Fixing the warning system with baby steps

Different55 · 2017-05-04 15:30:34

So right now the warning system isn't the best warning system.

How do we fix it

I eventually want to change how it works entirely but for a first baby step, the jump from 9 to 12 points is 7 days to a month which seems a little steep. At the same time inserting 2 weeks and bumping everything else up the ladder so that it takes 21 points to get a max length 6 month ban seems pretty lenient even for me.

Maybe we just hop right into making the big changes.

What I'm wanting to do for the warnings system is adjust it so that ban lengths are more or less fixed. You get a gradually longer ban for breaking the same rule, breaking a different rule would land you with the standard ban for that rule. The problem with that is that you could purposefully get a lot of rulebreaking variety in your diet and avoid that. Depending on how we do things that might not even be a problem or we could just take matters into our own hands in case someone is purposefully disrespecting the site like that.

Anyway, what do you guys think?

LukeM

Kira · 2017-05-04 16:18:04

Simply remove the warning system. Moderators should be the judge of each reports.

Different55 · 2017-05-04 16:25:37

And get wildly different ban lengths depending on the person who handles the reports, wonderful. There needs to be a system in place, even if it's just implemented by people. And if there's a system involved, why not build it into the forums to make life easier?

LukeM, Krosis, hummerz5, MartenM, Dencc, Koya

Myst · 2017-05-04 16:28:34

let's remove the Spam(Minor) warning because it's annoying

N1KF, mrjawapa, Zumza, Norwee, SirJosh3917

N1KF · 2017-05-04 17:04:46

If you have a warning that hasn't expired (or still have an active RPBW for it), and get another warning of the same type, you get a "repetition penalty bonus warning" (RPBW) stacked on top of the warning.

If you get a Spam (Major) warning, then soon get a Spam (Minor), you have a RPP total of 1, meaning your RPBW gives you an extra warning with a single warning point. If you break the same rule again, you get another RPBW with the value of 2, etc.

I suppose there should also be a limit because the bans would become pretty extreme at some point.

RPBWs expire like any other warning, but it takes a long time. If your most recent RPBW of a certain rule type finally expires, your RPBW status for that rule type goes back to default.

Gosha · 2017-05-04 17:27:08

You should allow banned people to pm a mod

Zumza, SirJosh3917

Different55 · 2017-05-04 17:47:29

My email is listed on the ban page, if anyone has a problem with their ban they should use that. That's not really related to the warning system anyway.

hummerz5

Gosha · 2017-05-04 18:34:00

Different55 wrote:

My email is listed on the ban page, if anyone has a problem with their ban they should use that. That's not really related to the warning system anyway.

Imo it's much better to discuss warnings with people who warned you. Diffemail should be a plan B.

N1KF, mrjawapa, Zumza, SirJosh3917

TaskManager · 2017-05-04 19:12:35

Gosha wrote:

Different55 wrote:
My email is listed on the ban page, if anyone has a problem with their ban they should use that. That's not really related to the warning system anyway.
Imo it's much better to discuss warnings with people who warned you. Diffemail should be a plan B.

plan C actually
plan B is creating countless number of alts

Slabdrill, SirJosh3917

LukeM · 2017-05-04 20:00:34

maxi123 wrote:

Gosha wrote:
Different55 wrote:
My email is listed on the ban page, if anyone has a problem with their ban they should use that. That's not really related to the warning system anyway.
Imo it's much better to discuss warnings with people who warned you. Diffemail should be a plan B.
plan C actually
plan B is creating countless number of alts

Hundreds of alts seems to be plan A for some people

TaskManager, Slabdrill, SirJosh3917

Raphe9000 · 2017-05-04 21:29:38

Just add 0 point warnings if you want to make the forums less communist like. Many of the rules are outrageous to expect everyone to be in line with 100%, and it just comes down to the mod's opinion most of the time.

Zumza, Different55

BuzzerBee · 2017-05-05 00:48:29

What if warnings weren't issued until the post is reported? I mean the rules we have in place are to create a better user experience for everyone, so if nobody is bothered enough by the post in question why should it receive a warning?

