Zandronum

I'll kick start it.

I request a table/chart of maximum time you can get a warning point for. For example, in something rather undeserving of such length, some certain staff member issued warning points on me, +2 for 4 months duration... What is this? This is way too extreme for anything. Obviously the said staff member was not being objective about his duty and decided to punish by his feelings toward me rather than punishing objectively. I think this shouldn't be the case and posts of offenders should be categorized and have set punishment values for them to avoid "but you punish everyone more wtf" kind of situations.

+2 for 4 months is completely reasonable. In fact it shouldn't even be an issue as you will have a clean slate when it expires, provided you don't break any more rules.

Zap610 wrote: +2 for 4 months is completely reasonable. In fact it shouldn't even be an issue as you will have a clean slate when it expires, provided you don't break any more rules.

His point was that there should be set standards for dealing with each specific rule infraction so that when the moderator gives out the punishment, they will be fair and unbiased and moderate the situation objectively and not let their personal feelings get in the way like Ivan said.

Then again, when someone around here does something stupid enough to warrant receiving a warning, they really do deserve to be punished severely because chances are that person isn't going to learn from their mistakes anyway.

*shrugs*

Ah I see. Well the problem with that is there are so many ways to cause issues that not everything can simply be applied to one rule. The way it works now is discretion, and it prevents people from being able to slip by while having our hands tied. It might be annoying to some, but at the same time there are benefits. If we stick to set standards and lack discretion, and somebody comes to us with a complaint about how a user is acting up, there might not be anything that can be done and that's wrong. Of course, it doesn't mean we can't use both, and we do try to use both. The standards are pretty much that low offenses get +1 or +2, and I don't see how that is unfair.

4 months is unfair. You could just as well give it for half a year. The punishment duration should at least be set to something set.

Should be 2.5 years

Watermelon wrote: Should be 2.5 years

See, this is the reason why aspiring trolls can't succeed in the real world. People like you make it too obvious.



I'd say 2 months just to stay in the middle.

It's 4 months so warning levels don't simply reset after suspensions. What would be the point of warnings if they keep repeating without the user learning?

I'd like to point out some things that I found interesting as far as reading these few new posts goes.

Spoiler: Ivan's Post (Open)

Ivan wrote: I request a table/chart of maximum time you can get a warning point for. For example, in something rather undeserving of such length, some certain staff member issued warning points on me, +2 for 4 months duration... What is this? This is way too extreme for anything. Obviously the said staff member was not being objective about his duty and decided to punish by his feelings toward me rather than punishing objectively. I think this shouldn't be the case and posts of offenders should be categorized and have set punishment values for them to avoid "but you punish everyone more wtf" kind of situations.

I really, really do not see that happening. To an extent, I suppose I can agree with you there. I guess some moderators tend to put their feelings towards another person into account when issuing a warning, because they just don't like them, they have issues with them, they're annoying, etc. Whatever reason they can come up with, I don't really know. The point of a moderator is to use objective reasoning rather than subjective reason, but it's bound to happen, because not everyone is really perfect. Now, this is as far as I can go on agreeing with you. Why? Because a chart or table of warnings and warning duration is completely ridiculous. For starters, people will abuse the living snot out of it, because some people will literally sit down and go "Ok, so if I do this and this, and wait it out a few months, etc. I can do it again with no fear of them stacking the punishment up, etc." or "I can get away with this once and then wait it out and do something else I can get away with." I'm not saying you are one of them, nor am I pointing fingers to anyone really. It's just the fact that this chart/table system could very much be abused, and even if they do it, they're still going to come to the same conclusion if people make it a habit to abuse the system. I'm not going to say "they're not going to waste their time" or something like that, but personally I don't think it would be worth the time making such a system.

Spoiler: Zap's Post (Open)

Zap610 wrote: +2 for 4 months is completely reasonable. In fact it shouldn't even be an issue as you will have a clean slate when it expires, provided you don't break any more rules.

I tend to agree, the fact that it's going to expire really shouldn't be such a big deal. It's not like back in the SkullTag era where your warnings lasted for like, a good year and it would be cleared whenever the mod in question, or even the mods in general, would feel it needed to be cleared. At least there's actually a set time with your warning and you'll have it cleared. I could be wrong though, it all really comes down to discretion.

