DA 3.0 - Warning System

[Manu]

We have a new warning system finally in place for DA 3.0

The system is a 6 strike system. There are different offenses we will be warning for including:
baiting
name calling
spaming
long post articles
OT/hijacking a thread

Each one will carry 1 warning, except for name calling which carries 2. At 6 warnings you receive a temporary ban for 5 days.

1. All old warnings have now been purged
2. Warnings will be given out more freely
3. We will try to get the 'first offender' in a thread, or we may attempt to get 'all offenders.'
4. We are NOT removing warnings over time.
5. We are removing the '3 temp bans = perma ban' idea - instead, you will keep getting temp bans, and we will permaban people at our option (enough offenses, severity of offenses)
6. We do not discuss warnings given out to other members or warnings we assign. If you have a problem with a warning YOU have, then PM the person who issued the warning. If you PM another admin, he may post the PM in the mod forum to discuss it or simply forward it to whomever warned you.

Also, the success of the discipline in the news forums is dependent on you. Ideally, you can self moderate, but we've found that many people are unable to exhibit self control. As such, success of our forums as a friendly environment is predicated on using the reported post feature. Click the exclamation point in a triangle on any reported post to report it.

[h2g2Fan]

Sounds great to me! But a clarification:

Does referring to other members as a "nazi" or an "Anti-American/Anarcho/Marxist" qualify as name-calling? Both are used very frequently in the In The News branch of the forums, and specifically to discredit opposing viewpoints.

Keep up the good work!

[DngrMse]

4. We are NOT removing warnings over time.

This seems a bit harsh......

If someone, over a period of several months to a year, (or more), happens to accumulate the required number of warnings, he gets temp banned? Also, once you get your temp ban, is the counter reset?

[mike75]

This seems a bit harsh......
If someone, over a period of several months to a year, (or more), happens to accumulate the required number of warnings, he gets temp banned? Also, once you get your temp ban, is the counter reset?

I think if I read it correctly once you get the temp ban it starts over again. The 3 strike rule is out and they have the power to ban forever.

[caddis]

Is there an official definition for baiting?

[Manu]

h2g2-

I am not sure if we'd call that name calling (2 strikes) or if we'd call that baiting (1 strike). It'd depend on the context, usage, etc.

Dngrmse-

It is harsh, but that in a sense 'rewards' people who do not post as often/frequently by removing them. It also makes it so someone can have a 'tantrum' every month or so and never get banned. By not removing them, yes, it does become harsher, but for minor infractions, accumulating 6 strikes won't happen to MOST people who visit the forums. Also, as always, we may use discretion, like at a year Mark, wipe all warnings older than a year, but there is no set timetable for removal of warnings.

Mike -
Yes, once you get a temp ban, you're back to 0 warning count. The 3 strike rule is out (its 6 warning count) as well as the 3 strike rule for perma bans (as has been applied to a few people who used to be on the forum) We have found ourselves to be relectant in the past, mainly because we don't want to perma ban peolpe, so, by allowing more frequent temp bans (and perma ban at our option of repeat offenders) we can better regulate the forums.

Caddis-

There is no 'official' definition of baiting. I will try to drum up a few posts to show examples of baiting. But, essentially, it is often very obvious when someone takes an underhanded dig at someone else or someone else's ideologies and is attempting to either get an emotional response or to just bash them, but to do so indirectly. It isn't conducive to friendly debate.

[Powerboss]

What is considered name calling?

For example: Is "extremist" or "radical" or "partisan" or words of that nature also included as name calling?

Also, what about insults or condescending remarks? Where does that fit in?

Can I ask, what was wrong with the old system?

Regarding baiting, would something like "DA was in a golden age until a certain member returned". be baiting when they are first quoting the person they are referring to?

I guess I just want to be straight on the exact definitions.

I would also like to suggest that if the mods see someone getting very close, perhaps a friendly PM to them saying "your're getting close" or something to that effect.

Obviously you want to promote vigorous and passionate, but good debate free of the crap and I think every attempt should be made to try to steer threads or members in the right direction before issuing warnings.

[Turbostang]

What do you mean by "OT/hijacking a thread"?

Also, what about someone who makes 10 one liner posts in a row?

[Manu]

What is considered name calling?

