Warning Points System Mod

OK, since my other thread got way off track concerning the warning points and the point levels each should have, I separated some of the wheat in that thread from the overwhelming bulk of chaff (I think, but I'm not about to wade through that entire thread again), and set up the warning points like this:



This is not set in stone and can be modified at any time the situation seems to warrant it. But generally anyone who might think they are going to run afoul of the rules or anyone thinking about enforcing them, really should review this list as often as they think it is warranted.

Now there is the admin level page for actually setting up this system for various and sundry membership levels to be able to utilize it.

Here's what I have to work with when setting up some of the optionals in this program:



Some of the settings should be pretty self explanatory, but I'll go over a few that aren't quite self evident and are relevant to discussion here. Just bear in mind that these settings CAN be changed on the fly as conditions appear to warrant it.

For reference, you will need to know what the numeric member groups actually stand for:

• 2 - Registered
• 5 - Super Moderator
• 6 - Administrator
• 7 - Moderator
• 14 - Contributor
• 21 - Benefactor
• 22 - Endowment

• Maximum Ban Limit - This will be the warning point limit that triggers a fine and suspension for the member who accumulates that number of warning points.
  
• Banned by Warnings Group - That is the user group that a member is transferred to upon being fined and suspended. That user group basically has zero privileges here.
  
• No Warning Usergroups - This is the member group listing of groups that no one can assess warning points for.
  
• Can See Warnings Levels - These member groups can view the page showing the warnings and warning levels on the page at the top of this post.
  
• Can View Warnings - These member groups can see the warning levels assessed for each member as shown in their user profile page or indicated in the profile section of each post they make.
  
• Can Issue Warnings - The default member groups for issuing warning points that is independent of the setting for additional member groups via the switch later on in this page.
  
• Fee to pay when suspended - The fine amount due upon getting suspended in order to lift the suspension.
  
• Paying Fee Clears Past Warnings? - This setting will clear all current warning points when a member gets suspended. Basically clears the deck for the next round if the member elects to return to this site. ALL warning points are kept in a history file for each member as a reference, which is NOT cleared.
  
• Fined User Always Returns to Registered Group? - This setting, if needed, can clear a member's paid memberships if they pay the fine to come back. This is set to OFF, as I couldn't see much utility in this one.
  
• Decrease Reputation upon Banning? - Upon being fined and suspended, the suspended member can have negative karma points assessed to their account. Although this doesn't carry much weight with a lot of people, it does provide a bit more incentive to some to take note of the rules and try to avoid getting suspended.
  
• Members Issue warnings Hack On? - This is the ON/OFF switch to grant warning system use powers to additional member groups. These member groups are ADDED to the member groups indicated above in the Can Issue Warnings section.
  
• Normal Member Usergroups who can issue warnings - This is the listing of member groups that the above setting will enable to be able to use the warning system.
  
• Daily Warning click limit for members - Each qualified member can ONLY issue this maximum number of warning points in a 24 hour period. At this point I do not know if it is 24 hours from the first one you warn, or within a 12am to 12pm period of time.
  
• Warning member spread - This is the setting to control how many times each member can assess warning points to ANY other member within 24 hours. Same caveat as above....

This system is also set up to allow weighted warnings from any member group who is allowed to issue warning points. At the current time, I kept if very simple. Benefactor members will have a weight of x1 and all others will have a factor of x2.

A member can received multiple warnings for the same offense. In some respects this may not be fair, but in others it may be MORE than fair. "Fairness" just cannot be programmed into this aspect of the system. YOU will have to use your best judgment in such matters if you choose to use this system. You can view anyone's warning point level, including a link to any post receiving a warning point, to determine if YOU choose to issue a duplicate warning point or not. Your choosing to do so will not be considered as abuse.

The date and time scheduled for implementation of this program (effectively just flipping the switch on the option in the admin panel) is HIGH NOON on Sunday, 01/21/07.

This file will be edited as needed when conditions change.

All righty then, I'm game.... I'll open this up for discussion but ONLY about the mechanics of the warning points themselves and the settings. Any posts made about the pros and cons of the system in general, or otherwise getting into a "let's bash Rich" frame of mind will simply be deleted. THIS thread is going to stay on topic.

Rich,

Two questions. First, are you going to zero everyone out when the new system starts? And second, approximately how many users are in User Groups 21 and 22?

Spam has no place on any site. It should be a much higher number so that they can be dinged to the fullest effect.

