At the risk of sounding like the longer you've been here, the more you should be able to get away with, I want to say that the number of constructive posts should be a consideration when it comes to moderator action.
Allow me to fabricate two examples to illustrate my point.
Mr. Zwillinger is a frequent poster in the Legacy forums. He's been active over a year with a total of 7,000 posts and is a competitive player who provides advice to other forum members. Occasionally his temper gets the best of him and he flames out on a few people. He gets three suspensions over his year, each for one week longer than the last.
Mr. Wigwam is a lurker who rarely posts in the Limited forums. He's been active for half of a year with a total of only 300 posts. He does have a habit of trolling other posters, though, and also has three suspensions in his six months, each for one week longer than the last.
Why are these two posters given the same treatment?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"[Screw] you and the green you ramped in on." - My EDH battle cry. If I had one. Which I don't.
As one person who's not been here for a long time, but has a relatively large number of posts, to another, I can completely see where you're coming from. There is something to be said for the fact that infractions expire over time, over expiring as a function of the number of posts. And no, I don't think that's ideal - in the extreme case, the person who makes one post every 20 days and gets an infraction each time won't ever be suspended by the 3 active infraction rule. However, I think the thing being missed is that said person will probably get banned after 9 or 10 posts anyway, just because it's going to be recognized that the individual is nothing but trouble, and is not being constructive or otherwise providing something positive to the site.
I think that there is something to be said for the length of the suspension though - if, hypothetically speaking, four years ago, I was a bit of a troublemaker (I was, after all, 17 and raging against every authority I could find :P) and earned three suspensions back then, and now, four years later, I go on a hot streak because I got laid off, and get a suspension. Is it really fair that my behavior from four years ago is held against me and will lead to my taking an extra three week vacation from this site? Dunno. Maybe not, but I couldn't tell you with certainty.
With that said, ER's response here does suggest that at least in some sense, activity and duration do play a role with the larger suspensions and what comes of them. It's far more likely, from what I can tell, that the poster who earns several suspensions consecutively, or who posts nothing but spam and flames, gets shown the door where the active member who contributes a lot, but who also can be a bit hot headed at times, does not receive a ban. Yes, most suspensions are either due to the auto-suspension offenses or by the three infractions rule. This doesn't mean that the poster who thinks that site policy should be abused to troll without consequence gets away with it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former Level 2 Judge (Retired / Renounced)
Went to a new shop from a friend's recommendation, DQ'ed for willful violation of CR 100.6b.
Someone's cumulative post quality should be considered, not number of posts. Someone with a high posts per day is probably just posting absolute garbage. But someone who is one of the best members of the forum calls someone a ****ing idiot? Some leniency should exist. On the other hand, though, if someone is a nonstop terrible poster, they should get the book thrown at them for a missed piece of punctuation
Realistically, we can't do this. It's require a metric of 'what means what', and it's entirely subjective. I'd rather be consistent about it.
And KCW is right, it's the content, not the number. Quality over Quantity and all that jazz. But, again, we simply can't be lenient to one person and not another about something so subjective.
Realistically, we can't do this. It's require a metric of 'what means what', and it's entirely subjective. I'd rather be consistent about it.
And KCW is right, it's the content, not the number. Quality over Quantity and all that jazz. But, again, we simply can't be lenient to one person and not another about something so subjective.
Now, correct me if I'm mistaken though, but policy does allow that the relative time between suspensions and overall quality of posts can be used to a person's benefit when a decision is made whether a 4th (or more) suspension will be replaced by a discretionary ban?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former Level 2 Judge (Retired / Renounced)
Went to a new shop from a friend's recommendation, DQ'ed for willful violation of CR 100.6b.
If what you're asking is "do we take account age and contribution into account when we're discussing a discretionary ban", the answer is yes.
I will point out that a discretionary ban is very different from a normal suspension. When we move to discretionary ban, we're making a statement of 'we don't think this user's benefit to the site outweighs their detriment, and they have made it clear to us they don't ever intend to change this. They damage the site by their presence, so we need to remove them." This is definitely based on actual contribution, so it is taken into account.
A suspension is more or less a time out. It's a statement of 'you need to take some time to cool off/read the rules, we'll see you soon.' It has little to do with contribution and more to do with you breaking the rules.
To use the OP's example, I'd be inclined to do a discretionary ban over a user that has 4 suspensions in 4 months and doesn't contribute much. But the multi-year member who flames out about once a year but is otherwise amazing and a model member? I'd likely be arguing for them to stay on and be talked to, possibly with a talk with them to fix their behavior.
They are given the same treatment as the both broke rules that lead to suspension.
There would be massive calls of bias if such things were allowed.
From what I've seen, there are a lot of calls both for more discretionary leniency and for more consistency in mod actions. However, those are almost impossible to set up so as not to be mutually exclusive, and any system that does balance them is going to be too complicated for its own good.