For example: Is "extremist" or "radical" or "partisan" or words of that nature also included as name calling?

Hmm, those examples would come down to the context in which they are being used. As a rule, however, it would be best to avoid those, I'd say as they are great.

Also, what about insults or condescending remarks? Where does that fit in?

Baiting most likely, or a general 1 strike warning, depending n severity.

Can I ask, what was wrong with the old system?

1. Forums, in the administrations eyes are too wild and out of control now.
2. New software needed new warning system (old one doesn't work)
3. This gives us more flexability, with more 'points' and different actions being different points. We won't be as reluctant to give 3rd strikes as before, because minor infractions are just 1/6th of the way to a temp.

Regarding baiting, would something like "DA was in a golden age until a certain member returned". be baiting when they are first quoting the person they are referring to?

If I follow what you mean, that is not an appropriate comment.

I guess I just want to be straight on the exact definitions.

Exact definitions are very hard to come by.

I would also like to suggest that if the mods see someone getting very close, perhaps a friendly PM to them saying "your're getting close" or something to that effect.

When you get a warning you get a PM with the type, a message, a link (finally), and your current count.

Obviously you want to promote vigorous and passionate, but good debate free of the crap and I think every attempt should be made to try to steer threads or members in the right direction before issuing warnings.

We've attempted to allow self moderation. People know what is desired/expected of their participation. If that is in question, we can discuss that here or in a new thread. 1 or 2 warning 'points' make no matter, so, warnings will not be 'held back' if the mod feels it is neccessary to given.

Turbo-
Taking a thread off topic. (i.e the one about the enron scandal which was turned into a Clinton said, Bush did thread)

And, that probably wouldn't not be a warning if it happened once, but report it and we'd PM the person. Continued happenings would be a warning. Same goes for overly long article posts.

[JFS]

On another board I am a member of There is a rule of thumb that says. Dispute the message not the messenger. If you want to bad mouth and critizisize the message that is ok but NO bad mouthing of other members is permitted. And , I do mean NO BADMOUTHING, PERIOD. A large percentage of members here would be banned on their first day if they conducted themselves there like we do here at DA.

Before you lash out let me include myself in that as well.

It seems to work well on the surface but there is something going on there that is really upsetting. Since the members are not permitted to SPAR at all in a personal nature. They carefully and devilishly snipe at each other just inside the rules of the board. Consequently there is an undercurrent of contempt and revenge that is allowed to fester like an infected sore. Every once in a while someone pops and feelings get hurt all around. Then someone takes a forced vacation for lashing out in anger.

This also serves to polarize the members into small groups other then The typical left/right political leaning that normally polarizes folks such as what is seen here at DA. These aliances for lack of a better term scheme by PM figuring out how to taunt and bait certain members into losing their cool.

Baiting is permitted there but not taking the bait. Bad decision in my view.

I would suggest letting members spar to a certain point allowing them to blow off steam. I think drawing the line at derogatory names such as "Chithead" "Azzhole" "Mother freaker" etc is an appropriate way to go. Calling someone a "leftist" or "neocon" or "extremist" or "radical" don't qualify as deragatory names in my opinion.

Getting vulgar in speech should not be allowed under any circumstances such as F*** You or Suck my Dick etc. I think the severest penalties should apply to trash languange like that. That is strictly potty mouth stuff used by trolls and cowards that can't contol or express themselves in an adult manner.

Good luck folks. Being a moderator or administrator is a thankless lousy job. No matter how fairly you try to enforce the rules. The rules themselves are subjective in nature. What you call insulting may not be considered insulting by another person and vise versa.

I've been a moderator myself on a few boards and it is a lose lose situation.

[Mr. Anarky]

So you can't do anything to attack or bait individuals in particular, but from my brief experience on this board, it seems it is perfectly acceptable to attack and bait people who belong to a group, which can be quite offensive to individuals who belong to that group and to those who find such discourse outright offensive.

Some examples:

1. I've seen posts describing the joy of beating up Jews. One member posts these comments frequently and completely unabated as far as I can tell. And some members only post anti-Semitic comments, giving the impression that they have no other theme.

