Love, tolerance, and a preview of things to come

[Bunches 81]

In my opinion, the most drama caused on a forum comes from the people whining about the fact that there is drama.

 

yeah, that's why having a drama forum on the old site i was on worked so well, it never left the drama forum! anyone who wanted to participate could (some people just love internet drama, and are usually the ones creating it and keeping it going), and the ones who wanted to avoid it could as well. kept it all nice and separated.

[Pulcinella 1,016]

This is a good idea for the most part, but now I'm a little scared that I might be banned.

Backseat moderating: 100 points

What do you mean by "Backseat Moderating"?

[moneyshredderofdeath 414]

What do you mean by "Backseat Moderating"?

 

If you come across a post or thread that violates a rule, and you make a post saying "Please stop arguing" or anything else that implies authority on your end, then you would be considered to be partaking in backseat moderating. If you or I come across a post that violates the rules, the encouraged route is to report the post in question, and a staff member will take it from there.

[Zoop 8,384]

yeah, that's why having a drama forum on the old site i was on worked so well, it never left the drama forum! anyone who wanted to participate could (some people just love internet drama, and are usually the ones creating it and keeping it going), and the ones who wanted to avoid it could as well. kept it all nice and separated.

 

We'd prefer to keep the quality of the forum relatively high across the board. "Drama forums" tend not to have have any sort of worthwhile content. If people are immature enough that the only way they can keep their anger problems under control is to fight things out in public, this isn't the place for them.

 

Why do we need to make up new rules? I don't get it... But again, I'm probably missing some informations so...

These aren't new rules - they already exist; this is simply a new path for enforcing them.

[KakeiTheWolf 652]

We'd prefer to keep the quality of the forum relatively high across the board. "Drama forums" tend not to have have any sort of worthwhile content. If people are immature enough that the only way they can keep their anger problems under control is to fight things out in public, this isn't the place for them.

 

If only you were an admin on the last 4 forums I had been on... Well, then... I probably wouldn't have left them.

[Evilshy 5,089]

But... wait, if he was hosting the stuff on HIS server, wouldn't that mean he'd own the 18+ stuff? As far as I know, you can't have stuff for people over 18 on your site unless you're over 18.

I might be wrong though.

 

Well, in America at least, there are laws protecting site owners from legal action against stuff users uploaded. So if people upload illegal stuff on your forum, you can say "hey, it's against my rules, and I have a system in place to help prevent people from seeing stuff they're not supposed to" and it's not your fault.

Not sure how Canada's laws differ, but they're probably similar.

[Raritas 6,820]

Thats a good way to sort the forums out, I've seen alot of other forums which don't have this sort of policy, and that ment people ruined things for others. This is a great idea!

[RazzyJam 1,519]

 

Pointless/Off-topic posts: 35 points

Character minimum violation: 125 points

Suggestive/borderline NSFW content: 400 points

 

Eternal banishment at 1,000

25 point reduction per week*

 

 

 

Well, Im already banned. All joking aside this seems only fair. I tend to follow most of this anyhow. I am still concerned the points may be a little close/overweighted.

[Mindrop 412]

Interesting. I like the new system. I think their are bugs that need to be worked out, but I like it.

 

However, I want to know if the life advice section has a different set. As NSFW content and suggesting NSFW content can come up in there as people are trying to deal with issues or ask valid question. Is there something in the works for the Life Advice section?

 

EDIT: After a suspention, does your score go down to 0?

Edited August 19, 2012 by Mindrop

[Zoop 8,384]

Here's my most recent proposal from the staff board. Please let us know what you think about the revised numbers aand such.

 

Pointless/Off-topic posts: 15 points

Backseat moderating: 25 points

Character minimum violation: 100 points

Advertising: 100

Abusive behavior: 250 points

Borderline NSFW content: 250 points

Pornographic material: 800 points

 

Two day suspension at 400 points

Seven day suspension at 800 points

Eternal Ban at 1,000 points

Twenty five point reduction per week.

 

Yes, I've reduced nearly everything after reading the feedback thread.

 

It should not take more than a week for a single pointless/off-topic post warning to be removed - everyone makes them from time to time, and I could see a fair number of largely innocent people slowly creeping their warning level up over a long term because they get 1-2 per week. My feeling is that if we have to remove one or two posts per week from a single user, it's not a huge deal and doesn't necessitate a huge lingering warning levels. The mod queue is better suited to correcting the type of posting behavior that we're really concerned with,, to be honest.

 

Furthermore, most types of backseat moderation are not big deals at all - many times when I see something reported for backseat moderation, the user that has been reported is trying to be friendly and explaining that someone did something wrong. They're not being a disruption to the community, and thus should only be given a gentle slap on the wrist so to speak. If someone is being a prick about it, they should be stuck with an abusive behavior warning instead.

 

I've kept the character minimum fairly high for a reason - in order to get this warning, you have to knowingly spit in the face of our rules by sidestepping an automated system that is in place to enforce them. Character minimum warnings should only be given in cases where there is a clear disregard for our policies - where junk text and other filler has been used to bypass the limit.

