Official Everybody Edits Forums

Do you think I could just leave this part blank and it'd be okay? We're just going to replace the whole thing with a header image anyway, right?

You are not logged in.

Advertisement

Hello, visitor! These forums are run off of the revenue generated from these ads. If you'd like to support us, please whitelist us or consider donating:

#1 2017-01-11 07:16:32

Different55
Forum Admin
Registered: 2015-02-07
Posts: 14,451

How would you do this warning system?

So something I've been thinking about recently is warning systems. I'm not really planning on overhauling our warnings system. I mean I don't even have the PM system done yet and it's been over a year. We'd all be dead and in the ground by the time I finished a new warning system. But just tell me what you guys think about this and tell me how you'd improve it.

Our current warning system is great at keeping the users who can't follow the rules out of the forums for long periods of time. It also allows a little leniency in the beginning and lets warnings gradually fade. But there's a pretty big disconnect between the severity of the rule you broke and the length of the ban. For example, going strictly by the rules if you join the forums and immediately post the personal information of a user you're going to get a 3 day ban. Alternatively, someone who's flamed a lot might only get up to a 7 day ban, but a tiny minor spam warning might be enough to tip them over into a month ban, even though the latest warning they broke wasn't all that severe. The punishment doesn't really fit the crime, it tries to fit the total crime history of the person in question.

Which made me try to come up with a better way of doing things.

There's a small number of generic warning categories with a base severity.

Spam - 3
Flaming - 14
Tasteless - 7
Site abuse - 14

When a warning is given in a specific category, its severity can be pushed a little one way or the other. A "minor" infraction is half the base severity and a "major" one is double. So for the spam warning type this might end up looking like

Spam - 3
   Minor - 1.5
   Normal - 3
   Major - 6

And when you get a warning, you're banned for X days where X is the severity. But one of the things that's good about the current system is that things gradually ramp up to try harder to discourage users. So what if for every ban, the ban gets just a little bit longer for every warning the person has received in that category before, or for every warning they've received? So for example if you spam just a little, but you have a huge history of spamming, your minor spam warning might end up as heavy as a normal spam warning or more. But then if you go and tell someone they're a tard you'd get a more normal sized warning since that's uncharacteristic of you.

Tl;dr: break a rule, get a semifixed ban length for breaking it. Break the same rule a bunch and you get banned longer for breaking it.

So what do you think, would that make a decent warning system? I can't say I've heard of one like it before.

Last edited by Different55 (2017-01-11 07:29:01)

Offline

#2 2017-01-11 13:01:29

MrJaWapa
Member
From: United States
Registered: 2015-02-15
Posts: 3,818
Website

Re: How would you do this warning system?

my only suggestion is on what people can be warned for

EDIT: wtf happened to the post formatting?

Minimodding
"Attempting to do the mod's job for them. For example "You're going to get warned for that" or "That post is spam please stop." While the thought is appreciated, if you see a post breaking the rules you should report it and let us handle it."

This rule is stupid. It shuts down any self governing that could take place. There is no reason someone should be punished for giving a friendly "you guys are getting off topic". If someone is impersonating a mod,  they should be warned. Or if they keep telling everyone they're off-topic/spamming/whatever and they really aren't.

Spam (minor)
"Posting in the wrong topic, or posting something that doesn't add to the disussion."
Why would someone be warned for posting in the wrong topic? That could easily be resolved by sending the user a message, and letting them know they made a mistake.

The second part of this rule is semi-vague. Just let people post in the topic. If it doesn't add to the discussion, it will be ignored.

Spam
"Posting nonsensical or incomprehensible content."
Why is there two spam warnings? This is the only one that makes sense.

Off-Topic
Continuing to post content irrelevant to the topic after a polite request to stop.
This is fine, as long as the "polite request" is actually issued.

Inappropriate (Language)
Swearing and using vulgar language while evading the censor. In general, any language that isn't appropriate around children.
Censor evasion should be its own rule.

The second half basically means anything explicit, and that's already covered in the "Inappropriate" warning.

Troublemaking
Unnecessary rudeness, or purposefully trying to start a fight.
That's fair.

Inappropriate (Minor)
Posting content that may not be appropriate for children.
This is basically ****/drugs, and should be 3 points.

Just get rid of this rule and warn them with the "Inappropriate".

Report Abuse
Repeatedly reporting posts that should not have been reported.
Basically, wasting the staff's time with false reports.

That's fair.

Inappropriate
For nsfw links, sexual imagery, or explicit language.
Why are there two inappropriate warnings when this one covers the same thing as the others.

Account Fraud
Creating an unauthorized alternate account to evade a ban.
I can say things that aren't okay for little children and get in less trouble than when I make an alt without permission.

Also, impersonation should be added to this.

Personal Info (Minor)
Posting the personal information of another person without their consent. For example, real name, email, picture, stuff like that.
No, why is there two separate warnings for this? Just warn them with "Personal Info".

Nub
General purpose warning for things that aren't technically against the rules, but are disruptive to the forums. Typically you'll be asked to stop whatever it is you're doing, and if you don't that's where this warning comes in.
This rule is so **** dumb. This is basically just an open warning that can be handed out for anything a mod doesn't like.