Obviously not all reported posts would be given a warning, and if it's really bad and nobody has reported it then a mod could still issue a warning.

I think this would discourage frivolous reporting and would maybe even encourage some more forumers to use the report button (since most of the reports we receive are from like the same three people).

As far as the system that "converts" warnings to bans, I think we should simplify it.

We could try making most of the current warning types/reasons equal. Instead of having "points" for each warning, we just issue users a plain old warning. All warnings will be of equal value, and we'd get rid of all the minor/major types. This system may make it easier to get banned, though, so to prevent someone from getting banned for a year just by spamming a couple times, we could do a new scale.

Maybe something like this?

WARNINGS  |  BAN LENGTH

1 warning    0 days
2 warnings   -
3 warnings   1 day
4 warnings   -
5 warnings   3 days
6 warnings   -
7 warnings   5 days
8 warnings   -
9 warnings   -
10 warnings  1 week
11 warnings  -
12 warnings  -
13 warnings  2 weeks
14 warnings  -
15 warnings  1 month
16 warnings  -
17 warnings  3 months
18 warnings  -
19 warnings  -
20 warnings  6 months
21 warnings  -
22 warnings  -
23 warnings  -
24 warnings  -
25 warnings  1 year
26 warnings  -
27 warnings  -
28 warnings  -
29 warnings  -
30 warnings  Permaban™

The only exceptions being flaming, illegal content, and personal info will result in the issuing of 5 warnings instead of 1.

I didn't put too much thought into all of this so obviously I'm sure there's some glitch or hole in the system but ye idk it's an idea

mrjawapa, Onjit, Dencc, Krosis, Zumza

Pingohits · 2017-05-05 01:17:18

sweet buzzerbee, do the warnings expire, or are they permanent?

mrjawapa

BuzzerBee · 2017-05-05 05:37:18

Hm, they should probably expire, I'd say 6 months is a good amount of time. Since the system is more lenient the time should be a little longer to prevent abuse

Abelysk · 2017-05-05 06:58:10

Permabans should be used towards players who simply don't learn. You go to prison for a year, leave, commit a crime again for fun, repeat. That would result in a permaban.

Gosha · 2017-05-05 07:27:16

Permabans should be only for alts, spambots and stuff like that, not for "extra" active users

LukeM, N1KF, Zumza, Slabdrill

hummerz5 · 2017-05-09 02:51:40

Mysterion wrote:

let's remove the Spam(Minor) warning because it's annoying

My inclination is to ask for specifics, though it might paint me as a pedant. Naturally the emphasis is on the general class of the error, as opposed to a particular instance. i.e., responding to spam? off-topic messages? grave-digging? double/triple posting? There's a danger in asking for specifics, because I personally would much rather we keep these to a minimum. However, if you do care to discuss some rule that is covered under the Spam (minor) warning, you should emphasize which one.

N1KF, are you suggesting that individuals proving to not learn from their previous mistakes should receive increasing penalty? It would make sense, to me, that if the ban/warning system is created to teach users to follow rules, modifications can be made to emphasize that effect. Your system seems to build that to a separate level. This would create a situation where a user's "genuine" mistake would/could be lighter than their repeat offense. I think its principle stands reasonable, though its application might be a layer of complexity on top of our existing "what bans should cost what" situation.

Different55 wrote:

My email is listed on the ban page, if anyone has a problem with their ban they should use that. That's not really related to the warning system anyway.

yes unrelated but this. I agree, being able to discuss the specifics of a warning can help clarify a mistake. Without being specific, opening the door to PM's while banned seems to be a door towards hassle. Other media exist, like the e-mail.

Raphe9000 wrote:

Just add 0 point warnings if you want to make the forums less communist like. Many of the rules are outrageous to expect everyone to be in line with 100%, and it just comes down to the mod's opinion most of the time.

as an aside, does anyone know if 0-pt warnings create a ban if the user has enough warning points?
Your point here seems to suggest that moderators should clean up after users instead of seeking some form of order. That's probably arguable to an extent, but certainly comparably inefficient.

