More infractions, less bannings.

AckwelFoley

Recently, i received a ban in a nameless forum by a moderator that shall remain nameless.

Now, on receiving the ban i was a little perplexed as to the reason for the ban, but didnt bother challenging it because i generally give the boards moderators the benefit of the doubt. As it turns out the ban was reversed after an hour or so because my post was mis read to mean something else, no big deal

However, my question is, are temp bans more common than infractions? Personally an infraction to me would hold as much weight as a ban, and as someone who doesnt troll threads (well i hope not) a ban is well perhaps unnecessary or maybe a little harsh.

Is it something that cant be answered generally as it differs from forum to forum?

Beruthiel

snyper wrote: »

However, my question is, are temp bans more common than infractions?

When you say temp bans, do you mean an accidental hour like in your case, or normal run of the mill bans?

Personally an infraction to me would hold as much weight as a ban, and as someone who doesnt troll threads (well i hope not) a ban is well perhaps unnecessary or maybe a little harsh.

I remember hearing that the ban stats on Boards are actually very low compared to in the past and considering the amount of people now posting on the site.

I'd actually be interested in seeing those stats if they are easily available.

dr.bollocko

League of little bastards time.
/fingers crossed.

AckwelFoley

Beruthiel wrote: »

When you say temp bans, do you mean an accidental hour like in your case, or normal run of the mill bans?
.

No run of the mill bans. Im pretty much talking about the ratio

Normally one would expect to receive a set number of infractions or warnings before a ban, and in some cases ive notices a moderator would delete a post i made and no mention be made of it to me - that alone tbh serves the same purpose to me, granted not everyone would be the same.

Beruthiel

snyper wrote: »

Normally one would expect to receive a set number of infractions or warnings before a ban.

Not necessarily.

AckwelFoley

Beruthiel wrote: »

Not necessarily.

Of course depending on the offence, ie serious trolling or serious breach of the rules.. but for more, less serious offences....

KevIRL

Less infractions, more common sense from all concerned imo. There's no need to be givng people raps on the knuckles for 'being naughty'.

All imo of course.

AlmightyCushion

snyper wrote: »

Personally an infraction to me would hold as much weight as a ban, and as someone who doesnt troll threads (well i hope not) a ban is well perhaps unnecessary or maybe a little harsh.

This (the bolded part) is the problem with infractions. They're meant to be a warning but people take them to heart and act as if they were banned or worse than they would if I banned them. This is why I am wary about using them rather than bans. A lot of people put their hands up when banned, some even apologise. With infractions though the majority seem to freak out like I've just raped their kitten. I would gladly use infractions more. It means less troublesome users get banned less but it will more than likely lead to much longer, more drawn out appeals.

AckwelFoley

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

This (the bolded part) is the problem with infractions. They're meant to be a warning but people take them to heart and act as if they were banned or worse than they would if I banned them. This is why I am wary about using them rather than bans. A lot of people put their hands up when banned, some even apologise. With infractions though the majority seem to freak out like I've just raped their kitten. I would gladly use infractions more. It means less troublesome users get banned less but it will more than likely lead to much longer, more drawn out appeals.

but why do they not appeal a ban as quick as they would an infraction?

AlmightyCushion

snyper wrote: »

but why do they not appeal a ban as quick as they would an infraction?

Maybe it depends on the user, the thing they were infracted/banned for, the day of day, their mood. The short answer is I don't actually know. All I do know is that between on-thread warnings, infractions and bans, infractions have caused me a lot more headaches per infraction issued (i'm excluding spammers and re-regs I've banned/infracted as they don't count).

Nevyn

snyper wrote: »

but why do they not appeal a ban as quick as they would an infraction?

I wish I knew.
For some reason they seem to think an infraction is more official
something to do with them having infraction points and there being a record of them, but sure there is a record of all the bans a poster has had are in their ban history.

When the minimum mod action was a 1 week ban from pi instead of an infraction we had less people
complaining for some reason.

Zaph

snyper wrote: »

but why do they not appeal a ban as quick as they would an infraction?

Generally if I've banned someone it's because they've really stepped over the line, and they know it themselves so are less likely to appeal. Infractions, on the other hand, are for offences that only just cross the line, and because of this they often go to those who think they're in the right, but in fact aren't. This belief that they're right is what creates the sense of injustice and gives rise to a "fight da powah" episode. I often find too that usually well-behaved posters will once in a blue moon lose the head and say something that's way out of character for them. It's generally not enough to earn a ban, but it is for an infraction. Because they've been otherwise law-abiding citizens, the shock of being publicly censured spurs them into launching an appeal.

Dyr

I wouldn't usually bother arguing over a ban, however the one time i was infracted I kicked up over it with the mod. Mainly as I felt they only issued the infraction because they wanted to stick the boot in but knew they could never justify a ban.

Orion

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

This (the bolded part) is the problem with infractions. They're meant to be a warning but people take them to heart and act as if they were banned or worse than they would if I banned them.

