Forthcoming changes on Bans & Moderations

[evo_spook]

Only time will tell, yes I suppose the warnings do work to some extant.

Now when I go into a thread and it has the same old people, doing there trolling act, I now try to just close the thread down and leave it. But should you have to?

[RadishTM Veteran]

A single mod should not have warning ability, 3 mods, should agree on a warning.

I can tell you truthfully that amongst staff members we contest warnings that we don't always agree with, then some get overturned by a Supervisor/Admin due to this.

So what Neobond is bringing to the table is how we do our work, being firm/equal and exposing the "bad bunch". If you wish to leave, then log out and don't log back in - we don't delete accounts at Neowin.

Radish?

[+.Vamp Subscriber²]

Neither had I till January, and like Buses they all came at once!!

You keep stating how you didn't bother to challenge your warnings even though you felt some were not justified. Yet you are CONSTANTLY, and I put that in capitals because it is to be emphasized, reminding everyone throughout this thread that you have been warned and didn't like it. So the best options are:

1. Cease posting about them here, as we all firmly understand your opinion on the situation by now, and raise the issue by PMing a mod/admin if you still feel a need to complain about your old warnings.

2. Cease posting about them here, as we all firmly understand your opinion on the situation by now, and happily post away as normal in various other threads.

[Kreuger]

I agree with this update.

[Rappy Veteran]

What I find strange, Mods can ban you for just totting up simple things and yet no where can I find a button to delete your membership?

Yeah a few people have been asking and the response is they will never delete a member just ban and or suspend so if you dont want to be here anymore just leave and delete your cookies and bookmark and never return otherwise your account will always be open as they arent gonna delete it.

[Raa]

Awesome, I think those are great changes!

So will we find out why Snyper got banned now? :p

[»X«]

I would imagine all bannings are discussed at length anyway before it happens.

If only. Although it would slow things down.

All this talk of mods being ban happy etc etc. There is only one person on this forum who I will say is ban happy without a shadow of a doubt. As Ive had a run in about it all recently. So if anyone thinks that all bans are discussed at length and only after careful consideration.. sorry but that's not what Ive seen.

As for the warnings on display. I can only see it being interesting, not helpful. In the sense of seeing who has the highest warn level. But if someone who posts something has an 40%+ level, its not going to make a difference to how people react. At least I don't think so.

[evo_spook]

hmmm, if we equate this to real life then people get a speeding ticket, we should tattoo SPEEDER across their forehead, this would work, so why not do it?

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

hmmm, if we equate this to real life then people get a speeding ticket, we should tattoo SPEEDER across their forehead, this would work, so why not do it?

Well that would help to see and avoid those who drive dangerously.

But be realistic...

[p858snake]

...To be fair to members that have racked up 40% by "screwing up that one time too many" we will invoke a global reduction of 20% for everyone before this comes into force. We aren't worried about those members on 80% or 100% getting a freebie because generally those members will always screw ups....

Does that include people with IRC warnings as screw ups?

[spenser.d]

hmmm, if we equate this to real life then people get a speeding ticket, we should tattoo SPEEDER across their forehead, this would work, so why not do it?

For not caring or getting overly emotional about an internet forum, you sure do seem to care and do seem pretty emotional about an internet forum...

-Spenser

[evo_spook]

For not caring or getting overly emotional about an internet forum, you sure do seem to care and do seem pretty emotional about an internet forum...

-Spenser

Well thats highlighted another problem, and thats how different people take posts and view them in different ways, that was a joke but you don't seem to have seen it as such.

[Denis W. Veteran]

If only. Although it would slow things down.

All this talk of mods being ban happy etc etc. There is only one person on this forum who I will say is ban happy without a shadow of a doubt. As Ive had a run in about it all recently. So if anyone thinks that all bans are discussed at length and only after careful consideration.. sorry but that's not what Ive seen.

