Why do only some forums use infractions?

TeddyTedson

I've noticed only some forums use infractions. Why is this?
Some of the forums here you'll read a thread and see such a user has received an infraction for a comment.
But then other forums seem to just use the ban hammer.
Why?

Dades

Some forums require a tighter rein due to the combustible nature of threads?

Policies have probably evolved out of necessity.

biko

All forums can use infractions but some might not have a need for them.
It's up to the forum mods really. Sometimes a ban isn't warranted but some type of action is.

P. Breathnach

Of course mods vary in their approach; the forums differ, and the mods are individuals.

But perhaps some balancing-up is needed. If a moderator posts in-thread to say "userX, do that once more and you will be banned for a week", there is no appeal. If, on the other hand, a mod issues a yellow or red card, the user has access to the DRP.

The DRP exists because sometimes mods make bad calls. So you can have two systems for a mod to warn a user, only one of which is subject to the DRP.

Sad Professor

Bans can be appealed as well.

Hobbes

Infractions can be used where there are a group of mods that don't talk that often to each other. It allows them to see what mod did what and when. So as not to bans someone if all they got was a reminder to stick to the charter.

P. Breathnach

Sad Professor wrote: »

Bans can be appealed as well.

Sure. But why should it have to go that far? Some of us would rather not be banned in the first place.

Insect Overlord

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Sure. But why should it have to go that far? Some of us would rather not be banned in the first place.

Then some people should not post in ways that require bans as a deterrent. Obviously. :pac:

P. Breathnach

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Then some people should not post in ways that require bans as a deterrent. Obviously. :pac:

That's cheap-shot stuff in a context where I already wrote

The DRP exists because sometimes mods make bad calls.

star-pants

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Sure. But why should it have to go that far? Some of us would rather not be banned in the first place.

Just as a point, some forums have specific rules that if you break them you get a ban immediately. I believe (for example) one of the photo threads, possibly in Motors (I can't remember) says in the title 'Quote a photo get a 24 hr ban' so there would be no warning and no infraction, just a straightforward ban.

Some forums find that infractions and warnings are not listened to / don't work with the group of users who frequent the forum, and some forums find they do.
It can be a case by case basis, depends on what was posted / what rule was broken / in what context and whether the poster should know better.

P. Breathnach

star-pants wrote: »

Just as a point, some forums have specific rules that if you break them you get a ban immediately. I believe (for example) one of the photo threads, possibly in Motors (I can't remember) says in the title 'Quote a photo get a 24 hr ban' so there would be no warning and no infraction, just a straightforward ban.

That's fair enough. And I accept that it is often appropriate to go straight to a ban when a post is sufficiently egregious.

Some forums find that infractions and warnings are not listened to / don't work with the group of users who frequent the forum, and some forums find they do.

Forums involve people, and people are individuals. Some of us try to respect the rules, and behave in a generally acceptable way. Why should a generally well-behaved poster be treated differently by mods in forums where some of the users behave like yobs?

It can be a case by case basis, depends on what was posted / what rule was broken / in what context and whether the poster should know better.

I agree with this, but it is often difficult for a newcomer to a forum to discern the threshold of acceptability. In particular, I have a problem understanding the positions of some mods on what is an unacceptable attack on another poster.

star-pants

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Forums involve people, and people are individuals. Some of us try to respect the rules, and behave in a generally acceptable way. Why should a generally well-behaved poster be treated differently by mods in forums where some of the users behave like yobs?

I agree with this, but it is often difficult for a newcomer to a forum to discern the threshold of acceptability. In particular, I have a problem understanding the positions of some mods on what is an unacceptable attack on another poster.

I would generally give newcomers a bit more slack than someone who is a regular to the forum and thus knows the score.
I will point out the forum charter, explain why they've been warned or infracted (unless it's a ban-worthy offence) and if they don't then listen, I'll have to go to the next step naturally.

Again, if someone who is not a regular poster in one of the forums I mod steps out of line, it's a case dependent situation:
how long have they been around?
should they know to read the charter?
do they think they can get away with their comments knowing it wouldn't be acceptable?
have they just a bad attitude?
are they just really unaware of what the forum is for?

I have often checked to see a posters history in the forum before taking action, it may be the case they have 5 out of their 100 posts in that forum, all of which pushing the boundaries, in which case I'll not be too kind.

I will agree some forums are modded differently to others, generally with good reason. It can seem confusing to some newcomers or non-regulars as to why X forum is stricter than Y forum. It's not always obvious, but it's obvious to the moderators, after trial and error and many years modding the same forum you come across the same things over and over. You can try giving general slack and find out it comes back to bite you in the backside, so you have to then reign it back in and find out that works better.
In some forums banter can go a bit further than in other forums, because it may work. In some forums people can take things very seriously and take great offence to something others may not see anyway insulting. Thus moderating has to adjust and reflect the general feeling of the majority.

Personally, I do try and warn/infract before swinging the ban hammer, but in some cases it's an automatic ban offence and that's that.