BuzzerBee wrote:

What if warnings weren't issued until the post is reported? I mean the rules we have in place are to create a better user experience for everyone, so if nobody is bothered enough by the post in question why should it receive a warning?
Obviously not all reported posts would be given a warning, and if it's really bad and nobody has reported it then a mod could still issue a warning.
I think this would discourage frivolous reporting and would maybe even encourage some more forumers to use the report button (since most of the reports we receive are from like the same three people).

I'm thinking about the implication that the moderators would take a step back (perhaps even by 'force') and encourage the users to report more. Effectually what changes here? Does encouraging the moderation to wait until flagging suggest that mods needn't pay attention to the forums as much? Would this still end up with "the same three people" then policing? That would seem to bottleneck the moderation to the views of these shadowy folk not explicitly declared. I'm probably dramatizing this and your response would deal swift blows, but this seems to ring dissonant with my understanding of moderation.

Gosha wrote:

Permabans should be only for alts, spambots and stuff like that, not for "extra" active users

Well, just to clarify, that is how the system currently is set up.

Now I reread diff's OP.

Per the ban-per-points issue: are we interested in simply making a straightforward time relationship? or is that not the essence you're looking for? I think it'd be easier to do something like 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128 days as opposed to week, month, year. Sure, they sound better, but they'll be oddly uneven. You could work the other direction, of course, and wiggle the 3/6/9/12/15 point numbers to achieve a similar effect but it wouldn't be even.

Diff, perhaps we could look at specific situations we might want to cover in the system. For example, is one edge case for the system the idea that an individual who posts illegal content "should be able" to post spam (minor) a few times without getting the next considerably extensive ban?

If so, I'd point out that the system can certainly be rationalized as including that penalty as part of the original infraction's warning. That seems to be part of the decay process. "Not only are you banned for this long, we expect you to actually behave on return."

Regardless, your tentative discussion doesn't seem to cover the decay issue. Do these standard bans that build independent of each other calm down? If nothing else, it sounds like you're describing a system where each warning type is its own points/ban system. That sounds complicated and subject to comparably more tweaking that the combined system, but not altogether impossible or unreasonable.

edit: to speak generally
I feel one of the main benefits of creating a rule system is to make things apparent to all users. Further, having these discussions is good to keep folks on the same page and (hopefully) keep the system tailored to the users. It's easier to give an individual guidelines to follow in their moderation than to handpick a moderator that fits the general unarticulated ideas of the group.

Hostage · 2017-05-11 14:33:28

Different55 wrote:

My email is listed on the ban page, if anyone has a problem with their ban they should use that. That's not really related to the warning system anyway.

Or you can spam diff on steam that works too

Schlog · 2017-05-11 17:28:56

Different55 wrote:

And get wildly different ban lengths depending on the person who handles the reports, wonderful. There needs to be a system in place, even if it's just implemented by people. And if there's a system involved, why not build it into the forums to make life easier?

welcome to reality where EVERYONE else does this!

LukeM · 2017-05-11 18:05:50

Ninja wrote:

Different55 wrote:
And get wildly different ban lengths depending on the person who handles the reports, wonderful. There needs to be a system in place, even if it's just implemented by people. And if there's a system involved, why not build it into the forums to make life easier?
welcome to reality where EVERYONE else does this!

No they dont...
Just because the users dont see a lot of the warning systems doesnt mean that they arent there
How else would forums / games with thousands of people actually have warnings, you cant have every moderator keeping track of every person who has ever done something wrong as they would forget / spend too much time checking what other mods do

Edit: Unless you mean everyone has an automated system, in which case different never said they didnt

SirJosh3917 · 2017-05-11 19:28:58

please do buzzer bee reccomendation

Ratburntro44 · 2017-05-11 20:05:36

Implement a vigilante justice system. If enough people report a person's posts, then they get banned, regardless of any moderator's judgment.

mrjawapa · 2017-05-11 20:27:23

Ratburntro44 wrote:

Implement a vigilante justice system. If enough people report a person's posts, then they get banned, regardless of any moderator's judgment.

