Infraction system changes

[Pi Mu Rho]

Hello!

By now, most of you will be used to the infraction system. Points are given for each transgression, and bans are automatically placed when you acquire 15 points.

So the good news is that we're increasing the amount of points required for a ban to 20.

The bad news is that there are now penalties that will be applied to your account for lower infraction point levels. These are as follows:

5 points: No signature, no avatar, no permission to edit profile.

10 points: As above, but also no permission to post new threads.

15 points: As above, but also no permission to reply to existing threads.

20 points: BAN

Additionally, you will need to be logged in to see the Off-topic forums.

So, be warned. Some of you are already within the points threshold, and the penalties will be automatically applied.

Feel free to ask questions/post comments. The system is somewhat flexible at this stage, and I'm open to suggestions to improve it.

 

[Rizzo]

Does 5 point reset your profile to defult, or does it just lock the editing option, and you keep what already is?
Also, what's the difference between having 15 points and being banned? It sounds like it's the same?

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

5 points just removes your permission to edit it, so it's locked in whatever its current state is.

At 15 points, you can still log in, PM etc.

 

[Solaris]

When you're banned you can't read threads unless you delete your cookies.

 

[The Monkey]

So the only difference between 15 and 20 points is the ability to send PMs?

 

[15357]

Infractions actually have consequences now, heh.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

So the only difference between 15 and 20 points is the ability to send PMs?

and the ability to log in, track threads etc.

 

[Tyguy]

north korea called, they want their infraction system back

 

[Darkside55]

You might as well just keep being banned at 15 points, because being I doubt anybody really gives a shit about being able to log in and send PMs. There's no point to being able to log in and not post; you can read threads logged out.

Also, no search ability? What's the reasoning behind that? Most people don't make good use of the search feature as is; there should be NO reason to restrict the use of that feature.

Also, "No signature, no permission to edit profile"...come on, are you just throwing things out for the sake of having penalties? "Oh no I'm going to lose the ability to edit shit that nobody reads and I won't have my four-or-less lines of crap that most people also don't give a shit about." Is that actually supposed to be a deterrent?

This whole change to the system is basically, "Hey, under the guise of leniency we're going to increase the number of points it takes to get banned, but we're going to introduce some arbitrary penalty bullshit for no reason but to fuck with you guys. So WATCH OUT, because you could lose your signatures, lose an underused feature that should always be encouraged rather than slapped on the list of things you'll have taken away, and at 15 points you're still pretty much banned."

The only good idea on there is losing the ability to post new threads.

The rest is shit.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

Er, no? Under the guise of leniency? What?

The "arbitrary penalty bullshit" is simply because, under the current system, there's no incentive not to reoffend. 5 points? Meaningless, just spam some more. Maybe stop when you hit 10, because another one would get you banned. Wait for the infractions to wear off, then start again.
At worst, it's no worse a system than the current one. If the penalties aren't going to bother you, then it won't make any difference to you, will it?

Also, judging by the reactions to the enforcement of the 4-line signature rule and the ensuing scramble by many people to shorten theirs, they do give a shit about their signatures. Oh, and lack of profile editing also affects avatars. I'm pretty sure that most people are quite attached to theirs. I also stated that it's currently open to suggestion. There's a whole slew of stuff that can be restricted/enforced through the infraction system, and this is just a first pass.

So, thanks for your feedback. It's duly noted, and not particularly surprising.

 

[Darkside55]

What I meant by "under the guise of leniency," was because your post started out:

"Good news, we're increasing the number of points it takes to be banned to 20!

...BUT NOW THERE'S ALL THIS OTHER STUFF YOU HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IF YOU GET EVEN FIVE POINTS."

For that brief line break everyone who read that sentence was thinking, "Oh, that's nice! That means I don't have to worry as much!" And after the break, "Oh what the hell is this." It's letting people know that you're raising the number of points it takes to be banned (that's being lenient), but then you tell them they better watch their butts because even the slightest infraction is going to bone 'em.

Also I think that really, with regard to sigs, people are attached to them but I honestly don't think it will be that much of a deterrent as you might hope. I can see people saying, "Oh, dang, I really lost that funny saying or that link or that spoilered mess of quotes," but then they'll just go right back to posting. The reason people scrambled to fix their sigs is because they didn't want to lose them, yes, but when I think they actually HAVE lost them they won't care enough about it. Honestly, who really scrolls down after their posts to read their own signature? And how many people reading others' posts do more than glance at a sig, especially if it's one that hasn't changed in awhile?

