Wild Wild West - Part 2

WebSlave · Jan 14, 2007

The program I have been hinting at lately is ready to be implemented once I iron out some final details. To give you a heads up on what this is all about, here's a post I made recently in the system mods section to give them a heads up on this:

OK guys, I've been dropping hints here and there about the new wrinkle I was thinking about implementing here, so I'll let you all in on what I have up my sleeve.

Here's a copy of an email that I sent to my programmer a while back showing what I am thinking and the specs I sent him:

A bunch of different complaints and suggestions from my members on that site have come together in my mind as something that might be feasible to
implement. Not sure about the results of such a change, but heck, I'm
willing to experiment. I don't know if you remember the very old computer
game called "Life", where rules were applied to the cells on the screen and
then they were just set into motion to see what the results would be with
the interactions guided by such rules. Pretty interesting exercise on the
computer, and I'm surprised there isn't a more modern version of it being
marketed. More a graphics doodle than anything else, but interesting
nonetheless for showing how minor changes in a configuration can have such
unpredictable results.

Anyway, here's my gameplan. I want to offer qualified (PAID MEMBERS) the capability of assessing warning points to other members. I hear members complaining about other members all of the time, and they basically want ME to do something about it. It's getting to be a pain in the butt hearing such things. So I'm thinking about having the various levels of paid members have the capability of collectively ousting someone who is considered to be a major pain in the butt. Each infraction will be only small numerically, and the
TOTAL required for a Fine and Suspension high enough that it will not be
easy for any small group of malcontents to unfairly boot someone else. And
"booting" is really just a suspension pending payment of a fine, so it's not
like it is a permanent ousting.

Yeah, on one hand I think this is foolhardy, (as probably you do, I would
guess), but on the other hand I think it may be interesting. Maybe even
fun. I'm pretty fed up with some of the petty crap I get from those
members, so maybe a taste of this sort of thing will be instructive. The
retaliatory nature giving warning points spawning such things from the
person who is given those warning points. Lord knows that just about every
warning point I ever gave anyone got me a nastygram from that person.

So let the members themselves police the site. If enough people feel that a
particular member shouldn't be there, then they have the power to do
something about it.

Anyway, here's the specs of the warning system change I have been mulling
over:

(1) The membership type can be selected as to which ones can utilize the
Warning System.

(2) The membership type can be selected as to which ones are IMMUNE to the other users trying to apply Warning Points. *NOTE: Even "immune" memberships will be subject to warning points from the Admin.

I believe the above two are already implemented within the original Warning
System.

(3) Power multiplier for each Membership type (ie: Contributor level = x 1,
Endowment level = x 2, Admin level = x 10) - Or alternatively, some warnings
are only available to certain membership levels.

(4) Daily Warning click limit (how many TOTAL warnings can a member apply to ANYONE within a day)

(5) Warning member spread (How many times can a qualified member apply a
warning point to the SAME user daily)

(6) This will need to be turned ON upon payment of a paid membership
subscription, and turned OFF when that paid membership expires.

(7) Admin option to control whether the Warning Point total for members is
visually displayed or not to any of the levels of memberships.

Click to expand...

Hopefully this pretty much explains it. There will likely be some fine tuning done as feedback from the way people abuse, er use, this system become apparent to me.

But my thinking is that people are complaining about a number of things that maybe if the power is in their own hands, then they will get a taste of what we go through in trying to meet the nearly impossible demands they think should be easy for us to implement. And in a way, my earlier demands for a more credible and more tightly controlled environment was doomed to failure because it was too heavy handed for most people to stomach. With this system, however, it is pretty much a peer pressure (or hanging posse, I guess) sort of situation whereby if a reasonable level of members feel your posts are way out of line here, then they have the POWER to kick you out. It is not my decision and my decision alone, making me the bad guy simply because I am trying to enforce the rules. Quite simply, a reasonable number of qualified (paying members in this context) feel that your actions are unwelcome on this site, and it is THEY acting as a jury who will pass sentence.

Yeah, there can be some drawbacks to this. Top of the head is that it may inhibit people from posting for fear of the warning points. And this may certainly happen at the beginning. Obviously there is a problem in that nonpaying members can be completely at the mercy of the paying members here. So there is some doubt about that outcome. Will the non paying members just leave (as in "stop posting")? Will they become much more careful in how they post? Or will some become paying members to have some self defense at their disposal?

Obviously there will be abuse. And this is an issue I need to think about before this is actually implemented. Which, by the way, is REAL close. My programmer has finished the coding, and I sent him back a list of some refinements to the specs that weren't clear initially. So I need to think of a suitable method to try to limit abuse without causing me more work and grief than before. Possibly the retaliation possibility will be incentive enough to NOT abuse the system. Obviously this will be linked to POSTS only, so such things as PM abuse or even Warning System abuse, will be difficult to apply in such a way that it will be easy to figure out what is abuse, and what is retaliation for a wrong being done. Off hand, I would tend to think that benign neglect until the situation becomes WAY out of line will be best. Let them beat up each other, as our getting in the middle will just turn them upon ourselves anyway.

