Love, tolerance, and a preview of things to come

[Espeon 338]

>Ctrl+F "slippery slope"

>find nothing

 

I'm not totally opposed to altering the warning system (the workings of which I know little to nothing about) to accommodate the character limit bypassers (it's a much less severe offense than most, let's be serious here). It's for the other stuff that I'm concerned.

 

The point system proposed in the OP:

"Pointless/Off-topic posts: 35 points

Backseat moderating: 100 points

Character minimum violation: 125 points

Advertising: 175

Abusive behavior: 250 points

Suggestive/borderline NSFW content: 400 points

NSFW content: 750 points

 

Two day suspension at 500

Seven day suspension at 750

Eternal banishment at 1,000

25 point reduction per week*

* Some modification required, viability not 100% determined"

 

Let's take a look at implied seriousness of offenses, here. The sliding scale says Off-topic < backseat mod < char. min. bypass < advertising < abusive behavior < suggestive < NSFW, with the only single offense that instabans being NSFW. Okay, I guess; this is pretty much the same as before, right? My major qualm at this point is the order in which the offenses are listed. Can I get a rationale behind why character min violations are so high up there? I know third lowest isn't exactly that high, but in my opinion, it doesn't deserve the spot above backseat modding. Could I get a reason for all the placements here, and perhaps the numbers too (though they'll probably change)? They can't be completely arbitrary.

 

Next, I have an issue with some of these categories themselves. What exactly is defined as "abusive behavior," for example? Where is the line drawn for "suggestive/borderline NSFW," or for backseat modding (Swoop answered this, although it still leaves some room for interpretation)? Is advertising one's own deviantArt in a sig, for example, under the umbrella of advertising? A lot of these terms are very broad, and before I can agree with the system, I'd need some more concrete definitions. If we use broad wording for offenses and follow the general "When in doubt, report" rule, that leaves a lot of room for human error. Perhaps the person who reported something twisted it to seem like something it wasn't (say we're talking about abusive behavior here). The mod is reasonably convinced, and infracts the member, who is banned for two days. After he/she returns, he/she explains their side of the story, and let's say the mod realizes that no abuse was occurring. Was the member banned for two days for absolutely nothing, then? That sounds pretty shitty, and it's not even the most severe possible case of this. I just don't want to leave things too open to interpretation.

 

The point system may seem nifty and stuff, but it's really sort of flawed for reasons that were already posted here. I have no idea if it would work well, even with more polish than some spiffy dress shoes, because this slope is so damn slippery at the moment. That's not to say there is a better alternative, though. There really is no ideal way to dole out punishment fairly in every case. I've heard the current system is imperfect (I really don't know what it is :V), so apparently something has to be done, but...I really don't know what. I just don't want this to be a "one step forward, two steps back" sort of thing.

 

Also, it's slightly off-topic, but let me say that we really shouldn't need to be punishing people for a lot of this stuff, because it shouldn't be happening in the first place. It's pretty much common sense that you shouldn't be a dick to anyone, so why are people being dicks to each other? A bunch of this is in the rules that everyone's supposed to read, too. Why can't people follow simple rules that they hopefully read? (Just to shoehorn a mention of chat in here, the rules were presented each time someone entered, yet they were still frequently broken, even moreso than elsewhere on the forum. *insert "You can't explain that" here*). I feel so old (relatively speaking) saying this, but there was a much more relaxed atmosphere here when I joined. Rules were infracted much less often, perhaps because there were less to break, but I digress. There were no issues with abusive behavior or people being mean to each other at all, if I recall. I don't see why we can't be like that now. How about it, guys?

[Dave247 568]

Also, it's slightly off-topic, but let me say that we really shouldn't need to be punishing people for a lot of this stuff, because it shouldn't be happening in the first place. It's pretty much common sense that you shouldn't be a dick to anyone, so why are people being dicks to each other?

In a perfect and on a perfect forum we wouldn't needs mods, rules and punishments. The word however, isn't perfect and the same goes for this forum. Rules and punishments need to be put in place to keep order otherwise chaos would break loose and ruin the experience for everyone.

It has been said there has been a rise in a general unpleasantness which has been due to the rules being rather lax so unfortunately the only way to counter that is to crack down and become more harsh so that users think twice before breaking a rule.

 

I support for something to be done but I can't give a opinion on the points system due to not have any experience with a system like that.

Edited August 10, 2012 by Dave247

[NavelColt 22,881]

So we won't get punished if we accidentally post under 100 characters when we're on a mobile phone? Cus I'm on my iPhone right now and I'm not sure if this is 100 characters.

 

Nope, mobile people just need to let staff know in advance that they are mobile, because the issue with the character limit not working properly on mobile versions is a known situation x3

[XUNUSEDXXX 3,459]

 

 

Nope, mobile people just need to let staff know in advance that they are mobile, because the issue with the character limit not working properly on mobile versions is a known situation x3

 

So do we PM them or just post it here? I'm on mobile right now and the only reason I would underpass the character limit is because I'm on my phone lol

[NavelColt 22,881]

So do we PM them or just post it here? I'm on mobile right now and the only reason I would underpass the character limit is because I'm on my phone lol

 

Eh, they'll probably read it right in here; I saw Zoop stalking the thread just a few minutes ago. But hey, PMing Feld0 and just letting him know on a one on one basis is never a bad idea, just to be official.

[Pinkazoid 3,493]

So do we PM them or just post it here? I'm on mobile right now and the only reason I would underpass the character limit is because I'm on my phone lol

 

That's already 100 characters,

I guess you can make a little side note saying that it doesn't work, however, I think that it won't be a problem if your phone doesn't make you post more, making random things like "STUUUUPPIIIDDD CHARRACTER LIMITTTTTT" just to get enough characters is what they don't want xD

Edited August 10, 2012 by Pinkazoid

[Doctor XFizzle 8,669]

*returning from hiatus quickly to respond to this again then I'm going back on vacation*

 

The point system has merit but it totally needs revision and fleshing out fully before it can be implemented. However, like many people before have stated, the rules and the examples of violation of those rules have to be clear-cut, have zero grey area, and have little room for interpretation.