As for avatars, when you say that profile editing affects them, do you mean that their avatars will disappear once they reach 5 points or that they just won't be able to change it? Because if it's the latter, nobody except those who frequently change their avatars will care. That's not the majority of this forum. If it's the former though, I do think that people would like to avoid losing their avatars. (Definitely more than their sigs)

 

[Rizzo]

Well, Im guessing "new posts" falls under the search catagory. And I know alot of people uses that.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

The initial post was just my typical frippery, don't read anything into it. If I really wanted to mess with you, I'd have just turned the system on and left it at that.

Whether any of it is a deterrent or not is going to be a case of wait and see. What is certain, though, is that the current system is not. Did infractions stop you from repeatedly avoiding the swear filter? No.

As for avatars, the idea is to enforce an avatar on the infracted user. I don't believe that this currently works, however. Still, we can always do it manually for now.

 

[The Monkey]

and the ability to log in, track threads etc.

One can track threads logged out too. You only need to clear your cookies.

 

[Darkside55]

Did infractions stop you from repeatedly avoiding the swear filter? No.

Oh Pi, you know nothing is going to stop me from bypassing that filter.

As for avatars, the idea is to enforce an avatar on the infracted user. I don't believe that this currently works, however. Still, we can always do it manually for now.

You know what you should do, you should give people who get to x amount of infractions a shitty avatar. I don't mean something stock, or a blank, or anything like that, I mean something akin to SA's red titles. See 'cause then, they've gotta look at their shitty avatar knowing everyone's laughing at them every time they post, and the shame will prevent them from wanting to get x amount of points again.

 

[MJ12]

Removing the search function is silly. 90% of the time when I use the search function it's to make sure I don't post a redundant thread in a place like Videos, Music, or Movies/Films. There's not much of a point to remove that if one can't even make a thread anyways.


As for removing sig ability, meh, sigs are always ugly. I can't ever remember reading a sig that was longer than four words. They are ugly and take up space. Don't see how one could care.

 

[Tyguy]

You know what you should do, you should give people who get to x amount of infractions a shitty avatar. I don't mean something stock, or a blank, or anything like that, I mean something akin to SA's red titles. See 'cause then, they've gotta look at their shitty avatar knowing everyone's laughing at them every time they post, and the shame will prevent them from wanting to get x amount of points again.

there's no reason we can't have funny punishments...i agree

 

[Bad^Hat]

So um... how does one manage to go from 15 to 20 points?

 

[15357]

So um... how does one manage to go from 15 to 20 points?

I dunno, the worst you could do is PM Pi with swear words directed at his holy person.

 

[Danimal]

I like the shitty avatar idea more than the loss of a sig.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

That, pretty much.

15 points is still, more or less a ban. It's just slightly nicer.
We still have the actual ban at 20 points for spambots, clone accounts etc. Most of you won't get that far.

 

[Acepilotf14]

So, you mislead us by saying 20 points is a ban; but 15 points is still a ban, in reality.

This is silly.

 

[Krynn72]

I'm going to have to agree with the search thing. Seems counter productive because I can't see it resulting in anything other than them making posts asking someone for info they could have searched for... which is what the search system is there to prevent. Its like saying "you can still drive your car, but you can't put gas in it." It just makes things more difficult and annoying on yourself rather than on the punished person, and doesn't really punish them at all.

Other than that, the system seems alright. 15 is essentially a ban, with the ability to bitch at others via pm, so thats not terribly cool. And the first 5 point penalty seems pretty superficial, as darkside suggested. I'd say bump everything down one level.

5 points: No penalties (could have been a legit mistake after all)
10 points: No signature, locked profile (including no posts to your "wall") and no avatar
15 points, no new threads
20: Banned.

No point in letting people PM when they're banned really. All it lets them do it bitch at people. If I am in an argument with someone who gets banned because of the thread, I can forsee them sending nasty PMs to both me and the mod staff. No need for that I don't think. I could see it if you were trying to give them a venue to civilly discuss the ban with the mod who did it, but I don't see that as something that probably happens much.

 

[Baal]

Isn't the inability to edit the personal information in your profile some kind of privacy concern?