I suggested this a while back.

Something like what the stackexchange site uses.

LukeM · 2017-05-11 21:24:49

MrJaWapa wrote:

Ratburntro44 wrote:
Implement a vigilante justice system. If enough people report a person's posts, then they get banned, regardless of any moderator's judgment.
I suggested this a while back.
Something like what the stackexchange site uses.

The problem is that a lot of the people in these forums arent really mature enough to reliably report those who are actually breaking the rules, this would just end up with people being banned for making controversial posts, which isnt a good idea

The reason it would work for stack exchange is that almost everybody is old enough to have a good judgement on whether something breaks any rules, plus they have a huge number of people using the site, so there would be basically no change of a single person using alt accounts / groups of people geting somebody they dont like banned

hummerz5 · 2017-05-12 02:32:58

destroyer123 wrote:

The reason it would work for stack exchange is that almost everybody is old enough to have a good judgement on whether something breaks any rules, plus they have a huge number of people using the site, so there would be basically no change of a single person using alt accounts / groups of people geting somebody they dont like banned

Yeah. I thought I had good judgment, yet I have yet to get to the point where I can vote on things. I'm not even an alt account.

Ratburntro44 wrote:

Implement a vigilante justice system. If enough people report a person's posts, then they get banned, regardless of any moderator's judgment.

so a direct democracy? Should we require a quorum or just make it majority rules? We can assume that the poster would vote in their own favor, so then if two people vote down a particular post, we could ban them. In reality, I imagine even the 'automatic' 'democratic' systems still have moderators to oversee... so do we have enough people to bother with that, I wonder... There's something to be said here about the unreliability of a democracy but that's neither here nor there

Official Everybody Edits Forums

#1 2017-05-04 15:30:34

Fixing the warning system with baby steps

#2 2017-05-04 16:18:04

Re: Fixing the warning system with baby steps

#3 2017-05-04 16:25:37

Re: Fixing the warning system with baby steps

#4 2017-05-04 16:28:34

Re: Fixing the warning system with baby steps

#5 2017-05-04 17:04:46

Re: Fixing the warning system with baby steps

#6 2017-05-04 17:27:08

Re: Fixing the warning system with baby steps

#7 2017-05-04 17:47:29, last edited by Different55 (2017-05-04 17:47:54)

Re: Fixing the warning system with baby steps

#8 2017-05-04 18:34:00

Re: Fixing the warning system with baby steps

#9 2017-05-04 19:12:35

Re: Fixing the warning system with baby steps

#10 2017-05-04 20:00:34

Re: Fixing the warning system with baby steps

#11 2017-05-04 21:29:38

Re: Fixing the warning system with baby steps

#12 2017-05-05 00:48:29

Re: Fixing the warning system with baby steps

#13 2017-05-05 01:17:18

Re: Fixing the warning system with baby steps

#14 2017-05-05 05:37:18

Re: Fixing the warning system with baby steps

#15 2017-05-05 06:58:10

Re: Fixing the warning system with baby steps

#16 2017-05-05 07:27:16

Re: Fixing the warning system with baby steps

#17 2017-05-09 02:51:40, last edited by hummerz5 (2017-05-09 02:53:43)

Re: Fixing the warning system with baby steps

#18 2017-05-11 14:33:28

Re: Fixing the warning system with baby steps

#19 2017-05-11 17:28:56

Re: Fixing the warning system with baby steps

#20 2017-05-11 18:05:50, last edited by LukeM (2017-05-11 18:07:07)

Re: Fixing the warning system with baby steps

#21 2017-05-11 19:28:58

Re: Fixing the warning system with baby steps

#22 2017-05-11 20:05:36

Re: Fixing the warning system with baby steps

#23 2017-05-11 20:27:23

Re: Fixing the warning system with baby steps

#24 2017-05-11 21:24:49

Re: Fixing the warning system with baby steps

#25 2017-05-12 02:32:58

Re: Fixing the warning system with baby steps

Board footer