Question about infractions

[AAT53]

I posted a question in the other thread, but it is going to get lost in there so I'll ask here.

How long does an infraction count against you?

For example, if I get an infraction in 2006 then one in 2009 and another one in 2011 does that mean I get banned in 2011 for having 3 infractions?

[Tony]

Currently all infraction points by default last for 10 days. Each point carries with it the penalty of +2 second page load time. Getting 3 points will trigger a 7 day auto-ban (from the time of the third point). There are a lot of options in the infraction system and it gets a lot of tweaking.

I should note however: Most of the infractions levied are 0-point warnings. We have never had the auto-ban triggered (this may be common on large boards though). "Disrespected Other Member(s)" is the most common preset violation (26), "Excessive profanity" and "Trolling" are next at 6 (but mostly just warnings).

[AAT53]

Ok, so an infraction becomes a thing of the past after 10 days?

[Tony]

Ok, so an infraction becomes a thing of the past after 10 days?

No, but the point associated with it (if any) does. As you have seen in this latest discipline, past behavior is taken into account. A person like yourself with 0 infractions could probably have gotten away with what Nanuk was doing in his last posts. He didn't because he had accumulated a list of infractions as long as your arm and seriously needed a time out.

[derricksonb]

Currently all infraction points by default last for 10 days. Each point carries with it the penalty of +2 second page load time. Getting 3 points will trigger a 7 day auto-ban (from the time of the third point). There are a lot of options in the infraction system and it gets a lot of tweaking.

That poses an interesting quandry. If Nanuks other infraction had already exceeded the 10 day mark and were expired then how does this latest infraction of +1 put him over the limit to warrant a ban?

It seems as though the decision was fueled more by emotion rather than adherence to Da Rules.

[Tony]

As I just explained (did you not read it?), this discipline had nothing to do with a single post. He was given a time-out for a long series of violations stretching back years. A pattern of disrespect. I don't think any one post actually received an infraction.

[AAT53]

The rules state that after 3 infractions you get a temporary ban.

So, is that the actual rule or is the rule really that it depends on the posters history and voting done by mods?

Honestly, I am not trying to be difficult, etc. I really am confused by the difference between what the rules say and how things seem to be done.

[Tony]

That's just how the complex options are currently set up. As I recall I did that one night many years ago as I was trying to familiarize myself with the system.

But no, as I said that's never been tripped. We manually ban spammers all the time (persistent little buggers!). On rare occasions we have to ban troublemakers because they just can't get along with other people. Most often this is a spur of the moment one-person decision based on how the person is behaving and only peripherally has to do with how they behaved in the past. This encompasses the morning I temp-banned NY.

Temp-banning Nanuk for a pattern of behavior after a vote was actually a first for us I think (in recent memory anyway). He had learned how to skate just this side of rule breakage while still clearly offending a great number of people. Many PMs to him were only met with even more animosity.

I'm afraid it's not an exact science, and I'm really grateful to everyone for the help trying to figure it out. I think if I had to run the forum myself I would have gone insane long ago.

[kkrapf]

From what someone said, Nanuk has received three infractions in the past three months. So perhaps resetting the 10-day point clear to 90 days would have caught this sort of scenario with an auto-ban? Perhaps that would be a good solution. That seems fairly reasonable for me, for an infraction point to last 90 days. The auto-ban might as well not exist if it only triggers when someone has received three points in ten days. Not on a forum this size.

[kkrapf]

Though on second thought dealing with +2 seconds loading time per page for three months would be pretty tiresome.

[derricksonb]

As I just explained (did you not read it?), this discipline had nothing to do with a single post. He was given a time-out for a long series of violations stretching back years. A pattern of disrespect. I don't think any one post actually received an infraction.

As per Da Rules:

*) These rules may be changed at any time, without notice.
*) We are not responsible for anything anyone else says or for any damages that may result. You are using these forums at your own risk.
*) Your use of the forum constitutes acceptance of these rules. In other words, if you don't like the rules, please leave.

Penalties: 1) First offense. Your post may be edited, deleted, or moved. The topic containing the post may be locked. 2) Second offense. Your account will be suspended for one week. 3) Third or more offenses. Your account will be suspended indefinitely, and your IP address logs will be saved.

As per Tony’s statement: At the time of the reported post Nanuk currently had zero infractions against him, but two expired infraction that were levied against him in mid May and June. After carefully reading The Rules section of the Forum I do not see where there is a stipulation stating that expired infractions can be used against a member for any specified period of time past expiration nor do I see where there is a Three Strikes rule. Including the reported posts of 18JUL11 his account would have a maximum of +1 which according to the rules clearly states that the penalty would constitute the post being “edited, deleted, or moved. The topic containing the post may be locked.” Nanuk imposed his own penalty by locking down the thread, which could be argued was in accordance with rules that all members must sign in order to participate.

So I’ll ask again. If by the letter of the rules he had a maximum of +1 infractions against him and there is no rule stating where expired offenses can be brought up or used against members then where is this ban warranted as it appears to be no less than a personal vendetta afforded by the first line in the above quote? If that is the case then that disclaimer should be amended to read “These rules may be changed at any time, without notice and applied discriminately.”