 

Abusive behavior remains at its previous level, because quite frankly it isn't something that we should tolerate at all. Abusive behavior need not be limited to calling someone names - we should give them out for trolling, antagonistic behavior, and other instances where four letter words may or may not be used.

 

I've reduced borderline NSFW content because sometimes good people do make mistakes and end up posting something that is outside of the forum's comfort zone. People occasionally do stupid things; as long as it is a one-time thing, and they learn from their mistake, it's all good.

 

The points system would only be used for honest members. If we feel that someone is attempting to game the system, is here only to cause disruption, and to spread issues... we should not wait for them to reach a specific warning level to give them the boot.

 

By recording every rule infraction with a warning, people behaving in such ways will become much easier to track, and to subsequently deal with.

 

Certain things, like the idea for exponential point decreases, have not yet been discussed.

[False Perception 482]

I really like the new lower consequences for backseat moderating. I like to know that my favorite pasttime isn't going anywhere.

[Zoop 8,384]

I really like the new lower consequences for backseat moderating. I like to know that my favorite pasttime isn't going anywhere.

 

Don't worry - people that habitually break the rules can be given appropriate punishments outside of the point system. :V

[False Perception 482]

Don't worry - people that habitually break the rules can be given appropriate punishments outside of the point system. :V

 

Ouch. I would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for you meddling mods. What if only a very slight portion of the post is backseat modding and the rest of it is pretty decent?

 

I don't really know why you guys care so much, you must be bored with nothing to do around here anyway...lol,jk.

[Twilight Sparkle ✨ 8,521]

I don't really know why you guys care so much, you must be bored with nothing to do around here anyway...lol,jk.

 

For the answer to the question of why we care, read through this post. It answers that, and a few other questions about moderation ethics, quite thoroughly.

[moneyshredderofdeath 414]

The latest proposal looks decent to me. I certainly like how it has a method for handling anyone who tries to take advantage of the system.

[morethanicecream 116]

yep, I totally agree with the system. It should only be used when someone is abusing the system. Other than that, I haven't wrote anything mean, I just feel happy when ever I'm on the forums. I have no sadness when here. So, that is good. Ya, I haven't seen much in the way of drama, I'm pretty sure people are too tired to get mad whenever I'm up at Midnight posting. So, that is the time that I am on. But I notice I have horrible grammar if I push it past 2 A.M

[SBaby 660]

Ok, this is looking a little better now.

 

I would just recommend (although it seems like you're probably going to do this anyway) mentioning when the system is officially implemented that the character limit thing is for people that SPAM to bypass it.

 

So yeah, overall this is a huge step up from the previous version. Obviously I know it will be tweaked over time, but this is definitely a good start.

Edited August 20, 2012 by SBaby

[Zoop 8,384]

My only concern here is the character limit thing being 100 points. Mainly because it doesn't seem like people that violate it are going out of their way to make the site miserable. Also there's the fact that some people that type on these boards can't see the character counter. I would recommend it being no more than 50 per offense. Honest members aren't going to violate it very often, and people that do it deliberately are probably breaking other rules in the process anyway.

I've kept the character minimum fairly high for a reason - in order to get this warning, you have to knowingly spit in the face of our rules by sidestepping an automated system that is in place to enforce them. Character minimum warnings should only be given in cases where there is a clear disregard for our policies - where junk text and other filler has been used to bypass the limit.

 

The reason why is is a bit harsh is because in order to get it, you have to be aware of the rule, and make a proactive decision to disregard it completely. It isn't just a matter of breaking a rule, so much as it is an issue of completely disrespecting the rules entirely.

[SBaby 660]

The reason why is is a bit harsh is because in order to get it, you have to be aware of the rule, and make a proactive decision to disregard it completely. It isn't just a matter of breaking a rule, so much as it is an issue of completely disrespecting the rules entirely.

 

Yeah, I just noticed that right after I posted it. You pretty much ninja'd me there.

 

So yeah, I think I'm totally out of things that concerned me now. I mean, I know there'll probably be a bit more tweaking, but after reading everything, this is definitely the best version I've seen of it so far.

[Shadow Chaser 633]

The reason why is is a bit harsh is because in order to get it, you have to be aware of the rule, and make a proactive decision to disregard it completely. It isn't just a matter of breaking a rule, so much as it is an issue of completely disrespecting the rules entirely.

 

I agree but there is a basis where sometimes the character limit is obviously bypassed only because the user has nothing important left to say. I saw someone in the 500 Word Fanfic thread that posted the link to their story, gave the title and then had nothing to say so they had to bypass the limit.

 

While I don't think it's that hard to come up with 100 useful characters I do believe there are instances where giving warnings for something like that seems a bit harsh. I do acquiesce that it is not unwarranted but for a genuine poster with nothing else left to say, and one that is actually contributing to the thread, it may hit them as unfair.

 

(Admittedly, I like the character limit and I'm simply playing the Devil's Advocate here to present the argument.)

[Zoop 8,384]

I saw someone in the 500 Word Fanfic thread that posted the link to their story, gave the title and then had nothing to say so they had to bypass the limit.

