Forthcoming changes on Bans & Moderations

[Fred Derf Veteran]

So you can call someone an idiot, ban them and then your immune from your own rules?

Well, proper protocol suggests that one should ban them first and then call them an idiot.

In this case the order didn't matter because that member had previously been banned (and should have stayed that way).

[Green_Eye]

IF the person replies to your question and tells you why he rated it as crap or otherwise how can you refute his answer? The answer, quite simply, is that you cannot!

Who are you to say that it is futile to debate this? By the sheer nature of your comment you are basically telling me that there will be no debate! You assume, by said statement, that you are the sole judge and jury? I think not! It most definitely is a subjective point of view (Regardless of how skewed it may be!) and if anyone who reads these posts feels the need to rate it in that manner there is precious little you can do about it.

So basically when it becomes a trend to use say, Firefox, is everyone who uses IE7 an idiot! Once again the answer is no!

Whoa easy there tiger. I was obviously claiming it was futile to argue Audioboxer's case as it was OBVIOUS that he was being singled out by one maybe two people and had we looked into the case we would find a trend of votes all coming from that one person and asked him to stop. :huh:

geez maybe I worded that wrong but no need to go on tantrum over it? :s

well, I'm a self proclaimed ******* and really don't give a rat's butt on who knows it. Look at the amount of posts I make here. Not even a dent compared to some of you who have no life outside of this forum. On a scale of 1 to 10 for forums and good discussions, Neowin rates about a 1.5. This is the place I come to when I want to get under someone's skin.

Too many kids and too many restrictions on adults who just want to say what they want to say without being slapped on the hand.

If Neowin were a police force they'd want you to wear a sign on your back telling the world everything you've done wrong in the past. You people who are sweating over this sillyness need to get a reality check. It's a flippin' forum. Nothing more.

To each their own I guess. But if you want less restrictions when making a debate or just in general you better pack up your Neowin badges and find somewhere else to go.

neowin has gone from a great place to discuss events and such to a community of kids who want to know what kind of shampoo you use. wtf?

Trust me folks, there are bigger and better forums out there.

And you are free to go and not come back because don't know if I speak for all of Neowin but I certainly wont miss that bad grammar or attitude ;)

[.exo.]

I'm grateful there is warning system. I've seen many sites without one where people just get flat out banned for goofing up just once.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

I'm grateful there is warning system. I've seen many sites without one where people just get flat out banned for goofing up just once.

If there is a moderation problem on Neowin it is that we give out too many chances.

Although, as much as I say that, there have been a number of people who have graduated up to 80% or 100% and then finally adapted. Sometimes patience does pay off.

[Borbus]

If there is a moderation problem on Neowin it is that we give out too many chances.

I think the moderation problem on Neowin is because there is competition between moderators, and that is caused by the ridiculous hierarchy that has been setup for staff. When I joined Neowin there were mods and global mods who had special jobs, to mod individual forums and to mod the whole board (I assume the globals mods have more time and experience).

I've got a 40% warning, one of them was probably deserved because I called someone a ****ing idiot for saying downloading music is illegal. The other one was for some banter that wasn't even offensive and that people found funny. For both of those posts it seemed like the mods simply tapped the "quick warn" button when the slightest chance was offered to them.

I stopped using Neowin for ages because of it actually, I used to be quite active. Now I just lurk in the Linux forums a little bit.

[williamhook]

Apologies if this has already been requested in the thread, but I'm not reading all the replies :p Anyway, can you switch on the ability for us to view our own warn reasons? There's an option in IPB that you can enable/disable so that users can click their warning level and see the reasons.

I'd like that option too.

Although, as much as I say that, there have been a number of people who have graduated up to 80% or 100% and then finally adapted. Sometimes patience does pay off.

I must say that I am one of those people. I joined in Feb 05, and was banned the same year, but back then I was pretty much being immature and an idiot (I can call myself an idiot, right? :laugh: ), and hence I was banned. I got unbanned late last year, and I must say my posts from back then seemed quite immature. :p

I guess two years would do that though - 14 --> 16 years old. :whistle:

[Colin-uk Veteran]

For both of those posts it seemed like the mods simply tapped the "quick warn" button when the slightest chance was offered to them.

what makes it seem like that?

[Fred Derf Veteran]

I think the moderation problem on Neowin is because there is competition between moderators, and that is caused by the ridiculous hierarchy that has been setup for staff. When I joined Neowin there were mods and global mods who had special jobs, to mod individual forums and to mod the whole board (I assume the globals mods have more time and experience).

I've got a 40% warning, one of them was probably deserved because I called someone a ****ing idiot for saying downloading music is illegal. The other one was for some banter that wasn't even offensive and that people found funny. For both of those posts it seemed like the mods simply tapped the "quick warn" button when the slightest chance was offered to them.

I stopped using Neowin for ages because of it actually, I used to be quite active. Now I just lurk in the Linux forums a little bit.

Yes, once upon a time fmods were assigned to specific forums and global mods had roaming access. We tried to make fmods and gmods equal with the idea that the fmods really "owned" their particular forum but it was really hard to sell that to everyone (both staff and members) as it just seemed unnatural. Eventually we graduated to the concept we have now of junior and senior moderators (even if they aren't called that).

The "ridiculous hierarchy" we have does serve some additional purposes, however, Supervisors are here to watch over the store and to deal with warning appeals. Admins are here to look over the Supervisors. Admins are at the very top of the food chain so I wouldn't advise ticking one of them off.

If I spot someone calling someone else an idiot you will get what is mostly a form letter from me about the situation. Sometimes I make mistakes. Sometime things are supposed to be an inside joke that would make more sense if I had read the entire thread more carefully. There are levels of appeal on Neowin and I have no problem admitting mistakes and saying sorry.

