Current infraction system vs. Rule Book

[Lightwing]

I've found a few contradictions with our current rules.

Here's the stats on the current infraction system:

50 points = Warned
100 points = Banned

• Insulted Other Member(s) : Points -> 5 : Expires -> 1 Month
• Inappropriate Language : Points -> 5 : Expires -> 1 Month
• Signature Rule Violation : Points -> 10 : Expires -> 10 Days
• Sock puppet : Points -> 50 : Expires -> 7 Days
• Sock puppet (the puppet) : Points -> 100 : Expires -> Never
• Spammed Advertisements : Points -> 100 : Expires -> Never

Here are the stants on the Rule Book:

• Insulted Other Member(s) : Points -> 50 : Expires -> 3 days
• Insulted Other Members (while warned) : Points -> 100 : Expires -> 1 day
• Inappropriate Language : Points - N/A : Expires - N/A
• Signature Rule Violation : Points - N/A : Expires - N/A
• Sock puppet : Points - 50 : Expires - 7 Days
• Sock puppet (the puppet) : Points - 100 : Expires - Never
• Spammed Advertisements : Points - 100 : Expires - Never

My view on this is:

Keep the infraction system's rules on Sock puppeting, spammed adverticements, and signiture violation.

However, according to the infraction system you can flame a person 20 times before you'll get banned. And a person who flames someone will keep 5 points of infraction for 30 days! I propose that if this program portion of the forum can be changed, that the Infract. system adopts our Rule Book's methods. Or, we could split "Insulted Other Members" into "mild" or "severe," in which "mild" (Nazi statue) gets 5 points for 1 month, and "severe" (like cussing) gets 50 points for 3 days.

EDIT: If it's possible, I'd like for the "report post" thing to be able to work against moderators as well (except the super admin - duh). I feel that if a moderator breaks a rule then he/she should be punished via the system as well by another mod/admin.

EDIT2: I also think we should add a penalty rule against excessive foul language. It's happened a few times that people just went insane and started cussing all over the thread/forum *looks at political discussions*. Even though those words might not be directed towards a person, I do believe that too much cussing is unhealthy for forum discussions.

[elmuerte]

I see it more as a minimal points that the max. Repeated violations should be more or less in a strengthening fashion.
But still, it's not like we have that many violations.

[LBAWinOwns]

If you want to put time and emphasis on it, I won't stop ya... (put time to convince other mods to take action as the rule book says)

[.TakaM]

infractions are dumb.

[Double-J]

As long as there is consistency in their usage, they are clearly stated in the forum rules, and are open to input from the community, then they are fine.

However, up until now, we have not seen that, even before the infractions system was implemented, which is why I feel it is of the utmost importance that the members-at-large have a significant role in commenting and being able to report/interpret such "infractions."

[Lightwing]

Well, I'd appreciate if people would actually give their suggestions about the consistency of the rules. That's why I created this thread.

Which rules should we use? How should we execute those rules? Etc..

[Joasia]

Do we really need any strict rules?
There is freedom of speech or there isn't - simple,
everything should be allowed, as long as it's not against the law or it's not calling for braking of the law. If someone feels offended by something he does not have to read it, but threads that can potentially contain mature content should be labelled as such under a penalty of a warning.

[Lightwing]

We need *clear* rules so that there is no confusion.

No speech is entirely free. There are always restrictions. Those restrictions have already been established. What we need to establish or re-establish now, is the penalty for breaking the rules.

[Joasia]

Originally Posted by Lightwing

No speech is entirely free. There are always restrictions.

Then it should be.

[elmuerte]

You are free to discuss most subjects, but you are not free to slander to grave insults.

[Joasia]

Originally Posted by El_Muerte

You are free to discuss most subjects, but you are not free to slander to grave insults.

Well, if so than I guess it's ok.

[Lightwing]

Instead of "Add infraction to X person," can you change it to read: "Put X person in the Infraction Mobile!"

[Lightwing]

• Insulted Other Member(s) : Points -> 50 : Expires -> 3 days
• Insulted Other Members (while warned) : Points -> 100 : Expires -> 1 day
• Inappropriate Language : Points -> N/A : Expires -> N/A
• Signature Rule Violation : Points -> 10 : Expires -> 10 Days
• Sock puppet : Points -> 50 : Expires -> 7 Days
• Sock puppet (the puppet) : Points -> 100 : Expires -> Never
• Spammed Advertisements : Points -> 100 : Expires -> Never

Alright, so here it is. I've incorporated the Rule Book into the infraction system.