In this case, they could've simply posted the story in a spoiler tag, thereby giving them many more times the characters required.

[Starshine 16,330]

Pointless/Off-topic posts: 15 points

Backseat moderating: 25 points

Character minimum violation: 100 points

Advertising: 100

Abusive behavior: 250 points

Borderline NSFW content: 250 points

Pornographic material: 800 points

 

Two day suspension at 400 points

Seven day suspension at 800 points

Eternal Ban at 1,000 points

 

Twenty five point reduction per week.

Now this is more like it

 

 

"You shouldn't be doing that" backseat moderating got 25 points, while "GTFO and read the damn rules" backseat moderating got a whole punch of 250

But still, the first tier of punishment was still too high imo. There will be some people who will try to abuse it :x

 

I got two questions:

 

1. Let's just say someone posted a very suggestive images of Twilight Sparkle, got 800 points, banned seven days, which after his punishment ended his points will be reduced to 775.

Then someone else posted another suggestive images, then the first guy tried to warn this new guy about posting NSFW stuff, then one of the mods give him another 25 points for backseat modding, increasing his still high points to 800

 

Will he got banned for another seven days, even when all he did was posted "you shouldn't be doing that?"

 

---

 

2. Shouldn't there be some points awarded for those who posted dangerous links, or claiming to be staff to the new members?

Edited August 20, 2012 by Dreamwalker

[Swoop 2,276]

Questions? Have some answers.

 

Let's just say someone posted a very suggestive images of Twilight Sparkle, got 800 points, banned seven days, which after his punishment ended his points will be reduced to 775. Then someone else posted another suggestive images, then the first guy tried to warn this new guy about posting NSFW stuff, then one of the mods give him another 25 points for backseat modding, increasing his still high points to 800 Will he got banned for another seven days, even when all he did was posted "you shouldn't be doing that?"

Instead of answering that question directly, I'll respond with a more long winded general statement, which should hopefully help clarify most hypothetical situations:

 

One of the primary focuses of implementing a clear-cut warning point system (along with the complementary FAQ we're planning to introduce), is to maintain a level of consistency, fairness, and clarity with respect to upholding global rules; a standard we couldn't maintain by use of a case-by-case approach. However, that's not to say that individual discretion does not have a place in this new scheme. Given the equivocal nature of wrongdoings, we feel as though the best moderation practices should involve a healthy balance of following a distinct set of principles, along with individual discernment as needed, rather than relying solely on one or the other.

 

In other words, while a succinct and concise set of rules and points is great for issuing and measuring warnings in an impartial mannar, when it comes to issuing punishments towards the upper end of the punitive spectrum, we're willing to substitute the rather stringent rules with a bit of common sense.

 

It should also be noted that when such incidents do happen to arise, they will be made based on the discretion of the administration alone.

 

Shouldn't there be some points awarded for those who posted dangerous links, or claiming to be staff to the new members?

In the past, we've treat dangerous links based upon what content is awaiting us on the other side of the link. Given that the nature of inappropriate material found through links can vary significantly, we're a little hesitant to slap a hard figure on them in terms of issuing points. Considering that I haven't had the opportunity to discuss this little aspect with Feld0 or Zoop, presume that we'll base the warning on what the user is linking to, though depending on the other administrators views, this may change in the future.

 

As for impersonating staff … well, we've run into that incident a few times in the past, and suffice to say we weren't too tolerant of it in the slightest. I'd like to think that the notion of us not taking kindly to staff impersonations, is an intuitive rule more than anything else, although considering that common sense tends to be quite seldom amongst the realms of the interwebs, I suppose that may just be a rule worth adding.

[Starshine 16,330]

It should also be noted that when such incidents do happen to arise, they will be made based on the discretion of the administration.

I'm glad for that. Because I've foreseen some real nasty incidents where some poor misguided souls will be banned multiple times because they often repeats the same mistake over and over again.

 

In the past, we've treat dangerous links based upon what content is waiting on the other side of the link.

Do you remember about that one time where some new member posted a dangerous link on welcome plaza? The site behind link will (reportedly) drop some DNS changer viruses, luckily one of the staff here put on his serious hat and that member was removed swiftly.

 

The question is, if a member posted some snazzy link that will wipe out your pony collection, will he be banned instantly?

What if the user himself have no idea that his link was dangerous, and only posted it here because he thought it was funny?

 

I suppose that may just be a rule worth adding.

The more rules we got, the better

[FedoraMemes 582]

In this case, they could've simply posted the story in a spoiler tag, thereby giving them many more times the characters required.

 

I have discovered an issue with the fact that sometimes, the character warning doesn't pop up. I once made a post where the character counter didn't appear, and then I posted something under 100 characters. I looked at it and soon realised the problem. When I went back to edit my post, the character counter was there, and my post was only 68 characters.

 

I have adressed this issue in a thread before, and have been notified that our good old friend Scootacool is working to fix these problems.

 

I am just pointing this out so you know that sometimes, the limit thingamabob doesn't work, and when the points system comes in, that this problem may occur.