I completely understand the issues of consistency, and honestly, I'm one of the guys calling for more consistency anyway. I just look at two posters who are very much like my examples and can't understand how they get the same treatment.
I mean, we could make an analogy to actual laws. No matter a person's social status, he should still serve the time for burglary if he commits it. That's reasonable. Same crime, same punishment.
But that's not the most accurate analogy for a place like this. We're more like a gated community with a few rules on presentation. Mr. Z is an upstanding member of the community who's been contributing and makes the whole neighborhood look pretty nice. Sometimes he gets drunk, though, so we give him a curfew for a few weeks at a time. Then there's Mr. W, who just moved in, we don't see him often, but when we do, he's always drunk.
I guess I'm not asking to be more lenient with Mr. Z. I'm asking "why don't we kick out the obvious problems?"
Someone's cumulative post quality should be considered, not number of posts. Someone with a high posts per day is probably just posting absolute garbage. But someone who is one of the best members of the forum calls someone a ****ing idiot? Some leniency should exist. On the other hand, though, if someone is a nonstop terrible poster, they should get the book thrown at them for a missed piece of punctuation
I see what you did there.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"[Screw] you and the green you ramped in on." - My EDH battle cry. If I had one. Which I don't.
This may not be the correct place for this, but as a person who has previously been banned from the site (woops) here is my insight.
I think it would be a good idea for returning banned and suspended users to have to take a test before re-admittance to the forums.
A series of questions that wouldn't be too hard to come up with, and the answers all lie within the forum rules.
Therefore, anyone who wants re-admittance to the forum HAS to have read the rules.
(or is great at using ctrl+f)
Either way, after a couple of tests said user should know the important rules off by heart, at which point, there should be less leniency.
I fail to see what this accomplishes.
It feels just like a capcha, just proves they aren't a robot.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
News and spoiler contributor for GatheringMagic.com
The implication of all these might appear that we are going easy on people now, but really it's an attempt to re-caliber the rules so we can prevent problems where we can, cut people off where there are big problems, and better educate on the low end of the infraction spectrum.
But, people don't see that. They see our on-going work-in-progress issues - which is understandable.
The real reason they are given the same treatment is because it's easier. No need to investigate, the evidence of the deed is right in front of you, and context doesn't matter as much in the public eye.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you don't wear your seatbelt, the police will shoot you in the head."
- To my youngest sister when she was 6.
Everyone knows that good luck and good game are such insincere terms that any man who does not connect his right hook with the offender's jaw on the very utterance of such a phrase is no man I would consider as such.
Well it accomplishes the fact that they'd forcibly have to actually read the rules.
You could have it on a tiered system where a first time suspendee gets "simple" questions based on the forums rules.
A second time gets more in depth questions.
3+ suspensions get very in depth questions that would require an in depth knowledge of the rules, which they should have after being forced to read them through 3+ times.
It would act more as a deterrent really. People knowing that they'd actually have to put effort into it if they get themselves suspended. And people hate effort.
People don't get suspended or banned because they "didn't know the rules".
They chose to break the rules.
Knowing the rules only lets people exploit (the many) loopholes and grey areas within them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
News and spoiler contributor for GatheringMagic.com
I don't want a two tier infraction system based on length of time here, post count, friends in high places etc. There are already enough threads about mod bias regardless of which mods have been in power.
We have an ever changing set of rules (as Galspanic pointed out) where the staff try to place the good of the site over any individual users needs. Sometimes, these rules need tweaking because they don't work well once they are applied.
We will never satisfy the needs of all users at all times, the best we can do is hope to find a ratio that is acceptable to most users. More than anything, I want to see a system that is fair to all users, consistent in it's application, allows for moderator discretion when needed AND is RESPECTED by our user base.
That is certainly not true, otherwise I was never suspended.
Infractions like yours are not known to everyone. Solicitation, proxies, etc are things that are allowed on other forums and real life but are not here. I suspect he was more talking about the suspensions triggered by 3 active infractions.
(I just looked at your appeal... It was in a week long period that some call the worst week in MTGS history. There isn't really a good excuse for it, but I am sorry that it got lost in the fray. Your appeal being forgotten about is not the norm. :()
I don't want a two tier infraction system based on length of time here, post count, friends in high places etc. There are already enough threads about mod bias regardless of which mods have been in power.
We have an ever changing set of rules (as Galspanic pointed out) where the staff try to place the good of the site over any individual users needs. Sometimes, these rules need tweaking because they don't work well once they are applied.
We will never satisfy the needs of all users at all times, the best we can do is hope to find a ratio that is acceptable to most users. More than anything, I want to see a system that is fair to all users, consistent in it's application, allows for moderator discretion when needed AND is RESPECTED by our user base.
