Forthcoming changes on Bans & Moderations


Recommended Posts

I think this is going down the information overload path. Does the general population really need to know about the warning levels of an individual user?

That being said, I also think that things like post count breeds quantity over quality, so I'm on the lunatic fringe of moderation policies.

I think the rap sheet should always be visible, banned or not. Because in my opinion, this should go two ways and allow people to expose partial moderators. And I'm more thinking about topical partiality, not personal grudges. You know, to keep things like John S (sorry to pick on you, but it's polarizing enough as example), aka adonai, so pro-christian that it hurts, moderating RWI back in the day as normal mod, which more often than not contains a fair amount of religious threads.

And fear not, I'm not even going to argue this past this post unlike that MVC stuff back then.

RWI is a completely different kettle of fish with its own set of problems. The majority of members are not affected by what goes on in the Real World Issues forum. That isn't what this thread is about.

To answer your question, however, we have a variety of political opinions on staff and as such we tend to cancel each other out. If I present a liberal bias then John S. can counter that. Balance is restored and peace spreads across the universe. It's only really a problem if we have too many people of one political perspective.

You will find that mature people can work well together on these issues. There have been several other moderators that have or do represent a more right wing perspective and I have always had a pleasant time working with them. As I have said before, all moderator actions are logged and issues are often discussed as a group. There are no cowboys on this ship.

I think the rap sheet should always be visible, banned or not. Because in my opinion, this should go two ways and allow people to expose partial moderators. And I'm more thinking about topical partiality, not personal grudges. You know, to keep things like John S (sorry to pick on you, but it's polarizing enough as example), aka adonai, so pro-christian that it hurts, moderating RWI back in the day as normal mod, which more often than not contains a fair amount of religious threads.

Having an opinion and moderating according to it are 2 different things. If I moderated RWI according to my opinions, there'd be nobody left.

I know, I was only stating my view as the whole Snyper hype happened when I was lurking. :) We are going way off topic though so let's get this ban material back on the tracks.

Ps. So that's what it's called in English "the feather that broke the camel's back". Down here with would be "the drip that let the bucket run over".

It's 'straw that broke the camel's back'. Not feather. Just fyi.

Does the system work?

You only have to look at all the crap in the Mac Book Air News Post, only 1 or two probably have a Air, only some have a Mac and only about 10% are bothered about the news story, the rest are in there to have a jolly old bash, this type of behaviour is allowed, sometimes even joined in by the Respected mods and admins. Should this behaviour be allowed which can be classed as a prelude to the type of behaviour that will get people warnings.

Does the system work?

You only have to look at all the crap in the Mac Book Air News Post, only 1 or two probably have a Air, only some have a Mac and only about 10% are bothered about the news story, the rest are in there to have a jolly old bash, this type of behaviour is allowed, sometimes even joined in by the Respected mods and admins. Should this behaviour be allowed which can be classed as a prelude to the type of behaviour that will get people warnings.

If you see something inappropriate then report it. We, however, can't force people to have an informed opinion. Usually those sorts of comments stand out as such anyway.

Well, the present system will punish someone that makes a single Personal jibe against someone.

But posters that can enter a thread with no intention of actually contributing to the news story and post what could be classed as multiple trolling posts, well all do it, but sometimes it goes over the top and the result is that some is going to get personally insulted and result in a warning.

This type of behaviour is allowed, if calling someone a idiot is worthy of a warning, shouldn't there also be warnings against this type of behaviour?

Well, the present system will punish someone that makes a single Personal jibe against someone.

But posters that can enter a thread with no intention of actually contributing to the news story and post what could be classed as multiple trolling posts, well all do it, but sometimes it goes over the top and the result is that some is going to get personally insulted and result in a warning.

This type of behaviour is allowed, if calling someone a idiot is worthy of a warning, shouldn't there also be warnings against this type of behaviour?

Rules 5 through 7 and 10 cover it all.

Well, the present system will punish someone that makes a single Personal jibe against someone.

...

You need to have 2 warnings for it to show.

The easy way to not get warned, is to report the comment and move on, if you start making personal attacks, you're going to get warned.

Does the system work?

You only have to look at all the crap in the Mac Book Air News Post, only 1 or two probably have a Air, only some have a Mac and only about 10% are bothered about the news story, the rest are in there to have a jolly old bash, this type of behaviour is allowed, sometimes even joined in by the Respected mods and admins. Should this behaviour be allowed which can be classed as a prelude to the type of behaviour that will get people warnings.

Well, if the staff ends up heavily moderating ?Apple-related news threads, they'd have to do the same to just about any major article about Vista ?where 75% of the thread turns into ?a Vista -sucks-ass-no-it-doesn't-yes-it-does flamefest.

Don't mistake me, yes, it goes on in many other threads, I just used that as a prominent example. Yes the Vista vs XP debate is almost as bad, but I don't go in the Vista threads as I havn't ever used Vista so it is something I can't comment on.

We try to facilitate and encourage mature posting. We try to eliminate flames and flame-bait. We do, however, have to strike a balance between letting people express themselves and getting rid of the worst stuff. If I removed and/or warned for every post that didn't meet my personal standards then there may not be many posts left.

If we remove too much we get blamed for being nazis. If we remove too few and flame-wars break out that then need to be put under control, well, we get blamed for being nazis there too. It is a delicate balance.

We try to facilitate and encourage mature posting. We try to eliminate flames and flame-bait. We do, however, have to strike a balance between letting people express themselves and getting rid of the worst stuff. If I removed and/or warned for every post that didn't meet my personal standards then there may not be many posts left.

If we remove too much we get blamed for being nazis. If we remove too few and flame-wars break out that then need to be put under control, well, we get blamed for being nazis there too. It is a delicate balance.

