Previous Record.

kneemos

Was having a quick look at the DRF and it appears your previous record figures highly in the outcome of your appeal.
Surely each case should be judged on it's own merits?

I appreciate some people may be repeat offenders for the same offence,in which case It would be acceptable,but I feel it's unfair to consider past unrelated
infringements in a new dispute.

Zaph

Every infraction or ban has to be able to stand on its own merits. There's no point in infracting someone for no reason just because they've been a pain in the ass in the past as this isn't fair to the poster and it would ultimately undermine the mod's authority if they kept doing that.

However, past record is often useful when deciding both the intent of the post that was actioned and whether the punishment was appropriate. For example, if someone gets infracted for something perceived to be abusive that they argue was taken up wrongly, it's likely that the outcome would be very different for a long established poster who had a previously clean record compared to someone with a string of infractions and bans for abuse and trolling. It's only natural that you would be less inclined to believe the stated intent of the latter poster. Similarly, their punishment should be more severe than the first poster's as their overall record clearly demonstrates that they haven't learned from the past.

Cabaal

OP, but the past record is also relevant as it can show the person just likes being disruptive.

Imagine every country's justice systems past records of a person breaking the law with theft, assault, rape etc were not taken into account each time they committed a new offense.

Sure the new offense has to be dealt with on its own merits but also the past offenses affect sentencing. Really bans etc are no different especially for repeat offenders who might continue to troll etc in a forum.

Just my 2c

coffee_cake

Cabaal wrote: »

OP, but the past record is also relevant as it can show the person just likes being disruptive.

Imagine every country's justice systems past records of a person breaking the law with theft, assault, rape etc were not taken into account each time they committed a new offense.

I thought they weren't and juries are often not allowed to know about previous history?

kneemos

Cabaal wrote: »

OP, but the past record is also relevant as it can show the person just likes being disruptive.

Imagine every country's justice systems past records of a person breaking the law with theft, assault, rape etc were not taken into account each time they committed a new offense.

Sure the new offense has to be dealt with on its own merits but also the past offenses affect sentencing. Really bans etc are no different especially for repeat offenders who might continue to troll etc in a forum.

Just my 2c

Past offences are an indicator only.Theres no way of knowing for sure of the posters intentions.
Someone with a poor record may make a genuine mistake and gets unfairly punished,likewise someone with a clean record may get away with a greater offence.

I get the idea of a repeat offender getting greater bans,but when it comes to the appeal process there's room for errors to be made if the posters history is part of the judgment.

Zaph

Potentially there is, but that's something they should have thought of all those times before when they were acting the dick. It's like the boy who cried wolf, eventually people will stop giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Cabaal

kneemos wrote: »

there's room for errors to be made if the posters history is part of the judgment.

There's an even greater room for error if all previous instances are completely ignored though, it can easily allow a very disruptive user to simply continue to be very disruptive on the same forums/other forums.

oscarBravo

bluewolf wrote: »

I thought they weren't and juries are often not allowed to know about previous history?

Juries don't hear about a defendant's record, because it should have no bearing on the question of whether or not s/he has been proven guilty of the case before them. If the jury decides on the merits of the case to return a guilty verdict, the judge will take the record into account when passing sentence.

Similarly, a mod should decide whether to take action on the merits of the post in question, but what action is taken will depend to an extent on the poster's record.

kneemos

oscarBravo wrote: »

Juries don't hear about a defendant's record, because it should have no bearing on the question of whether or not s/he has been proven guilty of the case before them. If the jury decides on the merits of the case to return a guilty verdict, the judge will take the record into account when passing sentence.

Similarly, a mod should decide whether to take action on the merits of the post in question, but what action is taken will depend to an extent on the poster's record.

If you were to follow that analagy you would say that the mod shouldn't act as judge and jury.

Depends on you look at the appeal process.Is it there for the benefit of the poster and to decide on what he decides is unfair or as I believe scewed more on the side of the mods and acts as another form of forum moderation.

Steve

kneemos wrote: »

If you were to follow that analagy you would say that the mod shouldn't act as judge and jury.

Depends on you look at the appeal process.Is it there for the benefit of the poster and to decide on what he decides is unfair or as I believe scewed more on the side of the mods and acts as another form of forum moderation.

If we were to follow the Irish legal system's example than every rule breaker would be given a hug and a lollipop despite their 97 previous infractions for trolling and set free to gallop about our forums and do the same again.

You only see one side of it - if a mod is heavy handed in their judgement then the lads with the bigger banhammers step in.

Long may our benevolent dictatorship continue

oscarBravo

kneemos wrote: »

If you were to follow that analagy you would say that the mod shouldn't act as judge and jury.

Well, yes. Like most analogies, it applies as far as it goes.

This isn't a legal system, and this site isn't a democracy. It's a privately owned website where you have the privilege of posting as long as you agree to abide by certain rules; and where we depend on volunteers to ensure that those rules are followed, which the vast majority of the site's members seem to be able to do without any major problems.

nesf

kneemos wrote: »

Depends on you look at the appeal process.Is it there for the benefit of the poster and to decide on what he decides is unfair or as I believe scewed more on the side of the mods and acts as another form of forum moderation.

Be aware that quite often what you see in DRP is what happens after a mod doesn't change their position after then poster PMs them. Rather a lot of overturned decisions never reach DRP (or public view) simply because the mod after discussing it with the user agreed that the user had a point and some kind of agreement was reached. DRP normally appears skewed towards the mods because simply, most obvious bad calls by mods are overturned in the PM stage and secondly mods who make bad calls over and over and who aren't willing to change don't tend to be held onto, thus the majority of cases that come before DRP are very likely to be cases where the decision isn't overturned.


I'd agree that for some people though the site's rules themselves are fundamentally unfair or applied in an overly harsh way and for them there'll never be a fair decision in DRP because of this. This has little to do with the individual mods though.

padd b1975

Heat of the moment posts should be decided on an individual basis.

Major calls such as site/forum bans should be done within the context of a poster's overall record.

Nody

padd b1975 wrote: »

Heat of the moment posts should be decided on an individual basis.

How do you if it is a heat of the moment though? I'll make up an example based on World of Tanks were currently the Polish are being targeted in game. If a user had posted (and been carded & banned) ten times for calling out Polacks as "scum, n00bs, useless twats, ****twards etc." would you believe him if he claimed the 11th time was a heat of the moment in an fast moving thread?

Nesf's point is also very true; I've issued a fair share of mod actions in various forums but in 90%+ of the cases I'll come to an agreement with the user if they PM me (with out calling me a power hungry megalomaniac out to stop them from telling the truth) even if that's that the action stands. I always explain why the action was taken and the background to it though I'm more than happy to remove a card etc. if deemed suitable at the end of the conversation depending on the clarification. The final 10% are the potential DRM where the user still disagree with me / my reasoning but they also tend to be tilted towards things that I'm not willing to budge on giving out (i.e. starting a new thread after being told not to is a classic board wide, no questions asked if that's a breach of charter kind of item).

Trojan

Track record is important in looking at a DRP because it indicates if a particular poster is wasting valuable volunteer time on a continuous basis. Boards runs on volunteers at every level from mod to Cmod to admin. If track record is ignored, and a poster continues to waste mod time in a given forum, those mods will eventually get tired of dealing with the same stress and hassle and quit. A good mod quitting because of a poster with a long track record of causing hassle for volunteers is not a good scenario as it can damage the experience for many users, not just one.

Also, this is not a court of law