2. The board is rife w/ Anti-Muslim and anti-Arab slurs, presumably language that is all perfectly acceptable. Yet if someone were to call a member a "racist" for engaging in such discourse, then that would be a personal attack even though the description "racist" would be completely accurate. I'm having trouble w/ the logic of that one.

3. Posts advocating violence toward women are quite popular on these boards, even though many women post on DA. I can't imagine what mental trick women who post here are supposed to engage in to ignore this offensive language, but I suspect it must be on the order of something like: "OK, so & so just advocated throttling women, but I shouldn't take it as a personal attack because it wasn't directed at me per se." Slim comfort, don't you think?

Perhaps I don't understand the policies here but so far it seems to be a system that punishes the misdemeanors but ignores the felonies.

[Tarantulas]

On another board I am a member of There is a rule of thumb that says. Dispute the message not the messenger.

Hmm...I think I was on that board too, until four of us were banned for being conservative. Except the precise wording was "argue issues, not personalities." Mostly liberal board? Run by a former child actor?

Well, maybe that wasn't the same board, since you're saying that baiting is permitted. On that board no one could even say that all conservatives were horrible heartless stupid bastards because it would be taunting of the conservatives on the board. But just like on your board, since there was no negative speech allowed against other members, it ended up with snippy little innuendos that didn't quite cross the line but added up to a major amount of discontent. And just like your board, the back and forth sniping continued until someone finally did cross the line and then you didn't see them around for a while. There were other boards where some of us hung out and we would compare bannings and complain about unfair moderation.

I guess there are different shades of gray with name calling and hijacking, so the staff can make the call there and the rest of us will reap the benefits when abusive posters are removed for a while. I guess the only thing I would question would be "long post articles." Every board has its own special rule that you don't see anywhere else, and on DA this is that rule. If the article has scrolled off to where registration is needed to read it, or if the site is chock full of popup ads or whatever, I would think posting the entire article would be okay. And I'm not sure what the big deal is about posting the full article anyway - why not have it right in front of everyone here instead of making people go click an outside link to read it? Maybe someone abused their membership by posting a 50-page article. In that case wouldn't it make more sense to caution the individual than to restrict all of the members?

[Mr. Anarky]

"I would question would be "long post articles." Every board has its own special rule that you don't see anywhere else, and on DA this is that rule. If the article has scrolled off to where registration is needed to read it, or if the site is chock full of popup ads or whatever, I would think posting the entire article would be okay. And I'm not sure what the big deal is about posting the full article anyway - why not have it right in front of everyone here instead of making people go click an outside link to read it?"

I agree enitrely w/ this. I subscribe to sites that contain articles that I would like to post here, but they are paid sites. These sites state that they don't mind if members do this from time to time as longs as the member states the source-site (it's a way of advertsing the site) and doesn't do it often.

[Davidxvx]

I guess the only thing I would question would be "long post articles." Every board has its own special rule that you don't see anywhere else, and on DA this is that rule. If the article has scrolled off to where registration is needed to read it, or if the site is chock full of popup ads or whatever, I would think posting the entire article would be okay. And I'm not sure what the big deal is about posting the full article anyway - why not have it right in front of everyone here instead of making people go click an outside link to read it? Maybe someone abused their membership by posting a 50-page article. In that case wouldn't it make more sense to caution the individual than to restrict all of the members?

Copyright law, dude.

[Tarantulas]

Copyright law? If you scroll up the page a little you'll see a picture of David Duchovny. Isn't that copyrighted also?

As long as the board isn't charging people to read a reposted news article, and the news websites aren't suing the board, who cares?

If we're going to take it that far, you reposted text from my post. Didn't you violate my copyright?

It's one thing to steal someone else's work and call it your own and use it to make money, but I thought there was something called "fair use" that comes into the argument. I do know that this is the only board I've ever seen that has a rule about posting entire articles. And I think it's going overboard.

[JFS]

Hmm...I think I was on that board too, until four of us were banned for being conservative. Except the precise wording was "argue issues, not personalities." Mostly liberal board? Run by a former child actor?

Well, maybe that wasn't the same board, since you're saying that baiting is permitted. On that board no one could even say that all conservatives were horrible heartless stupid bastards because it would be taunting of the conservatives on the board. But just like on your board, since there was no negative speech allowed against other members, it ended up with snippy little innuendos that didn't quite cross the line but added up to a major amount of discontent. And just like your board, the back and forth sniping continued until someone finally did cross the line and then you didn't see them around for a while. There were other boards where some of us hung out and we would compare bannings and complain about unfair moderation.

