United punishment system

[Zombie]

I don't know if this is still a problem, or if it has been discussed already, so I'd like to apologize in advance if this subject is not an issue anymore.

Lately, people have been complaining because some members of the moderation are treating certain people too strictly. Therefore, I'd recommend you to dewise a united punishment system, that everyone follows.

Here's an example: Currently, when randommember1 breaks a certain rule, let's say he flames someone on a forum, and a moderator notices his misbehaviour, moderator1 and moderator2 will give him different amounts of negative reputation. Let's say mod1 removes 5 reputation points from him, while mod2 would only remove 3.

Therefore, I'd recommend the administration to come up with a rule chart, displaying each aspects of rule breaking and the punishment a moderator has to deal out to a user, so moderator1 and 2 would give the member the same amount of negative reputation, let's say 5 points.

Of course, if a certain user breaks the laws more than one time, the punishments will become stricter and stricter, he'd get infractions and would be banned.

I wouldn't like to recommend you how this chart should be set up or what punishment a crime has to be dealt with, but setting up and following this chart would put an end to unnecessary drama about strict mods and would also help cutting down moderation abuse.

Please express your opinion on this topic and let me know if you don't understand what I'm trying to say.

 

[~Void~]

Sure, and only one person can neg per post.

 

[raid1000]

there should be a clasament of negative rep like
-1 for trolling
-2 for spamming
-3 for flaming imo
and all the mods should respect that xD

 

[Naze]

Well, I agree. 3 different guys giving neg rep for the same post will surely start a drama, or a real problem.

 

[Hakeem]

This traces back quite nicely to the source of the problems.

 

[Zombie]

Yes, and employing this wouldn't take any VB hacking or forum rewriting, since all you have to do is to create a chart. I'd offer you to do it, but I don't think I have enough experience to be entrusted with a task as important as that.

 

[Pyritie]

This might work in theory, but if put into practice I'd think the chart would just be ignored.

 

[Naze]

We point the mod/admin who ignored and shout "HEY, HE IS IGNORING THE CHART".

And if that doesn't helps... Well, we need a solution. =/

 

[Zombie]

The admins could oversee if the moderators ignore it or not.

 

[Hakeem]

They can oversee things now can't they?

 

[Naze]

They oversee things now... It's up to their good will, and since we users tend to bitch a lot on them, we can't expect much from their good will.

 

[Elenai]

This is a perfect example of communication failure amongst the staff.

"multiple punishments"

If we can solve the communication problem we can make a step towards this, but we must make a step towards solving communication problems first.

 

[Zombie]

This idea might also help restore the communication between certain mods, since they won't be arguing about punishments all the time, and the administration would be the one defining the punishment ratio.

 

[Rising_Dusk]

Hakeem asked me to do this at one point. It's not like it's hard, but it would be naive to assume that one person could think of every possible way for the users to break rules.

It also sickens me; this sort of list should not be necessary. Mods and admins should know on the average what 'range' of negrep something should be worth, and they should damned well know to check the person's profile before issuing their own negrep. If they've already been punished, that's it! It's dealt with! It's just that no one thinks when doing that stuff, they act on emotion and it compiles into a big mess of negrep with comments like "Yeah, fuck you."

 

[LiOneSS]

Yeah, when I was mod I posted it as a suggestion up there, but I got ignored. This would be nice for the chat too. Making it can't be hard!

 

[busterkomo]

Hakeem asked me to do this at one point. It's not like it's hard, but it would be naive to assume that one person could think of every possible way for the users to break rules.

It also sickens me; this sort of list should not be necessary. Mods and admins should know on the average what 'range' of negrep something should be worth, and they should damned well know to check the person's profile before issuing their own negrep. If they've already been punished, that's it! It's dealt with! It's just that no one thinks when doing that stuff, they act on emotion and it compiles into a big mess of negrep with comments like "Yeah, fuck you."

The thing is, mods are human. They will be angered enough by someone that they will neg rep them more than what they should receive. And more than often, moderators are too lenient on when the rules should be enforced. Someone like Brad, who's posts are borderline flaming, will probably never have action taken against him.

 

[Rising_Dusk]

These are the real basic ones, ones that everyone can agree upon. There is a part of the list that I've segregated below because it is really subjective and depends upon the intensity of the site rules breach. For more information on what each site rule breach is, please view the Site FAQ. These rules apply to all users and staff members.