 

There's already a decent size feeling among the users that the mods either wield too much power/objectivity or wrongfully apply their power/objectivity when it comes to addressing infractions. Having unpolished and unclear rules enforced will only add to that feeling. When things are standardized and consistent across the board, then everyone has the same understanding and can be held to equal accountability and expectations.

 

*runs back to vacation*

Edited August 10, 2012 by Doctor XFizzle

[Arylett Charnoa 4,919]

Quick question here: if every post that is deleted means warning points are added, does that mean that when several other posts are also deleted for replying to said deleted post, do they all get warnings even if they broke none of the rules or had no infractions mentioned in the OP? If people get warnings just for replying to a post that is deleted for some reason, I have to say the currently relaxed feel of the site will quickly disappear...

 

I don't think this will be the case. Presently, we do not hand out any warnings to people who get their posts deleted for responding to deleted post. Why would this change? It's not really breaking any rules unless the response was inappropriate.

 

 

Also, I'd like to throw out my own suggestion. Whilst I like Zoop/Strife's system, (although I have to admit that I'm really bad with numbers, so my liking doesn't really mean much. It could be imperfect and there's something I'm not seeing, but I love dealing with smaller numbers more than larger ones because they confuse the poor Arylett's head. And I like the categories because it's similar to something I had an in old warning point system I've seen) I think there is something necessary that people are missing:

 

Point decay should be based on the severity of the offense.

 

Using Strife's categories, Warning and Minor points would decay rapidly. Moderate would decay slowly. And Intolerable would not decay at all. It would take special appeal to the staff or constant show of good behavior for a long while to get rid of an Intolerable offense. This would make things more fair and balanced, I'd say. Of course, I can't really say what a good rate of decay would be for each offense. But I can throw this out there.

 

Perhaps as well, each category could have a (small) range of points that could be awarded depending on the severity/category of each specific offense and allowing for more of that case-by-case whilst keeping consistent. For instance, example for Warning again under Strife's system, it could perhaps be 1 to 5 points. And so on and so forth. This would allow us to accommodate the newbies as well, and not keep the amount of points so stringent. I don't know how good an idea that is, and if it might encourage the same sort of inconsistency the current system has, but I decided to toss it out at you guys anyways.

 

Of course, if there were very special cases and exceptions, we would act in whatever matter was deemed to be most fit rather than just waiting for a person to accrue up enough warning points. (For instance, a known troll first joining the forums) It's just to allow for more consistency. It isn't a stranglehold to make us into crazy powerhungry nazis.

[NavelColt 22,881]

I don't think this will be the case. Presently, we do not hand out any warnings to people who get their posts deleted for responding to deleted post. Why would this change? It's not really breaking any rules unless the response was inappropriate.

 

 

Also, I'd like to throw out my own suggestion. Whilst I like Zoop/Strife's system, (although I have to admit that I'm really bad with numbers, so my liking doesn't really mean much. It could be imperfect and there's something I'm not seeing, but I love dealing with smaller numbers more than larger ones because they confuse the poor Arylett's head. And I like the categories because it's similar to something I had an in old warning point system I've seen) I think there is something necessary that people are missing:

 

Point decay should be based on the severity of the offense.

 

Using Strife's categories, Warning and Minor points would decay rapidly. Moderate would decay slowly. And Intolerable would not decay at all. It would take special appeal to the staff or constant show of good behavior for a long while to get rid of an Intolerable offense. This would make things more fair and balanced, I'd say. Of course, I can't really say what a good rate of decay would be for each offense. But I can throw this out there.

 

Perhaps as well, each category could have a (small) range of points that could be awarded depending on the severity/category of each specific offense and allowing for more of that case-by-case whilst keeping consistent. For instance, example for Warning again under Strife's system, it could perhaps be 1 to 5 points. And so on and so forth. This would allow us to accommodate the newbies as well, and not keep the amount of points so stringent. I don't know how good an idea that is, and if it might encourage the same sort of inconsistency the current system has, but I decided to toss it out at you guys anyways.

 

Of course, if there were very special cases and exceptions, we would act in whatever matter was deemed to be most fit rather than just waiting for a person to accrue up enough warning points. (For instance, a known troll first joining the forums) It's just to allow for more consistency. It isn't a stranglehold to make us into crazy powerhungry nazis.

 

Decay based around severity makes heap loads of sense, I agree with that idea completely ^^ Because after all, off topic as opposed to something like trolling people is very, very different in amounts of negativity and actual weight in how problematic it is, plus, the former is going to happen three times as often, so the smaller things should definitely deteriorate faster than major things.

[My little pwny 1,392]

I don't think this will be the case. Presently, we do not hand out any warnings to people who get their posts deleted for responding to deleted post. Why would this change? It's not really breaking any rules unless the response was inappropriate.

 

 

Also, I'd like to throw out my own suggestion. Whilst I like Zoop/Strife's system, (although I have to admit that I'm really bad with numbers, so my liking doesn't really mean much. It could be imperfect and there's something I'm not seeing, but I love dealing with smaller numbers more than larger ones because they confuse the poor Arylett's head. And I like the categories because it's similar to something I had an in old warning point system I've seen) I think there is something necessary that people are missing:

 

Point decay should be based on the severity of the offense.

 

Using Strife's categories, Warning and Minor points would decay rapidly. Moderate would decay slowly. And Intolerable would not decay at all. It would take special appeal to the staff or constant show of good behavior for a long while to get rid of an Intolerable offense. This would make things more fair and balanced, I'd say. Of course, I can't really say what a good rate of decay would be for each offense. But I can throw this out there.

 

Perhaps as well, each category could have a (small) range of points that could be awarded depending on the severity/category of each specific offense and allowing for more of that case-by-case whilst keeping consistent. For instance, example for Warning again under Strife's system, it could perhaps be 1 to 5 points. And so on and so forth. This would allow us to accommodate the newbies as well, and not keep the amount of points so stringent. I don't know how good an idea that is, and if it might encourage the same sort of inconsistency the current system has, but I decided to toss it out at you guys anyways.