I guess there are different shades of gray with name calling and hijacking, so the staff can make the call there and the rest of us will reap the benefits when abusive posters are removed for a while. I guess the only thing I would question would be "long post articles." Every board has its own special rule that you don't see anywhere else, and on DA this is that rule. If the article has scrolled off to where registration is needed to read it, or if the site is chock full of popup ads or whatever, I would think posting the entire article would be okay. And I'm not sure what the big deal is about posting the full article anyway - why not have it right in front of everyone here instead of making people go click an outside link to read it? Maybe someone abused their membership by posting a 50-page article. In that case wouldn't it make more sense to caution the individual than to restrict all of the members?

No it is not a mostly liberal board and it is run by an active duty LEO. Many of the sites members are firefighters. EMT's a couple of educators. and a couple career military folks and various other professions. Most of these people are married and their wives post as well. There are NO kids on the site.

[Tarantulas]

No it is not a mostly liberal board and it is run by an active duty LEO. Many of the sites members are firefighters. EMT's a couple of educators. and a couple career military folks and various other professions. Most of these people are married and their wives post as well. There are NO kids on the site.

Wow, that must be very hard to control the firefighters. I used to work with several retired firefighters, and they were not what you would call tactful individuals. But I agree with you that controlling a board too closely is a recipe for disaster.

There's more interpersonal conflict and name calling here than I'm used to. To taper it off, I have a suggestion. When a post crosses the line, wherever that line is, it should be noted right in the thread, as soon as possible after it happens. If the boundaries are going to be moved inward, maybe there should be some sort of grace period to get people accustomed to being nice to each other again.

Whenever you're discussing politics, there are bound to be opposing opinions, and it's damn near impossible to keep the two sides from killing each other and still be fair to everyone. I'll take a pledge right now to avoid insulting or baiting anyone else on the board. But I might need a little help with the hijacking rule since threads to tend to drift off topic and usually I tend to increase that drift.

[Potyondi]

1. All old warnings have now been purged

2. Warnings will be given out more freely

Does that mean Red is in charge of them all?

4. We are NOT removing warnings over time.

5. We are removing the '3 temp bans = perma ban' idea - instead, you will keep getting temp bans, and we will permaban people at our option (enough offenses, severity of offenses)

[Powerboss]

Thanks for the answers Manu, Grrr...hard to define!! Ambiguity!! I realize this is uncharted waters though.

A couple of thoughts/comments and 2 final questions.

I will attempt to do my part at cleaning things up regarding my behaivior, I hope others do as well. There is plenty of blame to go around.

I was always under the assumption that criticising politicians, groups like Republicans or Democrats was "legal", it should be no different for people criticising religion or ideology.
Of course, this is the pickle, as soon as an ideology is attacked, and in most cases it involves some generalizations and it's been my experience that members get just as offended at that as they would a direct personal attack.

I don't know the answer to this, Im just trying to offer some insight on some things the staff may need to further consider.


I would also suggest you monitor things, if you need to make changes in your rules, don't be afraid to do so, just keep everyone informed. I think we all realize this is new and difficult territory and most imporantly a balancing act.

My first question, the term America haters, Anti-American, War-Mongers, ect ect......how do they fit in? If used in a generality are they largely OK or not?

The other question has to deal with my original question, perhaps you misunderstood;

I guess what I was attempting to convey is that if you mods see things heating up and approaching the line, say so in the thread or as I suggested send a friendly PM saying "Tone it down or you are headed for a warning", something to that effect.
Actually, Scott has done that in the past, interjecting in threads and telling people to cool down and I think it has been a good thing as long as it is fair and balanced, I think more of that would be good.



I think you allowing people to freely ask questions and offer insights on this is a positive step.

I know these are difficult questions but I guess the more we all know up front, the better things will go and everyone will sortof be on the same page.




Potyondi; You only get 3 warnings.

[Misteria]

interesting and a good way to deal with a lot of bashing that happens on other sites, clover reccomended this site to me glad she did! good work Mods. and Manu , well done for the site its excellent !!!