Action	Punishment
Thread Necromancy	-1
Fast Bumping (48 hour intervals to avoid punishment)	-1
Spamming	-1
Double Posting	-1
Triple Posting	-2
'X' Multi-Posting	-X
Non-English	-2
Going Blatantly Off Topic	-2
Private Messages in Topic Form	-2
Posting the Wrong Type of Threads in Admin Contact	-2
Linking to websites that have the capacity to break rules (4chan, xgm, etc.)	(Same as the Offense)
Advertising (Not in Roundtable)	-3
Offering or Soliciting Items for Sale	-4
Posting of/Linking to Pirated Content	-6
Posting of/Linking to Game Exports	-6
Posting of/Linking to Offensive Content	-10 & 1 expiring infraction
Posting of/Linking to Pornography	-12 & 1 permanent infraction
Multiaccounting (First Offense)	-12 & 1 expiring infraction
Multiaccounting (Second Offense)	1 permanent infraction
Multiaccounting (Third Offense)	Ban
Multiaccounting (In General)	Banning of Multiaccount
Copying and Pasting in Resources and lying about it	-12
Stealing Private Resources and using in your own work without permission	Ban
Advertising the gaining of Rep in anything on your account	-2 to -6
Asking for Rep	-4 to -8
Giving Rep with a poor comment	-2 to -8 & Removal of Given Rep
Giving Rep as Bribery	-6 to -12 & Removal of Given Rep
Flaming User(s) Anywhere	-2 to -12
Trolling User(s) Anywhere	-4 to -12
Submitting Resources that blatantly disregard submission criteria	-6 to -12
Combined Offenses (Using above Magnitudes)	-2 up to Ban
Repeated (Any) Offenses	Double the Punishment
Expiring Infraction Duration is Based on Severity of transgression	1mo - 6mo

If I missed anything, please feel free to respond and comment. If you have concerns with the magnitude of the punishment involved, feel free to post your thoughts, but I reserve the right to not implement them.

 

[Pyritie]

What about the lengths of bans?

Also, great guide. Make a copy of the post and sticky it in the mod lobby please

 

[Rising_Dusk]

Things listed as bans are permanent. If you receive sufficient expiring infractions leading up to a ban, then your ban can expire. The lengths of expiring infractions are subjective as well.

 

[LiOneSS]

Love it.
Now make one with chat stuff please

 

[Rising_Dusk]

Wouldn't the same exact things apply to chat, though?

 

[busterkomo]

Kinda. But something like posting offensive content should be elaborated on. Someone might link to a video on Youtube which others find offensive.

 

[Rising_Dusk]

The Hive Workshop - A Warcraft III Modding Site - FAQ: Overall Site Rules

 

[Zombie]

Nice work, Dusk. I hope this will help straighten out the conflicts between the moderators. By the way, you should give exact guidelines on the second part, since the amounts dealt out for flaming/trolling and rep abuse vary a lot.

EDIT: You might aswell post this chart in the rules section, so troublemakers will know what to expect.

 

[bounty hunter2]

Nice job Rising Dusk. I think only one neg rep with a warning would do for everything. The neg rep isn't as important as the actual warning and the comment next to it. The comment itself is the most important thing. Ofcourse afterwards if the spam or whatever continues a ban.

 

[busterkomo]

The Hive Workshop - A Warcraft III Modding Site - FAQ: Overall Site Rules

Dusk, I've read the site rules. What I'm getting at is a lot of people share videos from YouTube which can be considered in violation of that rule (or damn close). When a link is posted, another user is making the choice of looking at the link. If people choose to watch offensive material than they should not be able to punish whoever shared it.

 

[TheDivineBoss]

According to those lists, I am unbanned from Chat? Huza?

Even though I am one of the main targets here, I still think this list will quite work.

Here, I'll give you a sander to straighten out the list.

 

[Rising_Dusk]

According to those lists, I am unbanned from Chat? Huza?

Who said they were retroactive? Maybe I should have a separate thing for chat, since a chat ban can be merited there.

By the way, you should give exact guidelines on the second part, since the amounts dealt out for flaming/trolling and rep abuse vary a lot.

Well, the problem is that it really, really depends too heavily on the transgression to say for certain what the punishment should be. A flame that is really not that bad could be a -2, but some people really push it and deserve the -12. The room for variance isn't that bad, since the difference between a -7 and a -9 really isn't significant, for example.

Dusk, I've read the site rules. What I'm getting at is a lot of people share videos from YouTube which can be considered in violation of that rule (or damn close). When a link is posted, another user is making the choice of looking at the link. If people choose to watch offensive material than they should not be able to punish whoever shared it.

Nice, so I could post porn and so long as I WARN the userbase that it's porn before they view it, I am not at fault! No, it doesn't work that way, not at all. Offensive content is a subjective thing, but on the forums it is very direct and objective. Posting torture videos, for example, would constitute offensive material because someone can be offended by it. The chat is different in this regard, since if no one presently in the chat when it is presented is offended by it, no one will report it and no action can be taken. However, at the forums, everyone can view a post, so it is much stricter and more direct.