 

Of course, if there were very special cases and exceptions, we would act in whatever matter was deemed to be most fit rather than just waiting for a person to accrue up enough warning points. (For instance, a known troll first joining the forums) It's just to allow for more consistency. It isn't a stranglehold to make us into crazy powerhungry nazis.

 

For some reason the link he gave for his google doc doesn't load up for me, so this is the first time I've read that. I say this to Strife. I don't like that idea were categories determine how fast points decay because it won't reduce the number of small time offenses. Everything should be put in the same boat, except maybe "intolerable" offenses depending on what that means. The point of the *ahem* point system is to reduce the number of spam-ish posts. So if the off-topic or bypassing posts are still happening, it would be because the decay was to fast and the illusion of punishment is to weak.

 

Instead of categories and different decay rates, just do an exponential decay where it slowly increases the rate of decay.

Edited August 10, 2012 by My little pwny

[Arylett Charnoa 4,919]

For some reason the link he gave for his google doc doesn't load up for me, so this is the first time I've read that. I say this to Strife. I don't like that idea were categories determine how fast points decay because it won't reduce the number of small time offenses. Everything should be put in the same boat, except maybe "intolerable" offenses depending on what that means. The point of the *ahem* point system is to reduce the number of spam-ish posts. So if the off-topic or bypassing posts are still happening, it would be because the decay was to fast and the illusion of punishment is to weak.

 

Instead of categories and different decay rates, just do an exponential decay where it slowly increases the rate of decay.

 

Whilst your suggestion could be good too, let me clarify what I meant:

 

By "rapidly," I meant in comparison to the other offenses. I didn't say that to protect the small-time offenders, but rather, to be harsher on the big-time ones. Would it be fair that somebody who makes a few character limit bypassing posts has to wait the same amount of time for that to decay as somebody who insults their fellow members? I don't really believe so. They (the insulting person) should have to wait even longer for their warnings to expire. It allows more variability because not every offense is the same. ESPECIALLY since a bigger-time offender could very well abuse this amount of decay, just waiting, then going at it again. Because we couldn't make the decay rate so huge due to all the other different types of offenders we'd have to accommodate, and it'd be rather difficult in the first place to find an adequate decay rate that covers everything. We couldn't punish these big-time offenders as hard this way.

 

The truth of the matter is that whilst spamming IS something we don't want, every offense has different and varying levels of severity and harm they bring to the forums. Insulting someone is more harmful overall, and more serious. So by nature, we should punish that person more, discourage them further from continuing. The spammer would be discouraged too, of course. They just would receive a bit of a lighter sentence.

 

Of course, by having it so that the amount of decay increases each time an offense is committed slowly, we would have that same character limit spammer who just doesn't stop having to wait the same amount of time as a person who insults another member. We want to cut down on spammers, yes, but I think that's a bit too harsh for the spammer, and not harsh enough for the insulter. Plus, an insulter could just lay low for a while, and strike more infrequently. It could be very easy for them to abuse. People don't just commit the same offenses all in rapid succession. In fact, from my experiences, people commit these offenses over a more lengthy period of time. And by then, the insulter's points would be dwindled down when they struck again. Maybe the new points they gain added with the old points might not even be enough to get them suspended. And they'd just keep at it again and again.

 

If we were going with this though, I really think that the amount of decay should increase MORE over time for those who go higher up on the severity scale. I think by combining severity and frequency, we could achieve the more balanced system. We need to take into account both, not just one. Because these are both two important elements of offenses.

 

Lastly, the point of the warning system isn't just to decrease spam. A lot of what spurred this on is the large amounts of drama and insulting going on in the community, as well as people accusing us of bias because of inconsistent moderation.

 

So my point was: We punish those who do more MORE, rather than defending those who do less. We'd just have to find an actually good decay rate for each of the categories for that to work. The key to a good warning system isn't just consistency, but balance. You have to take into account the different variabilities of offenses in ADDITION to the frequency of offenses being committed.

 

(Also, do not take what I'm saying as fact just 'cause I'm a mod. It might not make it in and maybe Pwny's suggestion is better! Like I said, this sort of thing isn't my thing. I'm probably just babbling out nonsense and not making sense. ><)

[Somebody 570]

I don't think this will be the case. Presently, we do not hand out any warnings to people who get their posts deleted for responding to deleted post. Why would this change? It's not really breaking any rules unless the response was inappropriate.

 

Oh, I see. Thanks for clarifying that for me! I thought there was going to be an automated system that automatically hands out warnings when posts are deleted. As long as human (pony?) staff interaction is still required for points to be given, I don't see any major problems occuring with this new system.

 

I really like your idea of different decay rates for each type of infraction. The question is how to implement it. Automating all of that sounds like a real programming challenge to me. On the other hand, if all point decay activity would have to be edited manually by a staff member every week (or month or whatever), I would think that at some point, errors would become inevitable. Don't get me wrong, I think the staff here is more than up to the task; it's just that manually juggling numbers for 5,000+ members looks to be no small feat.

Edited August 10, 2012 by Questio

[weegeez 150]

fairly smart and organized new warning system. I completly approve of this action, this is only going to better the forum

Edited August 10, 2012 by weegeez

[Strife 455]

@,@@~Chaotic Discord~

 

Personally, I do not like a varied decay system ... and I'll explain why.

 

Complications

The system is already a bit more complicated than the average user is accustomed to, so the best thing to do is keep it as simple as possible while retaining it's usefulness. Having a variable decay rate adds complication to the system while not giving any solid usefulness.

Point Values

The obvious reason to having point values is for people to hit the thresholds faster or slower depending on the severity of their actions, but there is another reason. Since more severe actions are tied to larger point values, it takes far longer for those points to eventually decay to zero.

 

My suggested decay rate was 1 point per 24 hours, but in retrospect that should probably be reduced to 3 points per week. I've changed my document to reflect that.

[NavelColt 22,881]

@,@@~Chaotic Discord~

 

Personally, I do not like a varied decay system ... and I'll explain why.

 

Complications

The system is already a bit more complicated than the average user is accustomed to, so the best thing to do is keep it as simple as possible while retaining it's usefulness. Having a variable decay rate adds complication to the system while not giving any solid usefulness.

