Fixing the warning system with baby steps

Nebula · 2017-05-12 15:44:23

BuzzerBee wrote:

1 warning - 0 days

1 warning could be 12hr ban

hummerz5 · 2017-05-12 16:33:17

Whirl wrote:

BuzzerBee wrote:
1 warning - 0 days
1 warning could be 12hr ban

well the benefit of not doing that is the whole freebie "oopsies" warnings. People complain about the spam (minor) warning or some other things causing bans, so your suggestion should be met with ire from that crowd.

no one has taken me up on my spam (minor) clarification request. mysterion why do you woot without explanation

Myst · 2017-05-12 16:42:05

hummerz5 wrote:

mysterion why do you woot without explanation

because you are Hummerz5 and nobody else are wooting your posts :=)

hummerz5

Gosha · 2017-05-25 15:29:38

My suggestion:

1) Get rid of the Warning system. Getting banned for old acts is not good.
2) only mods should ban people, not auto-system
3) While you are banned you can talk to the mod who banned you. Diff's email should be Plan B.
4) Give mods more control over the situation: Easy spam should not lead to the ban, unless mod thinks that user is bothering people too much
Example of easy spam: https://forums.everybodyedits.com/viewt … 06#p660506
Example of spam that bothering people:

▼Hidden text

here how it works:
Mod bans user for spam. user disagree. user can talk to forum users
If they think that spam ban was unfair - mod should unban the person.

hummerz5 · 2017-05-25 15:43:06

Gosha wrote:

1) Get rid of the Warning system. Getting banned for old acts is not good.

OK. So a benefit of that system: repeat offenders are dissuaded from continuing. Do you want to be more lenient, then? Or perhaps throw out the idea that repeat acts are bad?

Gosha wrote:

2) only mods should ban people, not auto-system

Well, in which ways are mods better? Because mods wouldn't be as strict? Or because someone could complain about their ban to a person as opposed to a system? What criteria should the mod have?

Gosha wrote:

3) While you are banned you can talk to the mod who banned you. Diff's email should be Plan B.

Give the mods the ability to mute potential spambots or immature upset kiddos and you're on to something

Gosha wrote:

4) Give mods more control over the situation: Easy spam should not lead to the ban, unless mod thinks that user is bothering people too much

Is this a point or more of why you want point 1/2? Or perhaps this is a prioritized list? i.e. "do 1. You decline? do 2. You decline? do 3. You decline? do 4."?

Gosha wrote:

Mod bans user for spam. user disagree. user can talk to forum users
If they think that spam ban was unfair - mod should unban the person.

Do you expect a democracy of the folks here to be fair? Do you even care to have fairness in this system?

I mean obviously the mod could just ignore the bandwagon attempts but that defeats of going through the charade in the first place.

LukeM, Slabdrill

mrjawapa · 2017-06-13 13:29:10

Mysterion asked me to post this for them

▼large image

Gosha · 2017-06-13 14:38:49

wtf we love drama

kubapolish

Tomahawk · 2017-06-13 14:39:21

My main complaint is that warnings take rather a long time to expire. For a player to be banned for 7 days for spam, due to previous unrelated rule-breaking, is ridiculous.

Perhaps warnings with fewer points (e.g. spam) could expire more quickly than, for instance, flaming. This, combined with independently increasing ban durations for each rule (or each warning amount [groups of warnings??]), might get us somewhere.

I suppose one could argue that you shouldn't break rules in the first place, but as that's unavoidable and as moderation is subjective by nature, this sentence is doomed to end nowhere.

EDIT:

Different55 wrote:

The problem with that is that you could purposefully get a lot of rulebreaking variety in your diet and avoid that.

Ban a player who breaks a number of different rules within a given time period? Something like that maybe, but then you can get the same problem of being banned for a long time for a minor thing, unless you make this ban duration yet another independent variable.

mrjawapa

peace · 2017-06-13 14:58:32

my opinion is to give only a warning if mods have rechived some reports fomr thr post and then give bans with the points and if 1 point is for ex 1 day and 2 is 2 and 3 is 4 and u get 2 diffrent warning stacking up to 3 it needs to be 3 days insteadof 4

hummerz5 · 2017-06-30 02:27:37

Tomahawk wrote:

My main complaint is that warnings take rather a long time to expire. For a player to be banned for 7 days for spam, due to previous unrelated rule-breaking, is ridiculous.

True, though to an extent one could justify this as part of their infraction being paid off. I.e., the user gets warned for flaming. This system, if the user wants to avoid that next level ban, they need to be on their best behavior. If they pick up the spam or whatever, they show a lack of remorse for their actions. But again, maybe we don't care about that. tl;dr: we can't declare something wholly ridiculous unless we find something that's more agreeable. Otherwise it's just a part of the whole.

Tomahawk wrote:

Ban a player who breaks a number of different rules within a given time period?

What if we make things extra complicated and give each warning its individual points as well as an overall point system essentially what we have now? Naturally those numbers could be loosened to reflect the emphasis on the new individual system.

What of the occasional custom warning? Perhaps it would fit well with my above point of making two complicated systems. Instead of matching up with any individual warning system, it could chalk up as points on the overall.

this is a well-intended bump

Official Everybody Edits Forums

#26 2017-05-12 15:44:23, last edited by Nebula (2017-05-12 15:45:11)

Re: Fixing the warning system with baby steps

#27 2017-05-12 16:33:17

Re: Fixing the warning system with baby steps

#28 2017-05-12 16:42:05, last edited by Myst (2017-05-12 16:42:36)

Re: Fixing the warning system with baby steps

#29 2017-05-25 15:29:38

Re: Fixing the warning system with baby steps

#30 2017-05-25 15:43:06

Re: Fixing the warning system with baby steps

#31 2017-06-13 13:29:10

Re: Fixing the warning system with baby steps

#32 2017-06-13 14:38:49

Re: Fixing the warning system with baby steps

#33 2017-06-13 14:39:21, last edited by Tomahawk (2017-06-13 14:49:20)

Re: Fixing the warning system with baby steps

#34 2017-06-13 14:58:32

Re: Fixing the warning system with baby steps

#35 2017-06-30 02:27:37

Re: Fixing the warning system with baby steps

Board footer