That....... is a tall order indeed
Disallow threads whining about mods, problem solved.
Mr. Wigwam is a lurker who rarely posts in the Limited forums. He's been active for half of a year with a total of only 300 posts.
At the risk of seeming like a "Mr. Wigwam," 300 posts in 6 months is most definitely NOT lurking. That's almost 2 posts a day for 6 months. A better example would be 10 or 20 posts in 6 months.
300 posts in 6 months is not as active as some but it is definitely not lurking.
At the risk of seeming like a "Mr. Wigwam," 300 posts in 6 months is most definitely NOT lurking. That's almost 2 posts a day for 6 months. A better example would be 10 or 20 posts in 6 months.
300 posts in 6 months is not as active as some but it is definitely not lurking.
Please continue your discussion.
The poster that inspired my Mr. Wigwam example is much more a lurker than the 300 pots in 6 months would seem, because it's not really 2 posts per day. It's about 40 posts per day while he's posting.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"[Screw] you and the green you ramped in on." - My EDH battle cry. If I had one. Which I don't.
2000-2999 posts suspension in 2 infractions
3000+ posts each infraction is an auto suspension for 1 week.
Well, I don't think any of us are looking for ways to make suspensions easier to trigger - more that we want to be able to deal with problem users appropriately. I suspect this is the "you should know the rules" tiered system here, but I think there is still an acceptable rate of non-desirable behavior from everyone.
Also, that looks like a book keeping nightmare right now. It also would trigger if a veteran user posts "I want your Shivan Dragon" in a trade thread, which isn't really all that detrimental to the forum.
Disallow threads whining about mods, problem solved.
Hope you will distinguish between whining and legitimate complaints/complaining. [hint: whining is a form of complaining, but not all complaining is whining, one time where it is not logically symmetrical]. Een so, sometimes mods DO act unreasonably, or trends of issues do pop up in general - and that should be brought up to the community albeit in a calm, and polite manner.
Allow me to fabricate two examples to illustrate my point.
Mr. Zwillinger is a frequent poster in the Legacy forums. He's been active over a year with a total of 7,000 posts and is a competitive player who provides advice to other forum members. Occasionally his temper gets the best of him and he flames out on a few people. He gets three suspensions over his year, each for one week longer than the last.
Mr. Wigwam is a lurker who rarely posts in the Limited forums. He's been active for half of a year with a total of only 300 posts. He does have a habit of trolling other posters, though, and also has three suspensions in his six months, each for one week longer than the last.
Why are these two posters given the same treatment?
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
I think that there is something to be said for the length of the suspension though - if, hypothetically speaking, four years ago, I was a bit of a troublemaker (I was, after all, 17 and raging against every authority I could find :P) and earned three suspensions back then, and now, four years later, I go on a hot streak because I got laid off, and get a suspension. Is it really fair that my behavior from four years ago is held against me and will lead to my taking an extra three week vacation from this site? Dunno. Maybe not, but I couldn't tell you with certainty.
With that said, ER's response here does suggest that at least in some sense, activity and duration do play a role with the larger suspensions and what comes of them. It's far more likely, from what I can tell, that the poster who earns several suspensions consecutively, or who posts nothing but spam and flames, gets shown the door where the active member who contributes a lot, but who also can be a bit hot headed at times, does not receive a ban. Yes, most suspensions are either due to the auto-suspension offenses or by the three infractions rule. This doesn't mean that the poster who thinks that site policy should be abused to troll without consequence gets away with it.
Went to a new shop from a friend's recommendation, DQ'ed for willful violation of CR 100.6b.
Have played duals? I have PucaPoints for them!
(Credit to DarkNightCavalier)
$tandard: Too poor.
Modern:
- GW Birthing Pod(?)
Legacy:
- UWR Delver
And KCW is right, it's the content, not the number. Quality over Quantity and all that jazz. But, again, we simply can't be lenient to one person and not another about something so subjective.
My helpdesk should you need me.
Now, correct me if I'm mistaken though, but policy does allow that the relative time between suspensions and overall quality of posts can be used to a person's benefit when a decision is made whether a 4th (or more) suspension will be replaced by a discretionary ban?
Went to a new shop from a friend's recommendation, DQ'ed for willful violation of CR 100.6b.
Have played duals? I have PucaPoints for them!
(Credit to DarkNightCavalier)
$tandard: Too poor.
Modern:
- GW Birthing Pod(?)
Legacy:
- UWR Delver
I will point out that a discretionary ban is very different from a normal suspension. When we move to discretionary ban, we're making a statement of 'we don't think this user's benefit to the site outweighs their detriment, and they have made it clear to us they don't ever intend to change this. They damage the site by their presence, so we need to remove them." This is definitely based on actual contribution, so it is taken into account.