 

[busterkomo]

Nice, so I could post porn and so long as I WARN the userbase that it's porn before they view it, I am not at fault! No, it doesn't work that way, not at all. Offensive content is a subjective thing, but on the forums it is very direct and objective. Posting torture videos, for example, would constitute offensive material because someone can be offended by it. The chat is different in this regard, since if no one presently in the chat when it is presented is offended by it, no one will report it and no action can be taken. However, at the forums, everyone can view a post, so it is much stricter and more direct.

I mean, If I'm in the chat room, and I want to post a video that happens to freak me out (to see other's reactions). I would probably say something like "this video might be too horrific for some of you guys, view at your own risk". If moderator X finds the video offensive, I can't see how I can be punished for it.

 

[Rising_Dusk]

A scary movie is quite obviously not offensive such that you would be punished. If you posted a video of a man being burned to death, though, regardless if you warned everyone or not with the preface "view at your own risk", you would be punished.

 

[TheBlooddancer]

And just to add on, multiple neg reps for one post, is possible, right?

I've seen it a couple of times.

 

[Rising_Dusk]

And just to add on, multiple neg reps for one post, is possible, right?

Part of the point of the whole "united punishment system" is to avoid that sort of overlap.

 

[TheBlooddancer]

Ohh, i thought this was about not varying the ammount.

My mistake, sorry.

 

[busterkomo]

That's the thing. There still are people who will find it offensive. People have different perceptions. People find certain types of humour offensive, too.

 

[Rising_Dusk]

I could be offended by you posting a bunny rabbit picture, sure, but the staff has to be able to distinguish what is 'too far' and what is someone just being ridiculous.

 

[Zombie]

Well, the problem is that it really, really depends too heavily on the transgression to say for certain what the punishment should be. A flame that is really not that bad could be a -2, but some people really push it and deserve the -12. The room for variance isn't that bad, since the difference between a -7 and a -9 really isn't significant, for example.

Which is again, a matter of perspective. There should be let's say -3 for trolling and -5 for all out flaming. Of course, if a certain user gets into a flame war, he'd get the negrep for every post he makes, as it is a repeated offence.

If he carries on with the flaming in another thread or continues after he's been punished, he gets double the punishment next time.

 

[bounty hunter2]

I think that the first neg rep for spaming and other rules violation should be just -1. Because if a user violates a rule and he does it without intention and he gets -5 rep he will most probably get demotivated and won't visit the Hive anymore. If he gets -1 with a comment from the moderator to stop or he will get more neg rep that isn't so discuoraging at all. However if someone is a deliberate flamer/spammer whatever he will continue the spam no matter he gets -1 or -10. So you should go on hand for the newbs who come to the site and break a rule and then -mega rep and never return.

 

[Zombie]

Bounty, according to Rising's chart, the most common offenses committed by new users are punished with only one reputation point removal. These are multi-posting, thread revival and bumping offences.

If a new user flames somebody, he damn right deserves the -5 he gets. It's common sense not to flame people on an internet forum.

 

[TheBlooddancer]

True.

Multipost, necro, and bump is just a matter of reading the rules, but trolling/flaming just proves you have no right to stay here.

 

[Ghan_04]

Certainly the problem, as noted, is subjectivity.
It's all well and dandy for things that are black and white - either you double-posted or you did not.... Other things are less certain.

However, the chart is not so restrictive that it does not allow for someone to actually apply some analysis to the problem.
Let's see how it works.

 

[Zombie]

Is the chart set up yet? Because another drama thread has been started related to "over-reaction" issues.

 

[TheBlooddancer]

One?

 

[Zombie]

I was referring to the one that started only a few hours ago.

 

[Gilles]

I think the main issue is multiple staff members giving -rep to a single post.

 

[TheDivineBoss]

Negrepping for Dummies:

Step 1: Check if the target already has negative reputation points.
Step 2: Check if the target already has negative reputation points for the targeted post.

(!) Step 3A: If the targeted post of the target already has negrep points, you may not continue with step 4.
(!) Step 3B: If the targeted post of the target has not yet received negrep points, you may continue with step 4.

Step 4: You may now negrep the target.

 

[Zombie]

I don't think that's the main issue, but that should be given more attention aswell.

 

[TheBlooddancer]

• Neg Repping
  • Events
    • Unit - A Moderator (Mod) Spots a post
  • Conditions
    • ((Post being spotted) is against the rules) Equal to True
  • Actions
    • If (All Conditions are True) then do (Then Actions) else do (Else Actions)
      • If - Conditions
        • ((Post being spotted) has been given negative reputation) Equal to False
      • Then - Actions
        • Unit - Cause (Spotting Moderator) to neg-rep (Owner of (Post being spotted)), dealing 3.00 neg-rep of attack type Moderator and damage type Divine
      • Else - Actions

 

[Hakeem]

Is the chart set up yet?

Let's see how it works.

Let's.

 

[Devine]

Lets promote someone to be the judge
and BloodDancer, you failed at being funny.
In fact...

action	punishment
spamming	-1