I'm thinking I need to set the FINE & SUSPENSION level up WAY high enough so that it will be difficult for even a small group of members to gang up on any one individual to get them tossed out. Since I have already put specs in much like the karma system to limit the number of times a person can apply warning points, this coupled with a high threshhold may work, at least somewhat. I think I may want to raise the FINE to something more like $50 as well. If someone gets the 200 or 1000 warning points it takes to get them booted, then $10 just seems way to cheap for a ticket back in. Maybe the sting needs to be a little bit more hurtful.

Anyway, that's it in a nutshell. Certainly I haven't seen all angles, and this may turn out to be just another real bad idea. But I want to try this. Basically I am telling people that if you want this site cleaned up, here's your guns. Now go do it yourselves.....

Now, bear in mind that not all of my specs were implemented exactly as I had requested. The actual limitations and such will be posted when I have everything as best I can get it. At this time, I am working on the list of warning points and values I want to be enforced on this site. I want the list to be short, reasonable, and as little subject to misinterpretation as possible.

So what I am looking for HERE is some feedback on the warning points and NOT on this system in general. This is going to be done.

Now on to the warning points:

Racist/Prejudicial remarks 4
Actual or implied threats 4
Excessive antagonism towards another member 2
Warning system abuse 2
Antagonism towards moderator 2
Spamming 1
Failure to post FULL NAME on BOI [BOI] 1
Inappropriate advertising 1
Shotgun style advertising 1
Posting off topic message 1
Unnecessary roughness 1
Failure to provide SUBJECT NAME in topic line [BOI] 1
Anonymous third party quotation [BOI] 1
Posting BOI topics in other forums 1
Private message abuse 1
Karma abuse 1
Trader rating abuse 1
Profanity 1

Pretty short and sweet, I think. Bear in mind that I am not trying to inhibit the expression of someone's personality that I think will be instructive for people to see in their postings. But sometimes such things can get a bit carried away, and that is then for YOU to decide when that point has been reached. Of course, not everyone will agree with YOUR assessment, just as I have had that problem with MY decisions.

So have I overlooked something that should be a "warnable" offense?

Lucille · Jan 14, 2007

WebSlave said:
Excessive antagonism towards another member 2

It can get pretty down and dirty in the BOI as scammers are called on to account for their misdeeds. I think sometimes that sort of antagonism is appropriate if someone has grievously wronged another.

Hopefully, those who take time to avenge such misdeeds will be seen as ferreting out crime and not frivously antagonistic.

To answer your question about further possible infractions, what do you think of assessing a warning point for those who, like Shrillomn, deliberately hide their true identity?

Seamus Haley · Jan 14, 2007

A grandfather clause of some kind might be appropriate as well. This sounds like a return to a rule set that was put aside, to varying degrees for varying periods of time. The rules and interpretations of six months ago aren't the same as a year ago or three years ago. Implimentation needs to have clean breaks.

Also... I'm not sure this is going to make *fewer* headaches for you, since you'll now have nasty emails being generated arguing every point assigned by a member to a member. I also believe you're being a little overly optimistic in judging the ability of most members to keep things clean, impersonal and non-retaliatory. "Please don't" isn't about to keep *some* of those itching fingers away from what amounts to an "Oh yeah?! I'll show you!" button.

'course I've got the ability to just sit back, pay nothing and walk away from this website again if it takes a direction I don't agree with. It might come down to how it ends up being used- but a pessimist like myself doesn't see any kind of good coming out of this. Inmates, asylums, keys... That kinda thing.

WebSlave · Jan 14, 2007

Seamus Haley said:
A grandfather clause of some kind might be appropriate as well. This sounds like a return to a rule set that was put aside, to varying degrees for varying periods of time. The rules and interpretations of six months ago aren't the same as a year ago or three years ago. Implimentation needs to have clean breaks.

Also... I'm not sure this is going to make *fewer* headaches for you, since you'll now have nasty emails being generated arguing every point assigned by a member to a member. I also believe you're being a little overly optimistic in judging the ability of most members to keep things clean, impersonal and non-retaliatory. "Please don't" isn't about to keep *some* of those itching fingers away from what amounts to an "Oh yeah?! I'll show you!" button.

'course I've got the ability to just sit back, pay nothing and walk away from this website again if it takes a direction I don't agree with. It might come down to how it ends up being used- but a pessimist like myself doesn't see any kind of good coming out of this. Inmates, asylums, keys... That kinda thing.