As for the warnings on display. I can only see it being interesting, not helpful. In the sense of seeing who has the highest warn level. But if someone who posts something has an 40%+ level, its not going to make a difference to how people react. At least I don't think so.

I remember seeing a thread where someone got banned for slagging off supporters of a Windowblinds skin - and it was publicly announced on the post.

I support this move, but I also suspect that on a few occasions actions are taken sometimes without consulting the rest of the group. It's great to have moderation do their work, but it's just as nasty to see their personal biases and agendas get the best of them sometimes. Like with the above case - I want to be sure that said poster wasn't banned for that silly reason alone.

[»X«]

I remember seeing a thread where someone got banned for slagging off supporters of a Windowblinds skin - and it was publicly announced on the post.

:yes: Thats the one.

[curme]

Awesome, I think those are great changes!

So will we find out why Snyper got banned now? :p

I thought I was the only one who didn't know! :laugh:

[Blaine]

I guess my high warn level will now be known to all :p

*secretly wonders what neobond's warning level is

...And maybe we'll all find out why Daniel was banned "that one time"... :ninja:

:rofl:

I like this idea very very much :)

[Fred Derf Veteran]

A single mod should not have warning ability, 3 mods, should agree on a warning.

Member warnings are posted on a staff forum and trust me if something looks wrong then a discussion about it will break out. We aim for mistakes to not happen again. We aim for every moderator to be more or less on the same page.

Sometimes member appeals need only a rubber stamp because we've already picked apart the warning in private.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

One thing that I worry this will expose is how ridiculously patient we are with some members. If they can appeal their warning with a calm head and make some half-decent arguments we may be tempted to give them the benefit of the doubt. Now if they come at us with hostility and anger then we know who we don't need to go out of our way to prevent their eventual banning.

Yes, some popular members have been banned over the years. They probably had a lot more than 5 warnings. As I said before we can be very patient with some people that we think have the ability to adapt to our community. At some point, with some people, we just eventually give up. It shouldn't be personal. They just are not a good match for our community as we see it. There are other communities out there. Many of them tolerate personal attacks, vulgarity and outright hostility and rudeness. We aim for a higher standard and not everyone is mature enough for it.

[Lt-DavidW]

We're automatically pegged as the bad guys just because we ban someone with 19 (yes, literally, 19) warnings on their account.

I don't need 19 guesses to guess who.

Make the 0% warn show too, I would love to show mine :p

Then that would also expose those with 20% warns, ie. everybody!

[Fred Derf Veteran]

I would imagine all bannings are discussed at length anyway before it happens.

It is the general policy that all bans must be approved by a Supervisor or an Admin (there are a few exceptions for one-post spam wonders and obvious duplicate accounts).

[APH-Alex]

Do you realize how dumb you look? You've never registered here before but you know that the mods are ban-happy!?

I wonder why!

Idiot.

PS: All staff can cross reference IP addresses to other accounts.

I got a warn for calling someone an idiot once.. But you're an admin, so I guess it shows the corruption inherent in the system. I'm just kidding of course, you're awesome Neobond. :)

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

Does that include people with IRC warnings as screw ups?

Really old ones will, we switched systems a while ago (IRC warns and bans have a separate system, same procedures though)

[andy2004]

Just an i9dea reading what audioboxer mentioned about thread ratings. Personally i dont see why news posted items need a thread rating. Surely thread ratings should be where a member throws a discussion out into the community , i.e if i started one saying "heres how i think hci could help us to develop more effective user interfaces" then yeah id expect that type of thread to be rated. If however your posting something like a news article where its taking factual news then does it really need to be rated ?

[Shekhar Sahu]

when you say 'what rule they broke' will it be a case of:

user x: rule 5

or

user x: calling user y a z ?

RE the global 20% reduction, do those on 0% get -20%? :p

Hi there, testing.

[Harlem39s Finest]

i've been a bad boy, lol. when does the 'warn rating' go away though ?