 

[Calhoun]

Isn't the inability to edit the personal information in your profile some kind of privacy concern?

You shouldn't provide the information in the first place if it's going to be something you don't want people to know about.

 

[ríomhaire]

Removal of avatar at ten points would make sense I think.

Are people at fifteen points able to post visitor messages on people's profiles?

I notice that ZT is very keen to express how he doesn't care about signatures.

 

[MJ12]

I notice that ZT is very keen to express how he doesn't care about signatures.

Yeah? I still have the ability to make one, I just don't want to.

I prefer not to be ugly. *COUGHH*

 

[Darkside55]

I prefer not to be ugly.

Well it's too late for that.

 

[MJ12]

Well it's too late for that.

YOU HAVE NO VALENTINE.

 

[Nomad]

Well, at least infractions expire, right?

 

[Krynn72]

Yep, after a month I think.

 

[Nomad]

So, if you have 15 infraction points, you're essentially banned for more than a year.

 

[The Monkey]

So, if you have 15 infraction points, you're essentially banned for more than a year.

No, if you get them at the same time they all expire after a month.

 

[Bad^Hat]

So, if you have 15 infraction points, you're essentially banned for more than a year.

The infractions don't expire one point at a time. -_-

 

[Baal]

You shouldn't provide the information in the first place if it's going to be something you don't want people to know about.

Totally agree. I guess I don't really care, I'm just pointing it out since privacy seems to be all the rage these days.

 

[Krynn72]

Yeah, nobody can mistakingly post some private information on the internet. That never happens.

 

[lefty]

oops, accidentally posted my phone number in my profile...

INFRACTION: you have recieved a five point infraction for posting private information. You can no longer edit your profile.

FFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUU-

 

[Stigmata]

I'm going to have to agree with the search thing. Seems counter productive because I can't see it resulting in anything other than them making posts asking someone for info they could have searched for... which is what the search system is there to prevent. Its like saying "you can still drive your car, but you can't put gas in it." It just makes things more difficult and annoying on yourself rather than on the punished person, and doesn't really punish them at all.

Other than that, the system seems alright. 15 is essentially a ban, with the ability to bitch at others via pm, so thats not terribly cool. And the first 5 point penalty seems pretty superficial, as darkside suggested. I'd say bump everything down one level.

5 points: No penalties (could have been a legit mistake after all)
10 points: No signature, locked profile (including no posts to your "wall") and no avatar
15 points, no new threads
20: Banned.

No point in letting people PM when they're banned really. All it lets them do it bitch at people. If I am in an argument with someone who gets banned because of the thread, I can forsee them sending nasty PMs to both me and the mod staff. No need for that I don't think. I could see it if you were trying to give them a venue to civilly discuss the ban with the mod who did it, but I don't see that as something that probably happens much.

Pretty much what I wanted to say.

 

[Viperidae]

Agree on the 'oh noes you can't search thing.' That's dumb and totally counterproductive to people posting decent threads.

How about opening up the parameters for infraction to include longtime members who consistently and unrepentantly refuse to use the search function? Protip: 50% of sarcastic/trollish comments would be gone if there were actually new stuff to comment on and not just HEY GUYS BEST INDIAN ACTION MOVIE SCENE EVER or the 4 million 'Extra extra, I read internet news' threads.

 

[Vegeta897]

Inconveniencing the user seems like an incredibly stupid way to punish them. I can agree with the avatar/sig removal though. Those are privileges, and are a good example of things to take away because they are not necessary in any way to the function of the forum. However, avatars are quite helpful to me when I'm reading posts to easily recognize the poster. Regular members whose avatars I'm accustomed to having them taken away would kind of be their punishment rubbing off on me, which is kinda bleh. But I suppose you're going to tell me I'm being anal at this point.

I'm seeing some flawed logic though...

The "arbitrary penalty bullshit" is simply because, under the current system, there's no incentive not to reoffend. 5 points? Meaningless, just spam some more.

No, not meaningless. It means you're that much closer to a ban. How is it meaningless? That's like saying getting an F on a test is meaningless because it doesn't mean you've failed the class. Or like getting a strike on your diver's license is meaningless because you need 3 to have a real penalty.

Maybe stop when you hit 10, because another one would get you banned. Wait for the infractions to wear off, then start again.

This still applies to your new proposed system... Wait for the punishments to wear off and start again. What's your point?