Teh Ban

I'd like to propose that INTENTIONALLY using the word 'teh' falls under obsceneness and would be a LEVEL 3 ban.

When I first saw this thread, I was hoping that it was proposing a ban on the non-word "teh".

 

Jon_Snow...
"proposing a ban on the non-word '***'."

Level 3 = 1 week for you, Jon. Bye bye.

 

Meh, you don't scare me. I have fiends in high places.

 

Fiends in high places? [face_shocked] I'm scared of fiends!

 

Instead of ban levels, we should take a cue from the US government and color code all the levels. I suggest red, burgandy, fusia, cardinal, and dark red. That way there would be no confusion.

 

what about those situaitions more like brick, blood, carmine, maroon, scarlet, vermilion, Oriental Poppy, or, dare I say it and risk a ban from the PC Police, Indian Red???

 

What color IS vermilion, anyway?

Vertical

 

I think it is the color of vermin blood.

 

Blue-green. Hydrated Chromic oxide.

Master Mishima

 

perhaps it would be better if people tried to work towards solutions rather than naming problems and pointing the finger. that is what the purpose of this is- to address the problems and try to work towards a solution rather than looking for problems only.

and as far as Genghis person's "radical" idea, as he so sarcastically put it, -people in positions of power have a higher responsibility and expectation of performance than the average person. being in a postion of power and responsibility means being held to higher standards and expectations different than those underneath. sure, if people didn't brake the rules the inconsistency problem would be moot, but asking for adjustment from a small group of people who should be setting an example while weilding their power is more plausible and sensible than asking an enormous amount of people with lower status to be perfect.

i should have known that there would be some people who think this is an attack and negative criticism of the mods. that attitude is unfortunate and that perception is not accurate.

and besides, i never said the system could be perfect, but it's easier and more relevant to try and improve the system than to suggest that the problem exists only because the members aren't perfect little angels all the time.



Vertical-
i see what you are saying and i strongly agree. but i still think that SOME things CAN be quantified and be given a "mandatory sentence", so to speak. what all of those things are exactly, i can't answer. which is why discussion is necessary. it builds up to a point of clarity and understanding...or at least that's the goal.

Inconsistancy is not the 'evil' that it is often mistaken to be. The only time it is is if someone is banned for something that they saw someone else only get warned for.
that, unfortunately, seems to be a problem that i've seen at times and heard many people complain about. so, which is easier? (rhetorically speaking) HOPING that mods will use consistent and fair judgement? ...or giving them guidlelines to follow and thus avoiding that issue? but i know it's not as simple as that.

ok, so the system i alluded to and proposed the concept of is not the answer. that's fine, throw most of it out the window, i don't have a problem with that.

however, i still think that if people put their heads together and tried to look at the fact that problems do exist and the possibility of improving things and maybe eliminate some of those problems to a certain extent, THAT is certainly gonna be more productive than shooting down all courses toward improvement and getting defensive or blaming the "other side". (that was quite a run on sentence, eh?)


oh, and i forgot to include level 6 in the ban chart.
level 6- sassing PiaS. punishment: e-death.

 

i am strongly in favor of "level 6" bannings.

 

[Tarkin] You may fire when ready...[/Tarkin]

note to Vertical: Vermillion is the color you would find if, given the opportunity, I was allowed to rake my fingernails down your back in the throes of passion...

I sincerely doubt Crayola will be adding that to their newest 128 color package..

 

Bannings, warnings, and situations created by problem users typically haven't happened before and are unique each and every time. It is quite difficult to so neatly define all cases whereby a ban is earned and where it's not. You do the best you can using your own history and admin hstory weighed in to be as consistent and fair as possible.

The goal is always hoping that the user recognizes the mistake with a warning and ceases the activity. Others don't care and really are out to cause trouble. I treat it on a case-by-case basis, try to be consistent, and try to do my best. At the end of the day, that's the best we can hope to achieve.

 

I like PiaS's idea but I also agree that it should be used as a loose guideline, not a strict rule.

However, most mods I know use a similar rationalizing so maybe it is not needed.

And I just realized I am not making sense even to myself.

I'll stop now.

 

Perhaps there should be monthly 'evaluations' of the mod team, in order to determine whether or not each is using common sense and fair judgement in banning users? Or does something similar already exist? Just an idea.

 

Or does something similar already exist

I believe the Advisory Council has been working on something like that .

 

I'll just say that Empress speaks the truth and then leave quickly.

 

sorry about your back, Rogue ...


a little aloe and neosporin, and you'll be healed in no time!

 

Aha, KW. Good to hear.

 

PiaS...
"and as far as Genghis person's "radical" idea, as he so sarcastically put it, -people in positions of power have a higher responsibility and expectation of performance than the average person."

Yes, with respect to people following rules, I think it's well-established that the administration should be setting the example, which for the most part is true. So, trying to turn this into elevated expectations is, IMO, moot - it's already the case.

"sure, if people didn't brake the rules the inconsistency problem would be moot"

That's correct. It is IMO ludicrous for someone to think they should be innocent of a "crime" they committed, simply because someone else somewhere at sometime somehow escaped notice of the exact same thing. Users need to take responsibility for their own actions. That is the first line of defense, not moderation or enforcement of those actions.

It begins with the user, not the mod.

"...but asking for adjustment from a small group of people who should be setting an example while weilding their power is more plausible and sensible than asking an enormous amount of people with lower status to be perfect."

