then the minor infraction track gets escalated to a major infraction. If, however, the user makes it through any one month probationary period without another infraction their status "resets" and any subsequent infraction begins with a warning again.
[edit]On second thought, it should be reset to the post warning stage. That is, you get a formal warning the first time, but from then on you're on the system of ban-probation-possible escalation. Obviously there can always be a certain amount discretion left to the moderators, where an informal (or friendly) warning may suffice.[/edit]
Major infractions work the same except the escalation slope might be steeper and would culminate in perma-ban. Also, the probationary period after a major infraction is three months, so the offender has to keep their nose clean for longer in order to avoid further escalation.
StiffMittens, this looks like a quite good draft for a guidelines revision to me. In fact, I'll go so far as to say the basic concept is pretty much perfect and all that's left is the details.
- It accounts for the fact that everyone will at some point (and 99.9% far more often than just at one point) inevitably post something that might be construed as an infraction of the guidelines (even though Woodruff might disagree) and that this won't come back to haunt them forever.
- It accounts for personal vendettas by one or more mods against one or more users (Bob forbid that ever actually happen!).
- It takes into account that noone gives a f
uck, flying or otherwise, about last year's posts, and if people do still care about those posts they were either epic and a cause for much amusement and admiration (and as such not exactly detrimental to the community as a whole) or of an extremely heinous nature (a category under which I have some problem seeing things like "Logic dictates there is a Cod", really who among you remembered those threads before I just mentioned one?)
I also strongly agree with the idea of leaving it to a mods discretion to issue a warning instead of escalating things to the next step. Say you spot a thread that's spiraling towards flaming (now outlawed in public, formerly allowed in certain places) with more or less everyone baiting everyone else, just tell the people in it to tone it down, no need for a one week ban over a heated discussion. Maybe point them in the general direction of Tavernside Fire (
I just noticed: even lack agrees with that! I quote the turtle: "there's already two clans (one social, one competitive) that's related to flame wars, so if you wanna flame just join it" EDIT: ok, so it wasn't lack, still looked exactly like him... stupid epidemic)
the.killing.44 wrote:Here's something I've been thinking about: How about if we separate the minor infractions into their respective groups, like I said (i.e. trolling & flaming have different escalating scales), but each of those scales are somewhat less severe but also less "escalating" than the current one. HOWEVER, there would be the "overall scale," which is somewhat of compound scale. Basically, (and note that the vacations are not what i suggest but rather just placeholders) it's like this:
OFFENSE A .................... OFFENSE B
Friendly Warning ............ Official Warning
Official Warning .............. 24hrs
24hrs ............................. 5days
COMPOUND ESCALATION
When Offense A reaches 24hrs
and Offense B reaches 5days,
the compound escalation scale takes
them both into account and the user
is issued a 1 month ban. The smaller
scales then reset, cutting off the first
punishment (in the examples above,
Offense A's punishment goes
straight to Official Warning and Offense
B's punishment goes straight to
a 24hr ban). If the two scales reach
their peak again, the user is issued
a 6 month ban.
Just a thought, I think it'd work well.
.44
P.S. once again, those timetables I used above are purely examples — my suggestion is not those times but just the scales and how they work.
the.killing, I think your proposal is unnecessarily complicated. Instead simply (at least I hope it is simple) divide infractions into major and minor, with major infractions being things like blatant racism, posting hardcore porn, or spamming up the fora with advertisements (I actually haven't noticed any of those bots on CC, although I have seen them on several smaller fora, still, it can't hurt to plan ahead if they ever find this place). Everything else would be a minor infraction.
As for the scale to follow, I think official warning, 1 day, 3 days, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months for minor infractions with a one month probation before being reset to 1 day would work well. Friendly warnings that count against nothing can be issued at mods' discretion. For major infractions: official warning + 1 week ban, 1 month, 6 months, perma (this is why they have to be
major infractions) with a longer probationary period, 3 months sounds reasonably long to me.
I also think the two should be kept separate, so if someone is on probation after a week long ban for spamming and trolling (minor infractions) and then blows off about how "all ragheads are filthy terrorists" or something equally heinous they still receive a shorter ban for a first major infraction. My reasoning for keeping the two separate is that if you start mixing them up, it is very easy to end up making a big mistake. I recall there have been cases that were not at all clear-cut. If I remember correctly, when one person used
blackface for their avatar they were not even aware that many blacks would consider it racist. I think that was resolved amicably in the end, but imagine a moderator taking a strict approach in a not-so-clear cases, a few minor infractions and a slip-up you might not even have been aware of might make you end up in a boiling kettle.
4myGod, I agree that infractions in Livechat should not influence the length of a forum ban (or vice versa) and that infractions in games should also be kept separate from forums and livechat (although a busted multi that loses all access to the site will obviously not be able to post either), but as I understood the.killing he meant that there should be a scale for flaming, a scale for spamming, a scale for trolling and so on, and that these all be added up in an overall scale. As I stated, that's an approach I think is too complicated, partly because it requires that you list every possible infraction by name and in detail before punishment can be meted out, and partly because calculating the length of any given ban will become a science in itself. Minor/Major and keeping the scales separate should suffice.
EDIT: Damn that turtle avatar epidemic!