Adrian

Just a thought Rich but maybe lower the number of warnings that a person can give out per day... Sort of like the Karma system is now, you have to choose wisely so as not to waste it before you really need it... Randy

WebSlave said:

[*]No Warning Usergroups - This is the member group listing of groups that no one can assess warning points for.
The list or member groups is as follows:

• 2 - Registered
• 5 - Super Moderator
• 6 - Administrator
• 7 - Moderator
• 14 - Contributor
• 21 - Benefactor
• 22 - Endowment

Click to expand...

I may be reading that chunk wrong, but... if no warning points can be assessed to the listed groups, what's left? Unregistered members? Isn't that list covering everyone from those who can come up with a hotmail account and username to your current mod team?

I may just have the wrong terms here, but I thought that "registered" happened with the selection of a login name and the email verification- free members. Then you have your ranks of paying members and your staff... Is the cuttoff really supposed to be where it seems to be?

If my understanding of the named membergroups is correct, then "registered" doesn't belong in there and probably the paying member levels too unless you want them all to be completely immune from being hit for points. I'm not too sure how you've got the moderator system and levels set up, but would "moderator" just be those people who were supposed to generate discussions in some of the underused forums? They supposed to be immune from being hit for points or was that another oversight?

I'm thinking that should probably only be member groups five and six with the immunity from community warnings.

Seamus Haley said:

I may be reading that chunk wrong, but... if no warning points can be assessed to the listed groups, what's left? Unregistered members? Isn't that list covering everyone from those who can come up with a hotmail account and username to your current mod team?

I may just have the wrong terms here, but I thought that "registered" happened with the selection of a login name and the email verification- free members. Then you have your ranks of paying members and your staff... Is the cuttoff really supposed to be where it seems to be?

If my understanding of the named membergroups is correct, then "registered" doesn't belong in there and probably the paying member levels too unless you want them all to be completely immune from being hit for points. I'm not too sure how you've got the moderator system and levels set up, but would "moderator" just be those people who were supposed to generate discussions in some of the underused forums? They supposed to be immune from being hit for points or was that another oversight?

I'm thinking that should probably only be member groups five and six with the immunity from community warnings.

Click to expand...

Achhh... Poor planning on my part. I knew I needed to put a list of the member groups so people will know what the numbers stand for, and just happened to think of it at that moment. In actuality, you need to refer to the actual screen shot of that admin page to figure out which member groups are in this "protected" status. Sorry about the confusion. I'll edit that section so it makes more sense....

Edit - and for the record there are NO members at the moment in group number 7. The forum moderators are not in a separate member group...

Wraith said:

Spam has no place on any site. It should be a much higher number so that they can be dinged to the fullest effect.
Adrian

Click to expand...

While I do agree with this to the fullest extent in the spirit of the comment, that warning point wasn't really intended for the actual spammers. It was more aimed at members who advertise their products inappropriately or practice shot gun style advertising.
They're spamming in a technical sense, but only because they're posting the same list of reptiles for sale in many different classified or discussion sections.

The real spammers, the ones who register just to post 5 or 6 ads containing a long list of cell phones or whatever are the spammers I believe you are referring to, and they are the ones I loathe with every fiber of my being.
While I personally feel that posting an ad of that nature should carry an instant 500 point warning and ban, the fact is it will be irrelevant in the end because that person (assuming it wasn't just a bot in the first place), never had any intention on returning to this site with that username again anyway, so the ban will be no incentive not to post.

I don't really think that someone who posts the same reptile ad to 5 different sections should be treated with nearly as heavy a hand as the real spammers. While annoying, shotgun style advertising isn't an issue that needs the strictest dicipline.

Jim O said:

Rich,

Two questions. First, are you going to zero everyone out when the new system starts? And second, approximately how many users are in User Groups 21 and 22?

Click to expand...

No. Because the level of fine and suspension is so high, any current warning points will be of little consequence to the entire total needed for that event to happen.

I counted up that number the other day. I think it is around 30 to 40 or so in those two groups.

Wraith said:

Spam has no place on any site. It should be a much higher number so that they can be dinged to the fullest effect.

Adrian

Click to expand...

That is really an administrative function where someone registers on this site SOLELY to post spam. The procedure is to delete all their spam messages, then either delete their account or ban them, depending on their email address. When possible the email address itself is banned from further registrations.

For the warnings system, this is primarily targeted for those members who might say, post a classified ad in a discussion forum, or something of that nature. They probably just need some guidance with what is acceptable here, which is what the warning system is really for.

ravensgait said:

Just a thought Rich but maybe lower the number of warnings that a person can give out per day... Sort of like the Karma system is now, you have to choose wisely so as not to waste it before you really need it... Randy

Click to expand...