Point Values

 

The obvious reason to having point values is for people to hit the thresholds faster or slower depending on the severity of their actions, but there is another reason. Since more severe actions are tied to larger point values, it takes far longer for those points to eventually decay to zero.

 

My suggested decay rate was 1 point per 24 hours, but in retrospect that should probably be reduced to 3 points per week. I've changed my document to reflect that.

 

Hmmm. Well to each their own. And not to sure about the change either, but if you think it's a better choice.

[Strife 455]

Hmmm. Well to each their own. And not to sure about the change either, but if you think it's a better choice.

 

Well, let's do a bit of math to help decide.

 

My previous decay rate would have surmounted to 7 per week. Time it takes for an Infraction type to reach zero:

Warning - 5 days

Minor - 15 days

Moderate - 25 days

Serious - 50 days (one week suspension, so they will be at 43 points on returning)

 

 

New rate of 3 per week:

 

Warning - 1.7 weeks

Minor - 5 weeks

Moderate - ~2 months

Serious - ~4 months (one week suspension, so they will be at 47 points on returning)

 

 

Happy middle of 5 per week:

 

Warning - 1 week

Minor - 3 weeks

Moderate - 5 weeks

Serious - 2.5 months (one week suspension, so they will be at 45 points on returning)

 

 

Math has made me really like the decay of 5 points per week thing ... allows the Infractions to remain long enough to remind the user to be careful, but not too long.

[My little pwny 1,392]

Well, let's do a bit of math to help decide.

 

My previous decay rate would have surmounted to 7 per week. Time it takes for an Infraction type to reach zero:

Warning - 5 days

Minor - 15 days

Moderate - 25 days

Serious - 50 days (one week suspension, so they will be at 43 points on returning)

 

 

New rate of 3 per week:

 

Warning - 1.7 weeks

Minor - 5 weeks

Moderate - ~2 months

Serious - ~4 months (one week suspension, so they will be at 47 points on returning)

 

 

Happy middle of 5 per week:

 

Warning - 1 week

Minor - 3 weeks

Moderate - 5 weeks

Serious - 2.5 months (one week suspension, so they will be at 45 points on returning)

 

 

Math has made me really like the decay of 5 points per week thing ... allows the Infractions to remain long enough to remind the user to be careful, but not too long.

 

This is some sound math. I also like the 5 per week idea, but why have the decay start while they are banned? Since they are banned, there is no way to commit another offense during that time so their points shouldn't decrease. Points should only decay when the offender has opportunity to commit another infraction, but doesn't.

[thegoodhen 698]

I'm not going to mince words - the drama levels on the forum recently have been rather absurd. I've seen people openly ranting, raving, and flaming people in the Skype room, have witnessed a large influx of abusive status messages, and have had a great many reports written up for petty bickering and similar nonsense.

 

(...)

Pointless/Off-topic posts: 35 points

Backseat moderating: 100 points

Character minimum violation: 125 points

Advertising: 175

 

I'm sorry, but I don't understand why should OT be punished like that according to new rules, since they are brought up to prevent people from being mean?

I would hate this to sound too defensive, but take me for an example-I would never be really mean on anypony here.Not even if I had a reason. And as far as I can tell, most ponies are like this here. However, I often get off topic. I understand that this is avoidable, but for me it's kinda hard to and it's more of a honest mistake, really.

 

In short-being abusive should be 400, OT 0, backseat modding... well, I would say 0 too, but... Let's say 25? Nsfw borderline 50, NSFW 200.

 

Or better: Keep it how it is, just ban meanies earlier. This way regular users won't feel intimidated and offensive people can go f... away.

[Strife 455]

This is some sound math. I also like the 5 per week idea, but why have the decay start while they are banned? Since they are banned, there is no way to commit another offense during that time so their points shouldn't decrease. Points should only decay when the offender has opportunity to commit another infraction, but doesn't.

 

There are two reasons to have decay continue.

 

Firstly, it is far easier to code for a decay period that stays steady regardless of the status of the user.

 

Secondly, allowing it to decay by 5 points while the person is gone puts them at 45 points ... so all they need to do is get another warning to hit that 50 point mark again, giving them another suspension.

 

It's only when a user has committed a few really bad offenses that they'll stay above 50 points after a suspension as they work towards that 100 point ban.

[Dark Qiviut 22,425]

After about twenty hours, I've come up with a partial first draft of my proposal. Using inspiration from the Opening Post, Strife's proposal, and My Little Pwny's criticism of Zoop's proposal, I've decided to come up with one of my own. Taking it from my post in the second page, I've written one that is more extensive and thorough. It retains the 1,000-point policy that Zoop proposed in his opening post, yet breaks it down even further and more elaborately.

 

Be advised that it is incomplete, hasn't been proofread, and doesn't include the Point Decay recommendation policy. I will indicate document updates via status updates.

 

https://docs.google....USdnl8nqnc/edit

 

For those who cannot access Google Docs, I copied and pasted it, word for word, from my document and is confined within the "Spoiler" tag. Be warned. It is REALLY long!

 

 

The community from the MLP Forums is very dedicated, loyal, and passion. Often, peace blankets the forum, but occasionally, drama will occur. Therefore, the MLP Forum runs a complex rules enforcement system.

 

Prior to exploring the forum, keep in mind the blanket rules of the forum as well as its privacy policy.

 

The MLP Forums is operated in Canada under an IP.Board server in the United States. As a result, there will be a warning system only visible to you and the staff, located under your avatar. The purpose of the Warning System is to keep track of your posting record and violations with flexibility to keep you cooperated with the board guidelines.

 

Under the MLP Forums is a complex, 1,000-point system. Each violation ranges in point total depending on how lenient or severe the rule you broke and how accidental or intentional you broke the specific rule.

 

How the rules are broken down are as follows:

• Bypassing the character minimum requirement

• Point total: 0 to 10 points

• The point total only deals with how blatant the rule was broken. At times, users may not have much more to say in a post and, out of fear, may increase their post count a little to meet the minimum requirement. Currently, the mobile version of the MLP Forums does not have a character count.