Also, the reason this rule was created is **** stupid.

Flaming (Minor)
Like flaming but minor
****' what?
No, just warn them for flaming.

Flaming
Verbally (textually?) attacking another forum member. For example "I hope you die" or "You're bimpsing retarded."
I can post **** on this site and get in less trouble than calling someone "**** retarded."

That's a bit shocking since we seem to be trying to cater to 9 year old kids.

Illegal
Posting illegal content.
Is this a joke? Just a 3 day ban for posting something illegal? **** permaban them!

Personal Info
Posting the personal information of another user such as facebook or address with malicious intent.
How often is personal info released without there being malicious intent? Permaban.

Last edited by MrJaWapa (2017-01-11 13:02:44)


#NoBackboneDiff
#FireProcessor

Offline

#3 2017-01-11 14:07:37

Different55
Forum Admin
Registered: 2015-02-07
Posts: 14,451

Re: How would you do this warning system?

This topic is totally and completely unrelated to the current warning system. None of the current rules apply to this system, I just wanted to get feedback on it.

Last edited by Different55 (2017-01-11 14:08:30)

Offline

#4 2017-01-11 14:43:14

MrJaWapa
Member
From: United States
Registered: 2015-02-15
Posts: 3,818
Website

Re: How would you do this warning system?

oops, I only skimmed over it. I saw something about being banned for personal info for 3 days.

here's my thought


I think after a user gets a certain warning (specific warnings, not the groups you mentioned) X number of times, their ban should be a little bit longer. But overtime that should fade away.

Maybe I'm just being a **** for a few weeks and I rack up several spam warnings. A few months go by and I haven't spammed, and then I accidentally a spammy post. maybe shouldn't ban as long.


but then again...

if I make some serious spamerino and get banned for a really long time. I learn my leason. I come back, post something kinda sorta spammy, more retarded than anything, and get warned for it because mods are biased towards me.... I'm banned for a year because of a minor event. Sure I have a track record but... ehhh.... idk



Sorry if like half of this isn't even comprehensible. I'm trying to recover from being a stroke patient (migraines are fun) and I can't really concentrate or think.... or sleep... sad


#NoBackboneDiff
#FireProcessor

Offline

#5 2017-01-11 16:18:51

Different55
Forum Admin
Registered: 2015-02-07
Posts: 14,451

Re: How would you do this warning system?

You could solve both problems by weighting the influence of past warnings with the relative severity of your new warning. Maybe the influence of past warnings could be a tenth of the combined severity of your past warnings, halve that for minor warnings and double it for major ones.

But now  it's starting to sound complicated.

Offline

#6 2017-01-11 17:31:44

Ratburntro44
Member
Registered: 1970-01-01
Posts: 1,265

Re: How would you do this warning system?

Instead of having a ban of a certain length apply when they pass a certain warning level, have a system where they are banned for as long as they are over a certain warning value, with separate warnings being able to expire at their own time. You could also then have a warning not all expire at the same time.

For example, consider a case where there are two types of warnings
Severe: 3 points lasting for one month + 5 points lasting for a year
Minor: 1 point lasting for one week, 1 point lasting for a month

and the limit is 7, so anyone of 7 or higher warning count is banned.

So, if user A gets (from a clean slate) a severe warning, then they will have 8 points. Assuming they do nothing while banned, they will be banned for a month, and then have the extra 5 points on their record for the rest of a year. If they get a minor warning during that year, they will be brought to 7 points, making them banned until a week passes and they are down to 6; if they get another minor warning before the month-long point expires from the first, then they will end up at 8 points, and still be banned when that warning's week runs out (when they reach 7), up until the month from the earlier minor warning runs out (at which point they now have 6).

Obviously you'd have to figure out the proper values for each type of warning, but I think this could work well.


kaslai = god
skullz = god
-( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)╯╲___卐卐卐卐 Don't mind me just taking my mods for a walk

Offline

#7 2017-01-11 17:43:55

maxi123
Banned
From: code 1234 plz no troll
Registered: 2015-03-01
Posts: 3,697

Re: How would you do this warning system?

Ratburntro44 wrote:

Instead of having a ban of a certain length apply when they pass a certain warning level, have a system where they are banned for as long as they are over a certain warning value, with separate warnings being able to expire at their own time. You could also then have a warning not all expire at the same time.

For example, consider a case where there are two types of warnings
Severe: 3 points lasting for one month + 5 points lasting for a year
Minor: 1 point lasting for one week, 1 point lasting for a month

and the limit is 7, so anyone of 7 or higher warning count is banned.

So, if user A gets (from a clean slate) a severe warning, then they will have 8 points. Assuming they do nothing while banned, they will be banned for a month, and then have the extra 5 points on their record for the rest of a year. If they get a minor warning during that year, they will be brought to 7 points, making them banned until a week passes and they are down to 6; if they get another minor warning before the month-long point expires from the first, then they will end up at 8 points, and still be banned when that warning's week runs out (when they reach 7), up until the month from the earlier minor warning runs out (at which point they now have 6).