Well, my reasoning behind this is that with less than 50 people (at this point) capable of using the warning system, the chances of abuse AGAINST any one member is greatly diminished. That is really what I had that option programmed in for, but currently I don't think it will be that big of a problem, under the circumstances. Someone being diligent MAY actually be able to find 10 legitimate warnings to place in a day's time, but I think they would be really pushing it. Of course, someone being over zealous in such a pursuit could actually be a problem as well, in which case, yes, I will have to reduce that number to compensate.

The warning system is kind of a real time guidance system for moderators and others to use to guide members into following the rules. Often times, the quicker the warnings are used, the sooner someone will recognize what is expected of them. Giving someone the capability of ONLY using two warnings in a 24 hour period may limit them unduly to where they will delay giving the points until that period has almost elapsed. In the meantime, someone violating the rules could have made dozens of further posts that are also in violation of the rules, not realizing that it is unacceptable behavior. For instance, some really active threads on the BOI could have a hundred posts or more made within that timeframe, nearly all of them placed under heated circumstances. It would be MUCH better to catch things early on, I think.

WebSlave said:

Someone being diligent MAY actually be able to find 10 legitimate warnings to place in a day's time, but I think they would be really pushing it.

...

In the meantime, someone violating the rules could have made dozens of further posts that are also in violation of the rules, not realizing that it is unacceptable behavior.

Click to expand...

There's always the oddball who decides to respond to a warning by immediately generating more of the same warning too... Seen it more than a few times, individuals that seem to really believe that just a little more abusive profanity will somehow cow the moderators into retracting all those earlier abusive profanity warning points. Not entirely sure how the logic works but it's a common enough behavior to warrant leaving the warnings open ended.

WebSlave said:

I counted up that number the other day. I think it is around 30 to 40 or so in those two groups.

Click to expand...

OK, so let's assume that each of those averages five visits per week to the site (some rarely come, some are here every day) and of those, two thirds actually bother to use the system with any regularity. I don't see a lot of Colt 45's around under those assumptions. You will either need a larger posse or bigger bullets to have any real effect, unless people are willing to fork over $100 for the privilege. When you consider that a dozen or so of those 30-40 were upgraded by virtue of their moderator status here, I doubt that many will be willing to do so (though I could be wrong).

Well, if I remember right I think mine is up in March. I will be more than glad to pay my $100.00 right now. Will that work Rich, or do I need to wait until it gets closer to ending?

Jim O said:

When you consider that a dozen or so of those 30-40 were upgraded by virtue of their moderator status here, I doubt that many will be willing to do so (though I could be wrong).

Click to expand...

I paid in full for the Endowment Membership that just expired, beforehand. I already gave my word to Rich that I would renew it before this whole topic even came about. I will keep my word and renew my membership within my own timeframe. This topic has little consequence to that.

Jim O said:

OK, so let's assume that each of those averages five visits per week to the site (some rarely come, some are here every day) and of those, two thirds actually bother to use the system with any regularity. I don't see a lot of Colt 45's around under those assumptions. You will either need a larger posse or bigger bullets to have any real effect, unless people are willing to fork over $100 for the privilege. When you consider that a dozen or so of those 30-40 were upgraded by virtue of their moderator status here, I doubt that many will be willing to do so (though I could be wrong).

Click to expand...

How will that be any worse than the 3 moderators and myself who were sporadically manning the warning points previously?

Let's say there are really only 20 members who CAN utilize the warning points. With 10 each "bullets" in their guns, that is a total of 200 potential rule infractions that could possibly be caught and the poster alerted about. Personally I don't read a fraction of the posts myself, and I seriously doubt the site moderators can do any better with their own time constraints. So if even ONE member pitches in, even one warning put to good cause will be better than NONE, don't you think?

Just to make things clear here, this conversation is ABOUT the settings I have listed in the first post. I will not allow this thread to go down the road that the last one did. So if the intent here is to further discuss the whys and whats of this system in general, this is just not open to discussion. If anyone has any questions about those topics, you are requested to check THAT particular thread for details.... (http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94060)

Will there be a place for comments to be left like with the other warning point system? Like the other system, will it be visible for all to see who left the warning and the comments?

Oh yeah, how about warning points for trolling?

"Obvious trolling"....

Yep, I think that needs to be on there.

DAND said:

Will there be a place for comments to be left like with the other warning point system? Like the other system, will it be visible for all to see who left the warning and the comments?

Click to expand...

Yes. Whenever someone assesses warning points, there is a prompt for an optional comment to elaborate on why the warning point was placed. And I have this set to be visible to everyone that is within those membership groups shown in the admin page screen shot.