• Under the character minimum requirement is also a safety net. For sections that have a one hundred-character minimum, there is a ten-character safety net. For sections that require a two hundred-character minimum, there is a twenty-character safety net.

[*]Off-topic posts

• Point total: 0 to 20 points

• The point total only deals with how blatant the rule was broken. If most of your post is on-topic besides a small section, then the off-topic section of your post will be removed without any point penalty.

[*]Backseat moderating

• Point total: 5 to 20 points

• Backseat moderating is described as members who aren’t staff acting as the mediator or forum staff without prior permission. If you feel any incident should be intervened by a moderator, report the offending posts. Do not get involved. Providing any suggestion or recommendation that you would not need for a mod report is exempt.

• Point total here depends on how blatant the rule is broken and whether the offending post contains partial backseat moderating or complete backseat moderation.

• Non-consensual advertising in a topic or post
  • Point total: 20 to 50 points

  • This deals with advertising your own Website or forum community without prior consent from the Site Owner, Administration, or Global Moderator.
  • Point accumulation deals with how blatant the rule is broken. In other words:

  • If the Website is appropriate for all ages and marked appropriately as such.
  • If it is properly warned of any suggestive content that may not be suitable for people under a specific age.
• Advertising your Website or community in your signature or status update is exempt from this rule as long as it complies with the general forum guidelines, privacy policy, and if it is properly warned.

[*]Over-excessive profanity

• Point total: 25 to 50 points

• At times, most of us will swear. Sometimes, we may swear every few lines. In the MLP Forums, it is required to swear minimally and when you feel is considered appropriate to do so.

• If a mod determines that in your post if your post contains constant swearing merely for “shock value” or just for the sake of doing so, the mod will have discretion of editing your post to remove the words and/or discipline you with a point amount.

[*]Abusive behavior

• Point total: 50 to 100 points
  • Abusive behavior is defined as:

  • Insulting various users in the MLP Forums.
  • Instigating drama.
  • Publicly accusing someone a troll.
  • And otherwise belittling other users.
• Abusive behavior leads to drama that can cloud the MLP Forums with a negative reputation.

• Point total will depend on the severity of the penalty and how frequent the user broke this rule.

• Intentionally posting legal borderline suggestive content without appropriate warnings beforehand
  • Point total: 100 to 200 points

  • This is defined as content not appropriate for people under the age of thirteen years old. In other words:

  • More blood, but gore is disallowed.
  • Some more graphic violence (i.e., gun fighting).
  • Some strong sexual contact that does not deal with exposure of private anatomy.
• Occasionally, we may post some story writing, image, or video that may contain some suggestive content. If your post may contained slightly mature content:
  • If it’s an Opening Post (OP), please write down the content warning in your topic title and thread tags.
  • If it is a post within a topic that is considered appropriate for a wider audience, in the beginning of your post, write a warning followed by the type of content that your post contains (i.e., slight sexual content, mild drug use, some strong violence, and higher blood accumulation). Also, please use the “Spoiler” tag to hide the content.
• Foul language is exempt from this rule as long as it isn’t deemed over-excessive.

• Occasionally, there will be a time where someone may display a post containing a picture or video that follows the guidelines when suddenly, it was altered to make it inappropriate. If you notice this, please notify a mod or administrator immediately.
  • During a circumstance where a mod first sees this change and disciplines you, please appeal that the content was edited by a third party to make it more graphic. If the content was previously considered “safe for work,” then the penalty will be rescinded.
• At times, some people will post an image or video with a link that may not be appropriate for users under thirteen. If you post one with a link that fits this criteria, please warn about the link in your post. Not doing so can result in a warning ranging from 0 to 25 points depending on how blatant the violation is.

• Intentionally posting strong suggestive content
  • Point total: 200 to 300 points
    • This is defined as content not appropriate for people under the age of seventeen years old. They contain, but are not limited to:

    • Graphic violence and gore.
    • Some strong sexual contact that deals with exposure of private anatomy.

    • This, however, does not deal with pornography, which involves graphic sexual content. Intentional distribution of pornography anywhere on the MLP Forum is strictly prohibited.
  • Heavy drug usage
• Any link to this content is strictly prohibited from the MLP Forums unless you both:
  • Have expressed written permission from a Global Mod or Administrator/Site Owner
  • Confine the content under the “Spoiler” tag while writing down the warnings.
  • If you have permission to post the link, but not write down the content warning, this can result in a warning ranging from 0 to 50 points depending on how blatant the violation is.
• Discussion of eighteen-year-old material is legal as long as you either:
  • If it’s an Opening Post (OP), please write down the content warning in your topic title and thread tags.
  • If it is a post within a topic that is considered appropriate for a wider audience, in the beginning of your post, write a warning followed by the type of content that your post contains (i.e., strong sexual content, strong violence, and higher blood accumulation). Also, please use the “Spoiler” tag to hide the content.
• Foul language is exempt from this rule as long as it isn’t deemed over-excessive.

• Occasionally, there will be a time where someone may display a post containing a picture or video that follows the guidelines when suddenly, it was altered to make it inappropriate or more inappropriate than what it was originally. If you notice this, please notify a mod or administrator immediately.
  • During a circumstance where a mod first sees this change and disciplines you, please appeal that the content was edited by a third party to make it more graphic. If the content was previously considered “safe for work,” then the penalty will be rescinded.

[*]Racist, sexist, homophobic, and otherwise prejudiced slurs

• Point total: 300 to 500 points

• Any prejudicial slurs or language related to one’s sexuality, race, or ethnicity is strictly prohibited in this forum. Failure to comply can and will result in a severe point discipline plus posting restrictions.

• Inflammatory trolling and spamming members of the MLP Forums

• Point total: 300 to 750 points

• Trolling is designed to submit verified posts for shock value with the intention to disrupt the peace and create drama. Spamming is described as posting material that does not contribute to the forum with the intent of disrupting the peace. Examples include constant repetition of phrases, slurs, and images in one block, constant strong abusive behavior, and posting anything to intentionally shock the audience.

• Trolling and spamming in the MLP Forums is strictly prohibited.

• Any extremely severe trolling or spamming may result in your account being terminated.