That's actually a gross mischaracterization, IMO. In any given forum, there is only an extremely small number of people who have problems worthy of some "inconsistency problem" of enforcement. This is born out by the numbers of total posts/users as related to numbers of enforcement of problem posts/users within a forum.

So, to take your "smaller crowd should change" approach...

Note, fuzzy math and sweeping generaliztions to follow - There is on average some 6,000-7,000 posts a day to these forums. There is only an extremely small fraction of that in total of all moderator enforcement actions. We're talking a lot less than 1% of the forum's posts require some type of enforcement.

Scaling this down to the forum I have the most experience with. I'll use one of my own forums as an example - the Literature forum. Out of the past two months, there has been something 100 admin actions (posts requiring edits, users banned, objectionable PM's, etc.) total for all five of the moderators. Say roughly about 2 total per forum per day (and this is being very liberal) or 0.4 per mod per day. That's out of something like around 1,000 posts a day to the forum. We're looking at something like (2 / 1000 = 0.002) 0.2% of the posters need to do things more responsibly. Now, let's look at the numbers of people who have to change...
1. Moderators - 5
2. Equivalent Users = 5 / 0.002 = 2500

Asking the five moderators to change their posting habits is equivalent to asking 2,500 Literature forum users to change their habits, something which I think we can agree is pretty much "impossible."

Now, it is a given that there are NOT 2500 regulars posting to the Lit. forum per day. In fact, a very liberal number would be several hundred (and this is being very liberal). Let's say 500 per day...
500 x 0.002 = 1 equivalent mod

One literature forum moderator would have to change their habits to equate to the total number of users per day.

Now, I do note my numbers are all loose estimates of what little information is available and can be pieced together.

But, I can only come to the conclusion that even by your method, it is more plausible and sensible to ask the users of the Literature forum to become more responsible as opposed to having the administration become more consistent. This is based on your pure numbers, "cost-benefit analysis" approach.

But, then again, it's really a non-issue since the Literature forum has both responsible posters and consistent moderators already.

 

Bannings as some have already said need to be loose and not so strict. Depending on the situations of the person being banned.

 

It is IMO ludicrous for someone to think they should be innocent of a "crime" they committed, simply because someone else somewhere at sometime somehow escaped notice of the exact same thing. Users need to take responsibility for their own actions. That is the first line of defense, not moderation or enforcement of those actions.

i never implied that a user who breaks a rule should be innocent when another user does the same thing and escapes notice by a mod. but when two people break the same rule in the same way, and there are no mitigating factors that would make the two cases incomparable, if one person gets punished by mod X and the other person escapes notice by mod X and then later mod Y sees it and doesn't have a problem with it- that creates inconsistency and is unfair to the person who was punished. not because the other person went unnoticed, but because two different mods had two different opinions.

and if users didn't break rules, there wouldn't BE any moderators. the moderators are there to enforce the rules, but the rules are not always enforced the same by each mod. yes, discretion is necessary, but too much discretion makes things very erratic at times.

But, I can only come to the conclusion that even by your method, it is more plausible and sensible to ask the users of the Literature forum to become more responsible as opposed to having the administration become more consistent. This is based on your pure numbers, "cost-benefit analysis" approach.

"cost-benefit analysis" was not the point i was trying to make and i'm not sure how it applies to what i was getting at. expecting thousands of users to be more responsible is harder than expecting a few dozen mods to be more responsible. and i would think that the people who hold THA POWA should be setting the example and should be expected to make the effort and lead the way, rather than taking a defensive stance and refusing to acknowledge that there is room for improvement. that is not to put anyone down or say that it doesn't happen, but there is a greater burden of expectation and performance on moderators. it comes with the job.

and this particular statement concerns me- it is more plausible and sensible to ask the users of the Literature forum to become more responsible as opposed to having the administration become more consistent. user responsiblity and moderator consistency are not dependent upon each other. making users more responsible does not automatically mean mods will be more consistent. you will still have different moderating styles, discretion, and opinions. and there will still be times when two people do the same thing and only the person who was noticed by mod X gets punished because mod Y didn't have a problem. and then there's the issue of mods handing out different levels of punishment for similar situations. yes, i am aware that not all situations are the same, but that doesn't excuse inconsistency in situations that ARE in fact very similar.

 

discretion. it's something that is a double-edged sword. it gives the mods the ability to assess things from different perspectives, but sometimes those perspectives are skewed. and discretion is also a perfect cop out and excuse for a mod to excercise personal biases against people or things. discretion is often times basically a carte blanch for the mods to use or abuse as they like.

at times, it's one thing to let the mods use their own judgement to decide whether or not a rule has been broken, but when you also let them use their own judgement to decide what the punishment should be- that creates a lot of inconsistency and can be detrimental to "fair play". what's needed, at times and in certain areas, is a set up where it's almost like mandatory sentencing in the judicial system. the judge still gets to decide whether the person is guilty or not, but once the judge decides that the person IS guily he must then issue the same sentence across the board.

too much discretion can be very dangerous.

 

I believe mods should err on the side of being harsher, personally. I don't see anything wrong with being strict, sometimes. And it would definitely ensure politeness.

I agree, though, that most of the time its just a matter of common sense, or personal judgement. That's why mods (hopefully! ) are chosen carefully.

 

strictness isn't the issue here, consistancy is the issue.

would you call it fair when one mod edits a curse and bans the person, and another mod edits the exact same curse from a different person and doesn't ban them?