Obviously you'd have to figure out the proper values for each type of warning, but I think this could work well.

i like how that thing works but i think giving 5 points that expire in a year is too much when 7 is the limit
so yeah the values need adjusting


uNct3sf.png
#FreeSeizures2015 | 10K PEOPLE DIED EVERYDAY BY HACKERS, ITS FBI OFC. | <3 this guy
ayy lmao

Offline

#8 2017-01-11 17:57:55

Ratburntro44
Member
Registered: 1970-01-01
Posts: 1,265

Re: How would you do this warning system?

that example wasn't supposed to be about any real system, it was just to clarify how it would work


kaslai = god
skullz = god
-( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)╯╲___卐卐卐卐 Don't mind me just taking my mods for a walk

Offline

#9 2017-01-11 19:37:27

AlphaJon
Member
From: Omelette du fromage
Registered: 2015-07-21
Posts: 1,117

Re: How would you do this warning system?

What if instead of having a point system, the forums simply use the good old "do something bad enough and get banned"? With each infraction type matching a particular duration.

To prevent some particular edge cases, abuse of the system or simply prevent frequent misbehaving, I also suggest the following:

Minor offenses don't immediately get you banned, instead you get a strike, and a warning page replaces the main page the next time you log in.
That warning will appear only once whenever you get a strike. The page should be made in such a way as to be dissuasive to prevent further infractions.
After 3 strikes, you get banned for a day. It is possible to give a double strike for those slightly above "minor" but not quite "major" either.
This is only for minor offenses that shouldn't get you banned right away

For other infractions, we could have a different duration depending of if this is the first time the culprit has done said infraction. For example, flaming could be 3 days the first time, then go on to 7 days the next times.

EDIT: that would be the perfect topic for mod discussion, if non-staff could post in it. Forum discussion also fits better than off-topic.

Last edited by AlphaJon (2017-01-11 19:40:30)


-- Jøn

Offline

#10 2017-01-11 20:23:00

hummerz5
Forum Mod
From: wait I'm not a secret mod huh
Registered: 2015-08-10
Posts: 3,895

Re: How would you do this warning system?

AlphaJon wrote:

EDIT: that would be the perfect topic for mod discussion, if non-staff could post in it. Forum discussion also fits better than off-topic.

Different55 wrote:

This topic is totally and completely unrelated to the current warning system. None of the current rules apply to this system, I just wanted to get feedback on it.

an exploration, if you will

you might have a point though, with the traditional system


fT09tOL.png
rip the creator of this sig, zoey

Offline

#11 2017-01-11 20:23:20

Different55
Forum Admin
Registered: 2015-02-07
Posts: 14,451

Re: How would you do this warning system?

AlphaJon wrote:

What if instead of having a point system, the forums simply use the good old "do something bad enough and get banned"? With each infraction type matching a particular duration.

Well that's essentially what the system I suggested is intended to be. But if someone keeps breaking the same rules over and over then it'd seem like that particular punishment isn't heavy enough.

AlphaJon wrote:

EDIT: that would be the perfect topic for mod discussion, if non-staff could post in it. Forum discussion also fits better than off-topic.

I would have put it in there but I'm not actually planning on changing the warning system as it is right now. If you guys want me to change it then feel free to take whatever you guys like from here and make a new topic in FD though.

EDIT: also I didn't mention it in the first post but let's say 1 severity is equal to a day of ban time.

Last edited by Different55 (2017-01-11 20:24:09)

Offline

#12 2017-01-11 23:26:04

AlphaJon
Member
From: Omelette du fromage
Registered: 2015-07-21
Posts: 1,117

Re: How would you do this warning system?

Different55 wrote:

Well that's essentially what the system I suggested is intended to be. But if someone keeps breaking the same rules over and over then it'd seem like that particular punishment isn't heavy enough.

I didn't explain that part very well, but my opinion is that as long as there is a gradual point system, there will be flaws in it that can cause unexpected ban durations (either longer or shorter).
I only mentioned the 3 strikes thing because any ban less than a day could go completely unnoticed if the ban happens when the user doesn't even log in (for example an 8 hours ban during the night).

EDIT: that would be the perfect topic for mod discussion, if non-staff could post in it. Forum discussion also fits better than off-topic.

hummerz5 wrote:

an exploration, if you will

Different55 wrote:

I would have put it in there but I'm not actually planning on changing the warning system as it is right now. If you guys want me to change it then feel free to take whatever you guys like from here and make a new topic in FD though.

Yeah, ok. My bad, I didn't focus on that part of the post enough.

Well, to get back on your own suggestion. I like the Minor/Major variants, because one can't put all infractions from one category on the same severity. However, Major being 2 * normal is a bit too high in my opinion. I'd make it 50% more than normal // 3 * Minor to make the gap not as big. Optionally, for the really bigger infractions, there could be an additional severity greater than Major which would be actual double time (Major Major // Double Major // Huge // Out of control // Extreme // ???)


-- Jøn

Offline

AlphaJon1484173564642836

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB

[ Started around 1488127591.9003 - Generated in 0.067 seconds, 12 queries executed - Memory usage: 1.16 MiB (Peak: 1.32 MiB) ]