Spoiler: Ten's Post (Open)

Ten wrote: His point was that there should be set standards for dealing with each specific rule infraction so that when the moderator gives out the punishment, they will be fair and unbiased and moderate the situation objectively and not let their personal feelings get in the way like Ivan said.

Then again, when someone around here does something stupid enough to warrant receiving a warning, they really do deserve to be punished severely because chances are that person isn't going to learn from their mistakes anyway.

The first paragraph all comes down to discretion. I suppose a good comparison would be like when a police officer needs to do something right there and now and have no real set limit on what he/she can do. Just as to how an officer can easily use discretion to create a positive outcome or a negative outcome, a mod also has to do as such.

I'll get back to the second paragraph.

Spoiler: Zap's Post (Open)

Zap610 wrote: Ah I see. Well the problem with that is there are so many ways to cause issues that not everything can simply be applied to one rule. The way it works now is discretion, and it prevents people from being able to slip by while having our hands tied. It might be annoying to some, but at the same time there are benefits. If we stick to set standards and lack discretion, and somebody comes to us with a complaint about how a user is acting up, there might not be anything that can be done and that's wrong. Of course, it doesn't mean we can't use both, and we do try to use both. The standards are pretty much that low offenses get +1 or +2, and I don't see how that is unfair.

As long as both discretion and set standard(s)/expectation(s) are being used, I think people can appreciate that, and I can agree with Zap on this. No one wants anything set in stone, or else there wouldn't really be any fair treatment. You'd be getting the same outcome if something set in stone really doesn't help your case, just as much as if the set outcome doesn't really punish or give the person a hint to not do something again.

To go back, I dunno, shouldn't the fact that there are rules to follow and that you honestly are expected to follow good enough to know what and what not to do? And even then, warnings you get don't last forever anyways.

Hammerfest- wrote:

Spoiler: Ten's Post (Open)

Ten wrote: His point was that there should be set standards for dealing with each specific rule infraction so that when the moderator gives out the punishment, they will be fair and unbiased and moderate the situation objectively and not let their personal feelings get in the way like Ivan said.

Then again, when someone around here does something stupid enough to warrant receiving a warning, they really do deserve to be punished severely because chances are that person isn't going to learn from their mistakes anyway.

The first paragraph all comes down to discretion. I suppose a good comparison would be like when a police officer needs to do something right there and now and have no real set limit on what he/she can do. Just as to how an officer can easily use discretion to create a positive outcome or a negative outcome, a mod also has to do as such.

A better comparison would be a judge. A police officer does not hand out punishments, they simply arrest people, take them to jail and let the courts handle the punishments. Secondly it's somewhat difficult to apply the same standards the justice system uses to these forums because in the real world there are many, many different forms of crimes all with a greatly varying level of degree. For example, a civil infraction, traffic ticket or misdemeanor all will have a preset punishment for each crime in the form of fines, possible jail time, etc. The only real case where true discretion is used is for serious felonies when the judge needs to determine a proper amount of prison time for the convicted felon. Which is a bit extreme to apply here unless they're dealing with someone getting straight up masterbanned.

While I don't think it's a particularly bad idea, personally I don't think having preset punishments for moderators to follow when dealing with rule infractions is necessarily needed. These forums are small enough for it to not *really* matter, and as I said before anyone who does something stupid enough to actually get moderated deserves a harsh punishment.

Er.............well I guess I've got to.

Police officers do use discretion to determine WHEN a law should be imposed. Police can actively choose not to pursue charges by themselves. But if the prosecutor chooses press charges (or chooses not to) the officer is shit out of luck. As to what a police officer can do, there are guidelines, department policy, and laws that dictate the number of options the officer can use. There are also strict constitutional requirements (in the US anyway) that limit the officers power to act in all of those options. There is also a very strong moral component to these choices and they are generally not made lightly by veteran officers. (Also, Ten, a traffic ticket is a criminal violation in the US.)
Judges, on the other hand, can only use discretion when a particular procedural rule or statute allows them to. (Some states do not allow the judge any latitude.) Felonies, for example, are literally defined as crimes that are generally punishable by a prison sentence of longer than 1 year. In the US, there are usually 5 varieties (classes A- E usually) of felonies. The levels are determined by the state's laws usually. And hence, manslaughter in one state can carry a lighter or heavier sentence than another state. Federal law is a whole different ballpark.

Point being, you really need to talk of specific guidelines and written punishments before you even start to say how they should be carried out. So moderate the moderators and then you have a better starting point.