I agree. Infractions should be taken in the spirit they're intended - as a warning. I have received 1 infraction - well deserved (and expected even before I hit submit tbh) - and I accepted it and pm-ed oscarbravo to apologise for attacking the poster not the post. Some people need to realise that an infraction is not the end of the world. If a post was infracted and there was a reasonable objection to it a reasonable mod would even remove it.

AlmightyCushion

Bambi wrote: »

I wouldn't usually bother arguing over a ban, however the one time i was infracted I kicked up over it with the mod. Mainly as I felt they only issued the infraction because they wanted to stick the boot in but knew they could never justify a ban.

That's the thing. They couldn't justify a ban because what you did didn't deserve a ban that's probably why they didn't give you a ban. An infraction is meant for situations where a user has crossed the line but not enough to deserve a ban. If what you did deserve to be pulled on what you said then why kick up over the infraction?

Dyr

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

That's the thing. They couldn't justify a ban because what you did didn't deserve a ban that's probably why they didn't give you a ban. An infraction is meant for situations where a user has crossed the line but not enough to deserve a ban. If what you did deserve to be pulled on what you said then why kick up over the infraction?

Like I said, I thought that they were just sticking the boot in, mainly because i was on the other side of an argument. It was only an infraction but I thought it was a cheap shot.

AckwelFoley

Zaph wrote: »

Generally if I've banned someone it's because they've really stepped over the line, and they know it themselves so are less likely to appeal. Infractions, on the other hand, are for offences that only just cross the line, and because of this they often go to those who think they're in the right, but in fact aren't. .

That seems the best answer to it.

You win prize.

AlmightyCushion

Bambi wrote: »

Like I said, I thought that they were just sticking the boot in, mainly because i was on the other side of an argument. It was only an infraction but I thought it was a cheap shot.

A wrongly given infraction is still a wrongly given infraction, people should complain about those. What I've seen though is when people get an infraction when they are clearly bang out of order and they still freak out. I honestly don't understand it.

Zaph

snyper wrote: »

That seems the best answer to it.

You win prize.

Cash is acceptable.

copacetic

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

A wrongly given infraction is still a wrongly given infraction, people should complain about those. What I've seen though is when people get an infraction when they are clearly bang out of order and they still freak out. I honestly don't understand it.

Personally I think infractions stand out more because they are often very inconsistent. Some minor judgement call means the mod gives one person an infraction and loads of others do similar things with absolutely no consequences. Then when the user appeals in the helpdesk they can never win as they are just told it's only a warning/minor thing so it doesn't matter. i.e it's not looked into.

As noted I've had people really go nuts over infractions rather than bans and I've also been on the receiving end of 2 that I felt were absoutely crazy, but knew there was nothing that could be done about them even though I felt they were wrongly given. The clincher for me was that the posts I got the infractions for were also deleted by the mods who gave the infraction, hiding the 'offence'. The point of them was to be a warning to the user and evidence to the community, I'd certainly never infract someone and delete the post, it's one or the other imo.

As you can see I'm still pretty bitter about them! I've had bans that I had no quibbles or complaints about, but there is something about the pettiness and arbitrary nature of infractions of it that really riles you inside.

I don't personally feel infractions work at all, except for tracking bans and now generally go for pm/on thread warnings followed by bans. It seems to work much better.

dr.bollocko

Thank you.
Infractions absolutely suck. Complete balls. Can't we just have an option to warn somebody. Its stored somewhere we can look up but it's not a stupid card on a post and it doesn't stain a poster's profille. So we can keep the ledger going but it's just a way of keeping a note of something that might be close to crossing the line in case you have to act in the future.

mike65

copacetic has it in a nutshell I think. Never been a fan of them and if I ever slipped my Mod hat back on would not use them. A quiet word in someones shell-like used to be good enough.

copacetic

I should note that the first one I gave led to a user in good standing going a bit crazy over it, hitting the helpdesk and refusing ever to come back to the forum again as long as I was mod. The user then appeared to gradually go off the rails and I always wondered did I give them the push. I've been wary of them ever since.

It was for something silly like going off topic straight after a mod warning not to, if I could go back I'd have deleted the post instead and given them a pm warning which 9/10 would have led to an apology from the user.

kumate_champ07

Id love to know how mods decide the length of bans, my current AH ban is 2 weeks because I replied to a poster in a thread saying 'I agree and will leave it at that'. got banned because just before I posted I was given a warning not to post in that thread. I could have seen it or I could have missed it, either way why a 2 week ban?
I have little faith in protesting against bans anymore as certain mods tend to dislike certain users and become heavyhanded towards them, I dont think that will change, but if there was a clear statement on how many days,weeks a ban should be for each type of offence it might be good
questioning a mod= 2days
personal abuse=7 days
racism=14-28days

ignoring thread warning but not breaking any standard rules, simply a technicality eg
mod a "no nice treaty discussion"
user 123 "Nice treaty is sh1te"
mod a "banned! (for 2 weeks)

that should be a couple of days
are bannings to piss users off or make it a better place for you and for me and the entire universe?shamon!(come on!)

brianthebard

Thaedydal wrote: »

I wish I knew.
For some reason they seem to think an infraction is more official
something to do with them having infraction points and there being a record of them, but sure there is a record of all the bans a poster has had are in their ban history.