Aidric

TeddyTedson wrote: »

I've noticed only some forums use infractions. Why is this?

Because some level headed moderators do exist and realise that bit of banter can be healthy for a forum.

Beruthiel

TeddyTedson wrote: »

I've noticed only some forums use infractions. Why is this?
Some of the forums here you'll read a thread and see such a user has received an infraction for a comment.
But then other forums seem to just use the ban hammer.
Why?

Mod discretion.
Different rules for different forums.
Mod discretion.

Did I mention Mod discretion?

Sarky

Don't forget mod discretion.

seamus

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The DRP exists because sometimes mods make bad calls. So you can have two systems for a mod to warn a user, only one of which is subject to the DRP.

But only one also carries actual tangible sanctions in the form of an infraction.

As an infraction is a "mark" against you, the purpose of the DRP is to allow those marks to be reviewed and removed as necessary.

An in-thread warning is just that, it doesn't carry along elsewhere and nobody else in a day's time will know that you received a warning.

However, it's worth noting that the DRP isn't restricted to infractions and bans. There's nothing stopping you from using the process to dispute an in-thread warning.

Since there's nothing to specifically "undo", such a thread would be a bit of a talking shop, but if you approach the DRP in a reasonable manner, there's no reason why it can't be used to dispute a warning on a thread.

Beasty

seamus wrote: »

However, it's worth noting that the DRP isn't restricted to infractions and bans. There's nothing stopping you from using the process to dispute an in-thread warning.

That's not how it seens to works in practice. From what I've seen anything not related to a specific red or yellow card or ban is either closed or moved

seamus

It makes my brain explode to look at DRP, so I wasn't aware of that.

K-9

Beasty wrote: »

That's not how it seens to works in practice. From what I've seen anything not related to a specific red or yellow card or ban is either closed or moved

Usually moved to Helpdesk I think.

Dades

K-9 wrote: »

Usually moved to Helpdesk I think.

Or more often to PM.

Plenty of stuff that gets sorted out there (and overturned) that people never see.

Spear

seamus wrote: »

However, it's worth noting that the DRP isn't restricted to infractions and bans. There's nothing stopping you from using the process to dispute an in-thread warning.

Yes, it is restricted to bans and infractions. That's what's in the DRP itself and confirmed by DeVore and Dav. So anything outside that is moved (not closed) to the Helpdesk which facilitates more open ended complaints.

P. Breathnach

RopeDrink wrote: »

... I find that either a public or private warning serves to disuade the lesser...

So you are using public warnings as a substitute for formal infractions? If, after you have warned a person, that person offends again, might you then ban that person? Or is the warning meaningless?

... It was made very very clear to Mods that misuse of Infractions lead to big trouble - There is no reverse effect where not using it at all is regarded as an issue (Not that I can see) and so, I've not used it, haven't needed to :P

The "big trouble" is the danger that if you make a wrong call, it can be modified or overturned in the DRP. I'm not sure that people should try to circumvent a system that was put in place because of the possibility that mods might make bad calls.

Or, if it is the case that some mods choose to issue verbal warnings instead of formal infraction notices, and such warnings are part of a staged escalation that might lead to a ban, then such warnings should be subject to the DRP.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Spear

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I saw, but it's not for me to interfere with threads, so I didn't correct him.

but rule 1 states: "If you have an issue with a ban or infraction"

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Spear

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This is purely my interpretation, but I always considered yellow cards to be part of the infraction system. Certainly the mod buttons for such combine the two as part of the infract this user command. The only difference between red and yellow is that a red has an infraction point along with it.

K-9

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'd have though no, as a warning is a zero point offence.

I suppose if a poster has 3 or 4 yellows on a board the logical next step is a red. That would be in politics which now has a 3 red card accumulation system which results in a forum ban.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Spear

K-9 wrote: »

I'd have though no, as a warning is a zero point offence.

I suppose if a poster has 3 or 4 yellows on a board the logical next step is a red. That would be in politics which now has a 3 red card accumulation system which results in a forum ban.

But a yellow still leaves a permanent record, something which makes it different from a simpler on thread warning.

Beasty

You also need to bear in mind that in some forums (soccer being the obvious one) an accumulation of yellow cards automatically results in a ban. If you cannot dispute the yellows (and a number of posters clearly have), then there would be no technical way to get around the ban (other than potentially revisiting the yellows in the ban DRP anyway)

I think it's quite clear that the DRP system has always been used to dispute bans, reds and yellows

K-9

Beasty wrote: »

You also need to bear in mind that in some forums (soccer being the obvious one) an accumulation of yellow cards automatically results in a ban. If you cannot dispute the yellows (and a number of posters clearly have), then there would be no technical way to get around the ban (other than potentially revisiting the yellows in the ban DRP anyway)

I think it's quite clear that the DRP system has always been used to dispute bans, reds and yellows

Yes, in Politics a red would be more like a yellow in Soccer! Think it's 6 yellows for a ban in Soccer (this may have changed), 3 reds in Politics.