...And that is why I respect the mods here. It is all too often a thankless job. Everyone likes to complain about x or y, but hardly anyone compliments the mods for the amazing work they do here.

...And that is why I respect the mods here. It is all too often a thankless job. Everyone likes to complain about x or y, but hardly anyone compliments the mods for the amazing work they do here.

I agree. And most of the complaining is from people who have gotten warnings and cause problems and such. I've gotten a few warnings, but I recognize what I did wrong and I agree with the action taken. I think if people are mature, even if they slip up once or twice, they can handle a warning now and then and get over it pretty easily.

i like the new policy ... but you should take it even further and anyone with a 40% warning or higher should have their post count frozen (the equivalent of having their e-penis nicked off) :p .

Edited by WolfDV
  • 2 weeks later...
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • My father still uses a programme written in dbase3. Still manages to work with a little help from dosbox. 
    • Microsoft hides these secret Windows 11 performance boost settings available on every PC by Sayan Sen Windows enthusiasts often look for ways to extract as much performance out of their systems as possible, and it's often the case that they try and do so while trying to minimize the heat and power consumption. This is especially relevant in the case of mobile Windows PCs since laptops and notebooks tend to get hot and management of that heat and power is harder in such a form factor. As such users often turn to techniques like under-volting which can be used to squeeze out the maximum capabilities of a chip while also maintaining lowered power levels. There are official apps from AMD and Intel with the likes of Ryzen Master and XTU (Extreme Tuning Utility). While these are quite handy, most enthusiasts probably prefer to dig into the BIOS and play around with settings there like Curve Optimizer on Ryzen, which lets users set various frequency-voltage scaling values. These are essentially called P-States. If you are not familiar with them, Processor Power Management is done through Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) P-states and C-states. While P-states or performance pwoer states handle CPU voltage-frequency scaling, C-states deal with CPU sleep states so that some of the CPU functions, which are not necessary at that moment, can be disabled. The P-states and C-states work together to make the processor run more efficiently. It helps the OS and apps determine which cores can be parked and which should be boosted. Of course not every user is an enthusiast or knows the technicalities and integrities of how things like overclocking or undervolting work. Thankfully for them Windows itself offers something pretty cool, though it is hidden by default on all systems. By default, Windows only has two P-States, "Minimum Processor State" and "Maximum Processor State." However, this can be changed with a Registry trick to expand the options under a secret "Processor performance boost mode" dropdown. This essentially enables the HWP or hardware P-States available on a device, and these are not controlled just by the OS itself as the underlying hardware gets involved too. In total there are five Processor Performance Boost Mode profiles that control how Windows requests and allows CPU turbo/boost behavior under the different power policies. They are: Disabled: In this mode, processor boosting is effectively turned off. The CPU will avoid entering turbo or boost frequencies and instead operate closer to its base frequency ceiling. This can significantly reduce power consumption and heat output, but at the cost of reduced burst performance and responsiveness in short workloads. Enabled: This is the standard behavior where boost functionality is allowed under normal conditions. The processor can opportunistically increase frequency when workload demands it, balancing performance gains with power and thermal constraints as managed by the system. Aggressive: Aggressive mode favors performance more heavily, allowing the CPU to enter higher boost states more readily and sustain them longer. This should in theory improve responsiveness under bursty or heavy workloads but increases power draw and thermal output compared to the default enabled behavior. Efficient Enabled: This mode still allows boosting, but with a stronger bias toward energy efficiency. The system attempts to use boost more selectively, avoiding unnecessary frequency spikes when the performance gain is marginal. Efficient Aggressive: This is a hybrid approach where boost is still performance-responsive, but the system continuously weighs efficiency more heavily than in Aggressive mode. It aims to deliver noticeable performance improvements while reducing wasted power in less demanding scenarios. Here's how to enable the Processor performance boost mode: Open Registry Editor: Press Win+R, type regedit, and click OK. Go to: HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Power\PowerSettings\54533251-82be-4824-96c1-47b60b740d00\be337238-0d82-4146-a960-4f3749d470c7 (where HKLM stands for HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE_) Modify the value of Attributes from 1 to 2 (you can find modify option by right-clicking) After that, exit Registry, you should now be able to see the new "Processor performance boost mode" dropdown menu: As you can see there are now five new P-States or CPPC states or power profile available that help define the boost mode processor setting on your PC. Wrapping it up here's a quick run-down of the settings as defined by Microsoft itself. Setting Description Disabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is disabled. Collaborative Processor Performance Control (CPPC) behaviour is disabled. Enabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is enabled. CPPC behaviour is Efficient Enabled. Aggressive The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is enabled. CPPC behaviour is Aggressive. Efficient Enabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is Efficient. CPPC behaviour is Efficient Enabled. Efficient Aggressive The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is Efficient. CPPC behaviour is Aggressive. Aggressive At Guaranteed Windows calculates the desired extra performance above the guaranteed performance level, and asks the processor to deliver that specific performance level. Efficient Aggressive At Guaranteed Windows always asks the processor to deliver the highest possible performance above the guaranteed performance level. In the next part we shall be comparing these settings to explore how much of a benefit or regression they can provide in terms of performance and power efficiency. If you decide to change the values on your system and are experiencing problems like crashes or an overheating PC, make sure to revert the steps back to the original state.
    • I think he means you haven't reviewed previous UFC games. Of course it doesn't matter... Every time you just report on something that involves the President even if just simply what happened you guys usually get accused of being anti-Trump. We live in fun times.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      rolfus earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Leroy Jethro Gibbs earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Conversation Starter
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • One Month Later
      AndreaB earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      agatameier earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      518
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      198
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      147
    4. 4
      ATLien_0
      93
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      78
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!