Wild Wild West - Part 2

Originally Posted by bsharrah

Considering the warning point system that is in place, or will be, I would assume someone capable of applying warning points could only do so when the above mentioned infractions occur, and not just because it is fun for them to do so (as with the karma system). Would the system require the points given to also note the post in which the violation occurred? In other words, would the person have to quote the post for which the points were given (as it does now)? Also, say the points were given for profanity, and a paid member issued the warning points for the offense, can other paid members still apply points for the same offense?

From what I can see, if the person giving the warning is required to identify the post in question, others can not give additional warnings for an offense that has already been identified and had points already issued, and the violations for which points can be issued are clearly identified and not open to whatever anyone wants to make up, then I do not see a lot of room for abuse.

Let the fun begin!

Bart

Thats a good question actually. Im curious to see rich's answer to this one as well... This would pretty much stop the ganging up thing from taking place in the first place.

Spamming 1
Shotgun style advertising 1


I think those types of violations are pretty straight forward and not wanted here therefore should be a higher number... the site has been getting hit with some spammers lately.

Adrian

Originally Posted by bsharrah

Also, will there be a system of review for misuse? For example, will mods be able to remove warning points when points are issued and the violation is vague (i.e., I am issued points for profanity because I say "crap")?

Just something to consider.

Bart

Bart,
It seems to me that this would put the onus right back on the shoulders of the mods. If it were possible to appeal, wouldn't everyone do so just to see if they could get their sentence removed?

Originally Posted by Mike Greathouse

For example, Antagonism towards moderator should carry a harsher punishment then the same behavior towards another member.

Mods are people too, and prone to the same mistakes. Might as well be prone to the same attacks, no? J/K
I actually agree with you, but I've also seen where some mods might be just as guilty. Maybe they should get zapped for more points because they are supposed to be role models??? It would be awful hard to implement a system that would know the difference. Or else, it would require a lot of moderation.

I too think this is going to be pretty interesting. How long before you think it may happen?


Rick

Originally Posted by Mike Greathouse

I think the upper range should be 5 points instead of 4, to allow for certain offenses to carry a more dramatic punishment.

For example, Antagonism towards moderator should carry a harsher punishment then the same behavior towards another member.

Also, some of the very basic infractions, such as:
can easily be done by mistake and are not always an intentional act.
These are also common mistakes made by new members.
While assessing 1 point for these is reasonable, intentional acts that are meant to disrupt, should carry a larger point value.

There might also be a category for "Obvious Trolling" unless you incorporate it within one of the other categories.

Regardless of the effectiveness of this, it should prove very interesting to watch.

Well, that depends. Bear in mind that some warning points may be more glaring than others, and as such, will get more compounding points applied to the member as others take offense at the posting. Remember that the warning points that any member can apply will also be weighted by their membership status here. Obviously site moderators and admins will be weighted pretty heavily, and in the case you bring up, would likely chime in under that sort of circumstance.

As for issues which could be simple mistakes, I am hoping for the best from the members here to be able to deduce errors from malicious intent. Remember that the limit to getting fined and suspended will be pretty high, so any such trivial applications of the warning system will have no real effect on that member. Well, perhaps some ruffled feathers, but that can't be helped too much. Maybe if I could think of a "kinder and gentler" name to replace "warning" it would be easier to swallow for those people getting incensed at having a WARNING POINT on their record.

I actually had a warning point level for "obvious trolling", but turns out it's not as obvious as it may seem to everyone. Again, this is a matter of being a rule that would be difficult to enforce and subject to interpretation more than most are. Many people tend to use "troll" in a derogatory sense anyway, so allowing a warning point to be used in a derogatory fashion may not be in the best interests of what I am trying to do here. As much as possible, I'm trying to use "black and white" rules whenever possible. In some cases that cannot be achieved, but I'm trying my best to do it that way.

Originally Posted by lucille

Bart,
It seems to me that this would put the onus right back on the shoulders of the mods. If it were possible to appeal, wouldn't everyone do so just to see if they could get their sentence removed?

Good point. I guess what I meant was whether or not warning points could be removed if inappropriately assigned. Not necessarily an appeal system which would become extremely overwhelming for anyone to deal with.

Bart

Originally Posted by Mooing Tricycle

Wow, what a wonderful idea!! I know you took away the Paid Partcipant membership, but do we have any say at all in the warning point feature as well? or will i have to bump up my account to the next level in order to do this? ive no problems doing this, but it would be sweet to not have to. Maybe something you can take into consideration?

Seriously Rich, this is a GREAT idea.

Sorry, but no. For all intents and purposes, the Participant level membership has been discontinued and I no longer take it into account with any changes I consider here. That membership level was set up SOLELY to make the paid requirement to post on the BOI more palatable to people. Since that requirement has ended, so has the need and complication for that additional membership level.

Sorry........

You could call them Pressure points.

Originally Posted by bsharrah

Considering the warning point system that is in place, or will be, I would assume someone capable of applying warning points could only do so when the above mentioned infractions occur, and not just because it is fun for them to do so (as with the karma system). Would the system require the points given to also note the post in which the violation occurred? In other words, would the person have to quote the post for which the points were given (as it does now)? Also, say the points were given for profanity, and a paid member issued the warning points for the offense, can other paid members still apply points for the same offense?

From what I can see, if the person giving the warning is required to identify the post in question, others can not give additional warnings for an offense that has already been identified and had points already issued, and the violations for which points can be issued are clearly identified and not open to whatever anyone wants to make up, then I do not see a lot of room for abuse.

Let the fun begin!

Bart

The warning system has in place the capability to reference the post that the warning point applies to. So too does it label who that warning point was issued FROM. And yes, the TYPE of warning is also clearly indicated in the log as well.

As for multiple warning hits on a single post, yes, that was implicit in the design of this system. The reason for this is because there will likely be cases of someone making a post offensive to MANY people. In this case, I think it behooves us all that those MANY people be able to express their displeasure with that particular posting.

Originally Posted by bsharrah

Also, will there be a system of review for misuse? For example, will mods be able to remove warning points when points are issued and the violation is vague (i.e., I am issued points for profanity because I say "crap")?

Just something to consider.

Bart

Actually the only one who can rescind warning points will be myself. And quite honestly, I am not inclined to spend a lot of time doing that. If you make a mistake, then you have to live with those consequences that may be forthcoming. I suggest everyone take care in how they use the system. I am certain, any abuse of the system will get the abused slammed with a bevy of "Warning system abuse" points for their efforts....