Sock puppets and spammed adverticers have always been banned, so no conflict there.

Inappropriate language has never been penalized, and the Rule Book says nothing about it. So people shouldn't get punished for it (unless there is a majority concensus amongst the staff).

The rule against insulting other members is one that has been in the Rules Book for a while now and has been kept. Thusly, I'm incorporating into the infraction system, just as it exists in the rules book.

Signiture Rules violation has almost never happened, so I don't care too much about it. 10 points for 10 days sounds good to me.

Since nobody has actually said anything about penalty rules (except Jasiek), I assume that nobody cares. If you do care, say something like "foul language should be punished with a 2 day warning."

I'm going to wait a few days and if nobody protests, I'll assume that people agree with the penalty laws above. Otherwise, protest.

[Panda]

Jesus. Police-state or what?

You're being too pedantic with this points system. If someone breaks rules, ban them for 3 days. Persistance leads to longer punishments. Simple.

[Lightwing]

The points system is just part of the vBulletin script. I've just displayed how it'll be used via the rules.

50 points = warn
100 = ban

Sock puppets and ad spammers get banned.
Insulting other members (like you telling schitzn to fuck off) gets 3 day warn, then 1 day ban if you do it again.

Simple.

[Panda]

Since when is telling someone to fuck off insulting them?

[Lightwing]

*yawn*

http://forum.magicball.net/showpost....25&postcount=4

Random insults will be punished by a three-days !warned!, followed by a one day ban. This includes stuff like "you're gay" and "go fuck yourself".

old shtuff

[Joasia]

Yaaaay, a morality guard!

[Double-J]

If that is what we're going to use, then we should clearly define (far better than what is found here) exactly what these infractions both include and exclude.

For instance, we should just get rid of the whole "teasing will be tolerated but will be exorcised [sic] when the situation gets out of control." This is the problem - it's too arbitrary. I could be talking with Axx in a political thread, and slight him with a small joke (i.e. Axx loves...umm...frogs. I don't know. Think of a small insult, and insert it here.), and that might be okay in your eyes, but another mod may see this as a serious insult. This is why it is crucial for open discussion between the moderators (whomever they are) as well as allowing the members themselves to be able to comment on decisions (makes me reminiscent of Gustav's old forum leaders...maybe we need that ask a check for mods?).

We need to properly define what each of these things consist of to prevent any misunderstandings and allow for more standardized, even-handed decisions.

[Lightwing]

You seem to forget that the Constitution of USA is arbitrary, and that's why it has been one of the most long lasting constitutions in the world.

"Teasing will be tolerated but will be exorcised [sic] when the situation gets out of control." -- is a perfectly fine rule IF the majority of moderators agree upon a case.

For example, most of the mods (El Muerte, Darkflame, Atresica, and me) agreed that your Nazi statue was an insult and therefore worthy of a warning. Even when a disition like closing threads is made, moderators check the action. Many times in the past, I have closed threads, other mods argued with me and the threads were reopened.

[Double-J]

Originally Posted by Lightwing

You seem to forget that the Constitution of USA is arbitrary, and that's why it has been one of the most long lasting constitutions in the world.

You do realize how rare our amendments are, right? I mean, it takes a virtual hand of God-type intervention to get one. So please don't get on about arbitrary constutions, especially since this is not a government but an internet forum.

Originally Posted by Lightwing

"Teasing will be tolerated but will be exorcised [sic] when the situation gets out of control." -- is a perfectly fine rule IF the majority of moderators agree upon a case.

That's like saying, "It's okay to throw rocks at Jimmy because we all agreed it was okay."

[elmuerte]

Originally Posted by Double-J

That's like saying, "It's okay to throw rocks at Jimmy because we all agreed it was okay."

Well ofcourse it would be ok in that case. That's how the world works.

[Lightwing]

Aye.

[Double-J]

Originally Posted by El_Muerte

Well ofcourse it would be ok in that case. That's how the world works.

So let's see...if all the mods decide Obrasilo is unworthy, does that make it right for you to allow him to be persecuted? We can throw some Nazi statues at him, maybe fling some fecal matter, and even call him a fag.

It must be right, because that's how this forum works.

[elmuerte]

Yes, exactly like that. Since it's morally correct. Ofcourse I doubt "we" we ever all agree on something like that.