[*]Invasion of privacy

• Point total: 250 to 1,000 points
  • Invasion of privacy is described as displaying (all without prior expressed written permission unless indicated):
    • Someone’s real name who is not a celebrity.
    • Someone’s real life address regardless of celebrity status.
    • Private messages, text messages, Skype chats, and/or e-mail conversations
    • Credit card information.

    • Posting this is strictly prohibited regardless of consent.
  • Someone’s social security number.
    • Posting this is strictly prohibited regardless of consent.
  • Someone’s telephone number.
  • Personal photos, videography, and/or audio conversation.
  • Someone’s location and/or name of their school, college, or university.
  • Someone’s location of where they work.
  • Someone’s age, gender, and/or sexuality when not displayed.
  • Displaying information outside the Life Advice sub-section.
  • Someone’s personal private activities
• Any posting of private information requires expressed written consent along with a screenshot proving the consent and the rest of your party publicly expressing consent.

• The point total will determine on:
  • The severity of the violation
  • How blatant the offending user violated this guideline
  • Whether the offending user invaded someone’s privacy with the intent to slander, abuse, or therefore disrupt someone’s life.
  • Anyone found with the intention to violate this sub-guideline may result in their account being terminated and their Internet Service Protocol possibly reported to local authorities.

[*]Sexual harassment

• Point total: 500 to 1,000 points

• Point total deals with the blatancy of violation and whether the offended intended to sexually harass his or her victim for the purpose of abusing, bribing or bullying.

[*]Legal distribution or display of pornography

• Point total: 500 to 1,000 points
  • This deals with:

  • Pornography activity between people at the age of eighteen or over.
  • Live-action, drawn, or otherwise animated pornographic or extremely strong sexual content between characters over the age of eighteen.
• Anyone caught distributing legal pornography will de disciplined with a severe point count or, if intended to display it to disrupt the peace (i.e., display a pornographic video or image with malware attached), have his or her account terminated.

• Occasionally, there will be a time where someone may display a post containing a picture or video that follows the guidelines when suddenly, it was altered to make it pornographic. If you notice this, please notify a mod or administrator immediately.
  • During a circumstance where a mod first sees this change and disciplines you, please appeal to the staff that the content was edited by a third party to make it more graphic. If the content was previously considered “safe for work,” then the penalty will be rescinded.

[*]Illegal distribution or display of pornography

• Point total: 1,000 points
  • This deals with:

  • Child pornography
  • Live-action, drawn, or otherwise animated pornographic, nude, or strong sexual content between minors.
• Anyone caught intentionally distributing illegal pornography will have his or her account terminated and possibly have his or her Internet Service Protocol reported to authorities.

[*]Threats of violence or death towards another user

• Point total: 500 to 1,000 points
  • This is described as:

  • Threats to injure or stalk another user.
  • Threats to someone’s lives, either the victim’s and/or the victim’s family or friends.
• Any threats of death towards another user or anyone associated with a user will have his account terminated and Internet Service Protocol reported to local authorities.

[*]Intentionally posting or uploading an image, link, video, or audio recording with malware

• Point total: 1,000 points.

• Anyone found to intentionally upload malicious content will have his or her account terminated.

• At times, however, someone may post a link unaware that it may have vulnerable code, an affiliation to a virus site, or a possible display of an advertisement banner that may carry malware. Please notify a global staff member immediately if such a circumstance occurs.

Whenever you cross a plateau, you may be subject to discipline, such as a suspension; restrictions to posting in a forum, status update, or private message; or possible expulsion of your account. The warning point plateaus and consequences are as follows:

• 0 to 99 points: No disciplinary action.

• 100 points: A written warning, via e-mail and/or Private Message from a Global Moderator, Administrator, or Webmaster. Possible additional penalty of post supervision for at least one day and, at most, three days may be included.

• 175 points: A second written warning, via e-mail and/or Private Message from a Global Moderator, Administrator, or Webmaster. Possible additional penalty of post supervision for at least one day and, at most, seven days may be included.

• 250 points: A suspension from the forum from one day to four days. Possible additional penalty of post supervision for at least one day and, at most, seven days may be included following reinstatement.
  • If the penalty occurred through status updates or private messages, restrictions from either or both may be included.
• 350 points: A suspension from the forum two days to five days. Possible additional penalty of post supervision for at least one day and, at most, seven days may be included following reinstatement.
  • If the penalty occurred through status updates or private messages, restrictions from either or both may be included.
• 500 points: A suspension from the forum from five days to ten days. Possible additional penalty of post supervision for at least five days and, at most, ten days may be included following reinstatement.
  • If the penalty occurred through status updates or private messages, restrictions from either or both may be included.
• 650 points: A suspension from the forum from two weeks to four weeks. Possible additional penalty of post supervision for at least five days and, at most, fourteen days may be included following reinstatement.
  • If the penalty occurred through status updates or private messages, restrictions from either or both may be included.
• 750 points: A suspension from the forum from three weeks to six weeks. Possible additional penalty of post supervision for at least seven days and, at most, fourteen days may be included following reinstatement.
  • If the penalty occurred through status updates or private messages, restrictions from either or both may be included.
• 1,000 points: An indefinite suspension from the forum for at least twelve weeks. Any user who crosses the 1,000-point plateau will have a “Banished” icon under their avatar. Suspensions may be permanent. If reinstated, guaranteed post supervision for at least fourteen days and at most twenty-eight days will be included.
  • Restrictions from status updates, private messages, or both may be included.

Every warning point increase, suspension, and/or privilege restriction is subject to appeal. If you decide to appeal your punishment, discipline does not take place until:

• You do not appeal or drop your appeal

• Unless indicated otherwise, not respond to mod disciplinary action exactly seventy-two hours after a higher-up mod makes his or her verdict on an appeal.

• The appeals by the administrator and/or site owner is rejected.

• All of your appeals are exhausted.