When the minimum mod action was a 1 week ban from pi instead of an infraction we had less people
complaining for some reason.

The infraction tab is right beside the stats one, the ban record is a little harder to find I think. Infractions are just more visible. As to why people complain about them more, I think it might be because bans make it seem like you mean business, whereas infractions seem like something you can appeal or that don't mean as much. That's just my opinion, but I'd say it differs for everyone.

AlmightyCushion

copacetic wrote: »

Personally I think infractions stand out more because they are often very inconsistent. Some minor judgement call means the mod gives one person an infraction and loads of others do similar things with absolutely no consequences. Then when the user appeals in the helpdesk they can never win as they are just told it's only a warning/minor thing so it doesn't matter. i.e it's not looked into.

As noted I've had people really go nuts over infractions rather than bans and I've also been on the receiving end of 2 that I felt were absoutely crazy, but knew there was nothing that could be done about them even though I felt they were wrongly given. The clincher for me was that the posts I got the infractions for were also deleted by the mods who gave the infraction, hiding the 'offence'. The point of them was to be a warning to the user and evidence to the community, I'd certainly never infract someone and delete the post, it's one or the other imo.

As you can see I'm still pretty bitter about them! I've had bans that I had no quibbles or complaints about, but there is something about the pettiness and arbitrary nature of infractions of it that really riles you inside.

I don't personally feel infractions work at all, except for tracking bans and now generally go for pm/on thread warnings followed by bans. It seems to work much better.

Pm and on thread warnings work on smaller forums but on forums as busy as after hours they are just impossible to keep track of.

@drb - I reckon that would make a big difference. If they were called warnings and didn't show up on your profile (even though infractions only show up for the user themselves and mods). The user gets a pm similar to the ban pm. I think it should still leave a mark on the post (I wish bans would do the same), just to point out to other users that this wasn't acceptable and a mod has intervened.

copacetic

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Pm and on thread warnings work on smaller forums but on forums as busy as after hours they are just impossible to keep track of.

true, but it works on any forum on a thread by thread basis. i.e rather than infract anyone on a thread, if no-one did anything ban worthy, stick a warning on thread and then come down hard on anyone ignoring the warning with a ban/infraction to track it.

Any real troublemaker will quickly rack up a ban

AlmightyCushion

copacetic wrote: »

true, but it works on any forum on a thread by thread basis. i.e rather than infract anyone on a thread, if no-one did anything ban worthy, stick a warning on thread and then come down hard on anyone ignoring the warning with a ban/infraction to track it.

Any real troublemaker will quickly rack up a ban

But what if a user does similar stuff across multiple threads that aren't on? For example, I gave a user a warning today (I can't even remember his name now). What if he does it across of a couple of different threads? With infractions or some warning system we can see this and give him a final warning or banning (depending on what the user did). Without a warning tracking system it's a lot harder.

This leads to more people who get away with low level trolling ruining threads and the forum until they do it enough that we start to recognise their name.

copacetic

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

But what if a user does similar stuff across multiple threads that aren't on? For example, I gave a user a warning today (I can't even remember his name now). What if he does it across of a couple of different threads? With infractions or some warning system we can see this and give him a final warning or banning (depending on what the user did). Without a warning tracking system it's a lot harder.

This leads to more people who get away with low level trolling ruining threads and the forum until they do it enough that we start to recognise their name.

true, it's good for the bad people. It's not so good for the good people who can get infractions for next to nothing and imo leads to bad blood and more chance of them going native.

AlmightyCushion

copacetic wrote: »

true, it's good for the bad people. It's not so good for the good people who can get infractions for next to nothing and imo leads to bad blood and more chance of them going native.

But we're talking about reducing the amount of bans and using infractions more. So the good people will get warnings for stuff they would normally have been banned for and the bad people will get loads of warnings for stuff they would normally have been banned for until they start to get noticed. That's a whole lot of trolling and abuse they could get away with in a busy forum whereas infractions limit how much they can get away with without infringing on the normal user that much.

Steve

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Thank you.
Infractions absolutely suck. Complete balls. Can't we just have an option to warn somebody. Its stored somewhere we can look up but it's not a stupid card on a post and it doesn't stain a poster's profille. So we can keep the ledger going but it's just a way of keeping a note of something that might be close to crossing the line in case you have to act in the future.

Not a bad idea and afaik, completely do-able in vB.

It might, however, lead to cries of mod conspiracy (or whatever) if we couldn't see our own infractions.

Personally, in contrast to what the other mods are saying, I've found that infractions / warnings are for the most part well received and have in mainly helped steer people back on track.
In saying that, I deal with a different user profile to the average boardsie so it's probably a bit irrelevant.