[AAT53]

That's where my confusion is. If they system is set up so that an infraction counts for 10 days, then that's what it should count for. If it makes more sense to the mods that it counts for 90 days then that should be the rule. Either way there should be a clear rule in place so that participants actually know what the consequences are.

When you give a list of rules and people have to agree with them to join the board, then you should be following those rules also. This board is old enough that the "it's a work in progress" excuse just doesn't work for some things. I really think it would help "keep order" (for lack of a better phrase right now) if the rules were clear and followed by everyone.

Just my 2 cents.

[Jenniffer]

Offenses are not equal to infractions. Infractions are a way of keeping track of offenses and those points are used in the admin system to automatically set certain things into action (another reason we have zero point infractions). Above and beyond those automatic actions (time delay, autoban, etc), we have those consequences listed in the rules for offenses. That's how I've read it, anyway, and that's how it's been put into effect since I've been moderating. Tony's said straight out that not a whole lot of thought has been put into those automatic settings and he's only fooled with them to see what they're about. That said, I don't have any objections to setting it up so that infractions last longer. It's something to give some thought to. What we've seen in the past is folks calming down, and then acting up again once the infraction isn't active (maybe coincidence or maybe they noticed the time delay going away?), in which case, I don't know if it's a good idea to advertise how long points stay active?

[MoeMoe]

I am just curious....can Nanuk read all this anyway?

[derricksonb]

Offenses are not equal to infractions. Infractions are a way of keeping track of offenses and those points are used in the admin system to automatically set certain things into action (another reason we have zero point infractions). Above and beyond those automatic actions (time delay, autoban, etc), we have those consequences listed in the rules for offenses. That's how I've read it, anyway, and that's how it's been put into effect since I've been moderating.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if by your understanding (and again this is an interpretation as it is not clearly defined) infractions are a way of keeping track of offenses and if infractions have expirations then by default those offenses have also expired.

[Jenniffer]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if by your understanding (and again this is an interpretation as it is not clearly defined) infractions are a way of keeping track of offenses and if infractions have expirations then by default those offenses have also expired.

An offense isn't something that can expire. It is what it is. That's where human judgment comes in, which is why we debate things and go around so much about what's the right thing to do, weighing all of those variables that you can't codify, like what was meant by the poster, were they joking?, was it a slip of the tongue (like Chip's recent slip)?, are they willing to re-think and edit their post?, a misunderstanding? is there a pattern? etc, etc, etc.

[derricksonb]

Jenniffer- Human judgment is much different than holding everyone to the letter of the rules and I believe that is what many of outr members are asking. Please advise by providing concrete evidence as per the established rules of this forum where there is a differation between an infraction and an offense as well as the rules regarding the current expiration of each.

I do not believe that this issue can no longer stand up to personal interpretation, but that it needs to be chisled in stone in order to avoid issues like this that will arise in the future.

[AAT53]

Offenses are not equal to infractions. Infractions are a way of keeping track of offenses and those points are used in the admin system to automatically set certain things into action (another reason we have zero point infractions). Above and beyond those automatic actions (time delay, autoban, etc), we have those consequences listed in the rules for offenses. That's how I've read it, anyway, and that's how it's been put into effect since I've been moderating. Tony's said straight out that not a whole lot of thought has been put into those automatic settings and he's only fooled with them to see what they're about. That said, I don't have any objections to setting it up so that infractions last longer. It's something to give some thought to. What we've seen in the past is folks calming down, and then acting up again once the infraction isn't active (maybe coincidence or maybe they noticed the time delay going away?), in which case, I don't know if it's a good idea to advertise how long points stay active?

I get what you are saying, but I have to say I think that it isn't such a good idea to not advertise how long points stay active. If people are penalized (which is what in infraction would be) then they should know how long the punishment lasts. I get that some may take advantage of that, but then the mods deal with those people directly.

I don't see anything wrong with an infraction lasting for 90 days.

I'm just one of those people that doesn't like a bunch of gray areas in rules when I'm being told they must be followed. If they are rules then they should be pretty much black and white for all. For example, if a rule is violated then the "offender" is contacted and given the chance to fix it. If they choose not to fix it then they get an infraction that expires in 90 days. If they repeat the same behavior then they don't get a chance to fix it and get an infraction. If they rack up 3 active infractions then they get banned for 3/5/7/10 however many days.

It's the operating in the gray area that brings about problems.

[Jenniffer]

To BD: It doesn't say first infraction, it says first offense. Every word of those rules has been scrutinized, read, and re-read as they've been written. If people have constructive criticism regarding re-wording of the rules, we've always welcomed that. When these difficulties have come up, we've often asked for suggestions regarding rewording the rules, and we rarely, if ever, get them.

AA: I agree that the wording of the rules and consequences can always be improved, but I don't have a whole lot of faith that we'll ever be able to cover every eventuality. When that happens, and we act according to our judgment, there are going to be people who think we did the wrong thing and people who think we did the right thing. That's just part of the gig. I'm listening, though, and I know all of the other mods/admins are, too.

[chipgallo]

I am just curious....can Nanuk read all this anyway?

Oh yeah. Even though he's temporarily out, he can peek in (additional text added for message length purposes.)