If you decide to appeal disciplinary action by a Global Moderator or Administrator, an independent Global Moderator will review your case. The Global Moderator or Administrator who decided the initial punishment is not allowed to re-sentence the offending user. The Global Moderator who is taking up the appeal must respond and make a verdict within seventy-two hours unless the mod specifically states that he or she needs more time to review and/or cannot review the case (and thereby passing it to another moderator). If he or she fails to respond within seventy-two hours, the user’s punishment will be automatically rescinded and the case closed. The Global Moderator, Administrator, or Webmaster who made the initial sentence is not allowed to appeal the verdict.

 

However, if a mod decides to review your case, he or she can:

• Dismiss the appeal from the offender

• Rule you guilty or not guilty of the violation.

• Dismiss the case against the moderator who made the initial sentence.

If the case is dismissed against the offending user, the mod is allowed to appeal to another mod from the same tier or to an administrator/site owner.

 

If found not guilty, the case is closed, and the offender’s punishment is automatically rescinded. The Global Moderator, Administrator, or Webmaster who made the initial punishment is not allowed to appeal the verdict.

 

If the offending user is found guilty of the violation, then the mod will decide how many points the user will be disciplined with and/or how long he or she will be suspended for (only if the offender was suspended to begin with). The offender is allowed to appeal the punishment to an Administrator followed by the Site Owner if he or she chooses to do so. The same appeal structure applies to here, as well.

 

If the Site Owner made the initial punishment, and you decide to appeal it, the process begins with a Section Moderator, followed by a Global Moderator and then an Administrator. The Site Owner is not allowed to re-sentence the user.

 

If the third-party moderator decides to sentence the offender to a warning point amount, he can only give either the amount the previous mod gave the user prior to the appeal or a lesser punishment. Increasing or adding onto the point limit, posting restrictions, and/or days of suspension following an appeal — regardless of position of power from a staff member — is strictly prohibited.

 

Lesser sentences are subject to appeal, and the same process applies. The original sentence (the first sentence prior to the appeal process) no longer applies unless a moderator retains it following appeal.

 

 

 

Edited August 10, 2012 by Dark Qiviut

[Crystal Sparkle 344]

Wow...that new points system is going to scare a LOT of people away!! But it should give the trouble-making users the slap on the wrist they need!

 

I know they did me...

[placeholdernamehere 14]

To be honest, I am slightly intimidated by this rule. I can pretty much just quote everyone else as to why I don't like this rule. While it can deter potential trolls from doing something, it can also cause new users, like me, to actually be scared of breaking one of the rules and then just not bother with posting at all, which would obviously be counterproductive for the forum. I mean, deciding whether or not a post is off-topic, while in some cases obvious, is in other cases a lot more subjective.

[Acoustic Cloud 2,202]

All i can say is that

the forum isn't that unstable at this moment.

but... "From order to chaos"

the more people to to enforce rules that don't exist... the forum will just get worse.

Just let the moderators punish people who don't follow the already existing rules as they always have.

Edited August 11, 2012 by Rainbow Dashey

[Lillia 69]

It sickens me to come back from an extended hiatus only to find that this was deemed necessary.

 

Having adminned a forum that went through similar straits, I understand the logic in this system, but I really hope it doesn't prove permanently necessary. Hopefully a day will come when this system is no longer needed. Hopefully. Let's all work for that, everpony.

[Zoop 8,384]

Just wanted to say that all of the feedback is being looked at - we appreciate all of it, and will be giving a great deal of consideration to what has been brought up here.

 

I don’t so much disagree with this warning system as I disagree with where it appears the forums are going.

 

No more short posts, all young members get the hell out of here, and everyone don’t make any mistakes under pain of being banned. Each of these changes were warranted, but how many more are we going to get?

 

While bad content should be removed from the forums, do we really need a sword held to the neck of every member while they post in order to prevent bad content?

 

I don’t know whether the mods intend to implement more restrictions or methods for cracking down on members, but if that is what is intended, I think everything needs to slow down a bit.

 

These numbers really need to be worked out a bit better. So posting one suggestive image puts you over a third of the way to being permanently banned? And it takes four months to fully recover from that one mistake?

 

Good luck perma-banning a bunch of members who posted in the shipping threads.

This isn’t so much a complaint about the current state of the forums as it is a warning (ironic, isn’t it).

 

Please don’t turn the forums into Nazi Germany in an effort to keep the forums clean.

 

I believe there are issues, but I believe supposed issues such as the mass exodus of utterly amazing members from the forums is being entirely overblown.

 

I don't consider this a 'sword' held to anyone's throat, so much as it is a path toward an enforcement routine that everyone is able to understand and approach accordingly.

 

I think we're working with two different definitions of 'suggestive', here. I'm looking at something that isn't quite pornographic, but is still something that might be considered NSFW. Extremely violent fanart and such would also classify for that particular warning level, I'd think. Cutesy shipping stuff? Different matter entirely.

 

Although I like the idea, I find the way the point system is proposed to be rather rough. The suspensions and point distributions feel really uneven in many places. Especially with the hard point reduction. Getting 750 points from one rule violation is all but a death sentence for a member's posting capabilities here, because 25 points reduced per week is basically nothing for them.

Seven day bans for the posting of pornographic material is actually our present policy. It isn't something that we have any tolerance for - if someone here does not know not to post porn, they're doing it wrong.

 

Sorry, but I've got no sympathy in this particular case.

With regards to your proposed point scale, one concern I would have with it would be the fact that the sliding scale for every warning type seems like a perfect way to get people to 'compare notes' with their warnings, and get bent out of shape when one of them realizes that they received a harsher punishment for a similar action as the other individual. Cue cries of staff bias, and an entirely new can of dramatic worms.

 

Additionally, I'm not a huge fan of having the moderation queue be a standard response to warnings; I'm more of the opinion that it is best kept for special circumstances. Again, I'm not sure I like the fact that the punishments you've proposed vary so much in terms of potential length... nor do I believe that someone that has to be suspended for a month after receiving numerous suspensions prior, and being on the mod queue at least twice before has any right to remain on the forum.

Honestly, we're not unreasonable to the point that we're going to go crazy on someone if a link has been hacked or changed unexpectedly. Even when someone is suspended they have an open line of communication to us via email - if they explain things, we're willing to listen and take appropriate action.

 

Is this behind the border of acceptable or not ?