A suspension is more or less a time out. It's a statement of 'you need to take some time to cool off/read the rules, we'll see you soon.' It has little to do with contribution and more to do with you breaking the rules.
To use the OP's example, I'd be inclined to do a discretionary ban over a user that has 4 suspensions in 4 months and doesn't contribute much. But the multi-year member who flames out about once a year but is otherwise amazing and a model member? I'd likely be arguing for them to stay on and be talked to, possibly with a talk with them to fix their behavior.
My helpdesk should you need me.
From what I've seen, there are a lot of calls both for more discretionary leniency and for more consistency in mod actions. However, those are almost impossible to set up so as not to be mutually exclusive, and any system that does balance them is going to be too complicated for its own good.
I mean, we could make an analogy to actual laws. No matter a person's social status, he should still serve the time for burglary if he commits it. That's reasonable. Same crime, same punishment.
But that's not the most accurate analogy for a place like this. We're more like a gated community with a few rules on presentation. Mr. Z is an upstanding member of the community who's been contributing and makes the whole neighborhood look pretty nice. Sometimes he gets drunk, though, so we give him a curfew for a few weeks at a time. Then there's Mr. W, who just moved in, we don't see him often, but when we do, he's always drunk.
I guess I'm not asking to be more lenient with Mr. Z. I'm asking "why don't we kick out the obvious problems?"
I see what you did there.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
I fail to see what this accomplishes.
It feels just like a capcha, just proves they aren't a robot.
Twitter
It's not really visible to most people, but there has been a shift towards this.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=9945014&postcount=192
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=9741150&postcount=186
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=9669114&postcount=181
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=9584118&postcount=177
And even this one to prevent minor things from happening since we could easily keep people from getting infractions with a software hack:
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=9252023&postcount=156
The implication of all these might appear that we are going easy on people now, but really it's an attempt to re-caliber the rules so we can prevent problems where we can, cut people off where there are big problems, and better educate on the low end of the infraction spectrum.
But, people don't see that. They see our on-going work-in-progress issues - which is understandable.
WUBRGPauper Battle BoxWUBRG ... and why I am not a fan of Wayne Reynolds' Illustrations.
- To my youngest sister when she was 6.
People don't get suspended or banned because they "didn't know the rules".
They chose to break the rules.
Knowing the rules only lets people exploit (the many) loopholes and grey areas within them.
Twitter
We have an ever changing set of rules (as Galspanic pointed out) where the staff try to place the good of the site over any individual users needs. Sometimes, these rules need tweaking because they don't work well once they are applied.
We will never satisfy the needs of all users at all times, the best we can do is hope to find a ratio that is acceptable to most users. More than anything, I want to see a system that is fair to all users, consistent in it's application, allows for moderator discretion when needed AND is RESPECTED by our user base.
That....... is a tall order indeed
Infractions like yours are not known to everyone. Solicitation, proxies, etc are things that are allowed on other forums and real life but are not here. I suspect he was more talking about the suspensions triggered by 3 active infractions.
(I just looked at your appeal... It was in a week long period that some call the worst week in MTGS history. There isn't really a good excuse for it, but I am sorry that it got lost in the fray. Your appeal being forgotten about is not the norm. :()
WUBRGPauper Battle BoxWUBRG ... and why I am not a fan of Wayne Reynolds' Illustrations.
WUBRGPauper Battle BoxWUBRG ... and why I am not a fan of Wayne Reynolds' Illustrations.
Disallow threads whining about mods, problem solved.
At the risk of seeming like a "Mr. Wigwam," 300 posts in 6 months is most definitely NOT lurking. That's almost 2 posts a day for 6 months. A better example would be 10 or 20 posts in 6 months.
300 posts in 6 months is not as active as some but it is definitely not lurking.
Please continue your discussion.
The poster that inspired my Mr. Wigwam example is much more a lurker than the 300 pots in 6 months would seem, because it's not really 2 posts per day. It's about 40 posts per day while he's posting.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
3000+ posts each infraction is an auto suspension for 1 week.
Well, I don't think any of us are looking for ways to make suspensions easier to trigger - more that we want to be able to deal with problem users appropriately. I suspect this is the "you should know the rules" tiered system here, but I think there is still an acceptable rate of non-desirable behavior from everyone.
Also, that looks like a book keeping nightmare right now. It also would trigger if a veteran user posts "I want your Shivan Dragon" in a trade thread, which isn't really all that detrimental to the forum.
WUBRGPauper Battle BoxWUBRG ... and why I am not a fan of Wayne Reynolds' Illustrations.
Hope you will distinguish between whining and legitimate complaints/complaining. [hint: whining is a form of complaining, but not all complaining is whining, one time where it is not logically symmetrical]. Een so, sometimes mods DO act unreasonably, or trends of issues do pop up in general - and that should be brought up to the community albeit in a calm, and polite manner.