Actually I don't have a problem at all just ignoring people who come to me with those issues with another member. :reddevil:

It certainly can't be any worse than it is now since I get those sorts of emails anyway.

What this is designed to do is to take the responsibility off of my shoulders and put it onto the members here. If you don't like what someone is doing here, then show them. If enough people feel the same way, then YOU have the power to remove them. It is your responsibility to determine what you want out of this site and now will be your authority to help make that change. If most people like and appreciate the bashing and crap, then they don't really have to do a thing about it. If the majority do NOT appreciate it, then they can do what is necessary to change it.

If someone doesn't like how someone treats them in ANY fashion, then they will also have the tools available to make it known.

My job is to simply try to insure that the LEVEL whereby someone will get fined and suspended is such that it cannot be easily abused, yet will be accessible so that a majority can actually make a difference as to the makeup and manner of the people here.

That USED to be what I tried to do. So if members here WANT that, THEY have to do it themselves.

And certainly some will not like this, which would just be another datum in the long list of things people have complained about here. :shrug01:

Mike Greathouse · Jan 14, 2007

WebSlave said:
Now on to the warning points:

Racist/Prejudicial remarks 4
Actual or implied threads 4
Excessive antagonism towards another member 2
Warning system abuse 2
Antagonism towards moderator 2
Spamming 1
Failure to post FULL NAME on BOI [BOI] 1
Inappropriate advertising 1
Shotgun style advertising 1
Posting off topic message 1
Unnecessary roughness 1
Failure to provide SUBJECT NAME in topic line [BOI] 1
Anonymous third party quotation [BOI] 1
Posting BOI topics in other forums 1
Private message abuse 1
Karma abuse 1
Trader rating abuse 1
Profanity 1

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:

Failure to post FULL NAME on BOI [BOI]
Failure to provide SUBJECT NAME in topic line [BOI]
Anonymous third party quotation [BOI]

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.

Mooing Tricycle · Jan 14, 2007

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.

Lucille · Jan 14, 2007

WebSlave said:
I think it may be interesting. Maybe even
fun.

Well come on then, let's RODEO :hehe:

bsharrah · Jan 14, 2007

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

WebSlave · Jan 14, 2007

lucille said:
It can get pretty down and dirty in the BOI as scammers are called on to account for their misdeeds. I think sometimes that sort of antagonism is appropriate if someone has grievously wronged another.

Hopefully, those who take time to avenge such misdeeds will be seen as ferreting out crime and not frivously antagonistic.

To answer your question about further possible infractions, what do you think of assessing a warning point for those who, like Shrillomn, deliberately hide their true identity?

Well, there would, of course, need to be a rule against someone creating a false name, and I believe this was addressed in another thread somewhere. The problem would be enforceability of such a rule. Not everyone is going to admit to such a thing, and certainly the effort to try to determine such a thing (or to rebut someone claiming it is or is not true) would prove to be a wasteful use of time and effort. Realistically, there is just no way to "beyond a shadow of a doubt" prove identity.

Suppose, for instance, that someone were to claim that Seamus Haley was in fact a false registration and in fact HE is I. Likely only he and I would know for certain that this claim is false. How could we prove it indisputably?

So what happens if a dozen people believe, perhaps erroneously, that someone is using a false ID and start throwing warning points at them because of it? This person, in turn, starts firing off warning points claiming THEY are abusing the warning point system with false accusations. Obviously this sort of retaliation sort of thing can happen with any warning points volley, but in many cases, the evidence of correctness should be much more easily determined by an unbiased observer.

bsharrah · Jan 14, 2007

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

Mooing Tricycle · Jan 14, 2007

bsharrah said:
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.

Wraith · Jan 14, 2007

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

Lucille · Jan 14, 2007

bsharrah said:
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?

crotalusadamanteus · Jan 14, 2007

Mike Greathouse said:
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 :rofl:

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

WebSlave · Jan 14, 2007

Mike Greathouse said:
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.

bsharrah · Jan 14, 2007

lucille said:
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

WebSlave · Jan 14, 2007

Mooing Tricycle said:
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........

crotalusadamanteus · Jan 14, 2007

You could call them Pressure points.

WebSlave · Jan 14, 2007

bsharrah said:
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.

WebSlave · Jan 14, 2007

bsharrah said:
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.... :reddevil:

Wild Wild West - Part 2

It is what it is, but certainly not what it was.

New member

Big Game Hunter

It is what it is, but certainly not what it was.

Reptilian Dreams

Misanthrope / Childfree

New member

New member

It is what it is, but certainly not what it was.

New member

Misanthrope / Childfree

New member

New member

Brother Infidel

It is what it is, but certainly not what it was.

New member

It is what it is, but certainly not what it was.

Brother Infidel

It is what it is, but certainly not what it was.

It is what it is, but certainly not what it was.