That picture is adorable and nowhere even remotely near anything I would ever think to ever possibly consider punishable. 'Suggestive' may have been the wrong word - near pornographic would probably be a better one.

 

This kind of point system deciding disciplinary action magnifies problems born of inconsistent modding policies by staff.

 

I have to disagree on that. Compared to our current system - or lack thereof - this sort of system will hugely reduce staff inconsistency.

 

TL;DR. If you are to lazy to read my wall of text above, don't comment on this post. To feld0 and the other mods, if you are so insistent to change the rule enforcement policy on this site, consider instead a three strikes your out system. Regardless of the infraction, each rule break results in a strike. If a member gets 3 strikes s/he's perma-banned. However, every member can get a fresh set of three strikes through a successful ban appeal check. If one of the top admins decides if that member's reasons s/he got those strikes was minor and was honest, that member can return. It would be a case by case deal.

Tthank you for the wall of text. It was all a wonderful bit of food for thought, and has highlighted a few issues that we need to take into consideration no matter how we end up proceeding.

 

Basically, keeping the regular system and adding automatic bans to it instead of letting the mods decide whether or not someone gets banned and for how long.

Honestly, the main issue with the present system is that there isn't one. x_x

 

Looks a bit intimidating to me. I think the backseating shouldn't be pusished so hard and neither should be off topic. NSFW borderline is also subjective. Since the age limit, I don't see why. (Not saying this should turn into r34 parade, but come on, 500 points?) Also, I love these forums. Hopefully I won't get banned for backseat modding, off topic and casual posting of sexy looking Twi in bed.

Once again, I should've used a better term than 'suggestive' to describe that particular portion.

 

This is really only meant as feedback since the points and rules are still not set in stone yet.

And good feedback it is. More food for thought.

 

I don't really like the point system to be honest and I think we should toss the whole idea and keep the banning methods as it is.

Our present banning system allows blatant trolls like Shadrahk to run amok for months on end before we drop the hammer. We need to change how we do things, regardless if we go with a point system or not.

 

Now on the other side of the spectrum, I do also agree with Lady Rarity Pony. I have seen a massive spike (in the month and a half since I have joined) of rules and restrictions being implemented by mods and the modforce.

Aye... we've definitely dumped a fair bit on people recently, which I am sorry for. We hope to have some... happier stuff on the horizon before too long, though.

 

Alright, let's say you guys go ahead with the point system. You need to find the sweet spot for the enforcement of rules, see below.

All good ideas, I'd say. Exponential point decay isn't something that we had considered, but it's worth thinking about.

 

Can I get a rationale behind why character min violations are so high up there? I know third lowest isn't exactly that high, but in my opinion, it doesn't deserve the spot above backseat modding. Could I get a reason for all the placements here, and perhaps the numbers too (though they'll probably change)? They can't be completely arbitrary.

Character minimum violations are so high because you have to blatantly and knowingly disregard our rules in order to get a warning for it.

 

"I see an automated system in place to prevent the behavior that I am presently engaging in - I shall attempt to route around it with random character spam"

 

Abusive behavior is, to be completely blunt, being a prick. You can be a prick in a blunt manner, or by trying to be a subtle troll. There are an infinite number of ways to be a disruptive prick, and it's impossible to list them all out, to be honest.

 

To quote our existing rules regarding advertisements,

 

Advertising your own site is not permitted outside of your signature and the website field in your profile. Trying to make money off of our members in any way isn't cool, either, whether it involves trying to sell anything on MLP Forums, soliciting donations for any reason, or referring people to some shady rewards program. If you want to advertise or collect money here, please get in touch with Feld0 to seek permission.

 

Further, moderators are expected to read enough of a thread - if not the whole thread - to gain proper context when issuing warnings and such.

 

When somebody is suspended they are shown a page that includes a message welcoming people to contact the community administrator - Feld0, in this case - for assistance if necessary. If they feel that they were suspended without cause, it can be overturned.

 

Also, it's slightly off-topic, but let me say that we really shouldn't need to be punishing people for a lot of this stuff, because it shouldn't be happening in the first place.

Agreed ;_;

 

However, like many people before have stated, the rules and the examples of violation of those rules have to be clear-cut, have zero grey area, and have little room for interpretation.

That is a complete and utter impossibility unless we have people sign a fifty page legal document before joining the forum. No matter how much we might try to cover every possible circumstance, there will be an infinite number that we are unable to do so.

People have a hard enough time reading rules when they're short and concise.

 

I'm sorry, but I don't understand why should OT be punished like that according to new rules, since they are brought up to prevent people from being mean?

 

(...)

 

Or better: Keep it how it is, just ban meanies earlier. This way regular users won't feel intimidated and offensive people can go f... away.

Blatantly off-topic and/or pointless posts have been against the rules since day one - if there's going to be absolutely no punishment for breaking a rule, why have a rule against it?

As stated, the issue with the present system is that it... just doesn't really work at all.

 

the more people to to enforce rules that don't exist... the forum will just get worse.

Enforcing rules that don't exist? x_x

 

I don't get it.

 

After about twenty hours, I've come up with a partial first draft of my proposal. Using inspiration from the Opening Post, Strife's proposal, and My Little Pwny's criticism of Zoop's proposal, I've decided to come up with one of my own. Taking it from my post in the second page, I've written one that is more extensive and thorough. It retains the 1,000-point policy that Zoop proposed in his opening post, yet breaks it down even further and more elaborately.

Okay, I'm going to be completely honest - I got tired of reading your proposal before I hit the 25% mark. x_x

 

While 'extensive', 'thorough', and 'elaborate' may sound like great things, the fact is that if the rules page is going to be a massive block of TL;DR, nobody is going to read them at all in the first place.

While I agree that we should have some explanation to go with the warning types (the present lack is due to the fact that this is just a barebones WIP), if someone checks the forum rules and sees something that large they're going to be more intimidated than they would be upon seeing my original vague post.

 

Hell, I'd be intimidated if I saw that.

 

As a side note, if I didn't respond to your post specifically, please do not take it as an indication that I ignored it - far from it, actually. I really liked some of the proposals that I saw, but wanted to respond primarily to people's concerns.