[Xtreme2damax]

I don't want my bar shown globally. The problems with me were only because I was caught at a depressing and bad point in my life.

I have since changed and don't feel it would be right for mine to be shown globally. I'm normally a good egg, you can even Google my user handle to check yourself.

I have not earned a single infraction nor ban at any other forum I'm a member at, I don't find it particularly appealing to bear my bar of shame to everyone since I'm no longer a troublesome member.

I can see were you are going with this, I just don't find it fair to those who have changed their etiquette for the better from past incidences.

[j.r.l.]

If you're at 40%, you'll be dropped to 20% before this takes effect.

[Xtreme2damax]

If you're at 40%, you'll be dropped to 20% before this takes effect.

Nah I'm higher than 40%, but I'm no longer a troublesome member and flat out avoid any threads which might result in a flamewar. I was never troublesome on any other forums, problems arose here because I was having problems in real life which transgressed on to the forum.

But I'm a changed man now, and will avoid getting in anymore trouble here. :)

[evo_spook]

The "ridiculous hierarchy" we have does serve some additional purposes, however, Supervisors are here to watch over the store and to deal with warning appeals. Admins are here to look over the Supervisors. Admins are at the very top of the food chain so I wouldn't advise ticking one of them off.

Isn't that a bit way over the top and silly for just a internet forum?

[Fugi]

Lovin it

Nah I'm higher than 40%, but I'm no longer a troublesome member and flat out avoid any threads which might result in a flamewar. I was never troublesome on any other forums, problems arose here because I was having problems in real life which transgressed on to the forum.

But I'm a changed man now, and will avoid getting in anymore trouble here. smile.gif

To start I don't think your supposed to be advertising in your sig? I could be wrong though.

[MulletRobZ]

Being a long time member here on Neowin, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one, Neobond, at least on exposing everyone with just warnings. Personally, I feel exposing those with just warnings simply create more opportunities to stir up flame wars and victimizing other members. But on the part of exposing all those who were banned, their reasons, and their IP addresses (to avoid multiple registrations); I agree 100%!

[Xtreme2damax]

Lovin it

To start I don't think your supposed to be advertising in your sig? I could be wrong though.

I was told I was allowed to link to my personal site in my sig and no moderators or administrators have said anything yet so I believe I am safe so long as I don't gloat and say, "OMGZ peeps, check out ma sig".:p

Anyways my site is completely legal, so as far as I know I'm in the clear for now......

[Fugi]

I was told I was allowed to link to my personal site in my sig and no moderators or administrators have said anything yet so I believe I am safe so long as I don't gloat and say, "OMGZ peeps, check out ma sig". :p

Anyways my site is completely legal, so as far as I know I'm in the clear for now......

Alrighty then :p, I guess that rule is only for commercial sites or something... my bad.

[Rappy Veteran]

Alrighty then :p, I guess that rule is only for commercial sites or something... my bad.

Yeh I think its for refferals to sites where you get money and also sites that contain illegal activity.

[Xtreme2damax]

Yeh I think its for refferals to sites where you get money and also sites that contain illegal activity.

Well I'm safe because my site has neither.

Anyways I agree with MulletRobZ, I'm all for exposing the banned or previously banned members but not the ones who have a warning level or have had a restriction on posting.

I just want to put my past here behind without being reminded constantly or my shame being exposed for the world of Neowin to see since I have long left my former poor etiquette in the dust.

[+M2Ys4U Subscriber¹]

I've been warned 3 times I think; One was rescinded due to internal review very quickly (and before I'd been able to get at my PMs to see I'd been warned in the first place), and the other 2 I simply just waited until my warning was reduced. I didn't agree with a couple of them when they were issued but in hindsight, I certainly do now.

As much as I disagree with 'Naming And Shaming' in real life, on the internets it does work, to a certain extent. Especially when it can be contained to a singe community.

If you're a reformed member, this shouldn't affect you - you know you're better now. If you're not, if you make ****tarded comments, people will know you're just generally a ****tard.

[Wannes]

Yes, once upon a time fmods were assigned to specific forums and global mods had roaming access. We tried to make fmods and gmods equal with the idea that the fmods really "owned" their particular forum but it was really hard to sell that to everyone (both staff and members) as it just seemed unnatural. Eventually we graduated to the concept we have now of junior and senior moderators (even if they aren't called that).

If I recall correctly that change hasn't been announced so therefore I still think/thought that forum moderators had a specific forum and global moderators could moderate all forums. You then have the Supervisors watching both and finally the administrators controlling everything. Hmm so everyone with a blue, green or red badge is actually the puppet of someone with a purple badge? :p

[Vykranth]

After reading the 18 pages of the thread, I feel more and more unease about the display of warnings bars globally.

I just cannot help the feeling that it will be abused by those who want to trick people with high warnings into flame wars to have them banned or to dismiss them because they are just marked as such.

It would be a good thing to update the community rules to mention that victimization because of warnings level is as bad as the other race/sex/country victimizations and that such members must report the post and not let their tempers falre

As Fred Derf mentioned, there are examples of people who have cleaned their act after being warned. If they are valuable and helpful members of the community, the community would lose.

On the ratings subject, I don't like that. I think it's a reduction of the quality of people to give them ratings. It's almost as bad as Xbox Live: I get bad ratings on Xbox live either because I am French or because my squad-mates and I beat the crap of the opposing teams. I used to have a one-star rating here for some time probably because someone did not like one of my answers in RWI. Now, I forge my opinion on people by reading their posts: they may share my ideas or not: it's not a reason to give them good or bad ratings.

For the second proposal of adding a sub-forum with the reason why members have been banned. Why not? If it can help to reduce the crap flak the staff has been taking to justify their decisions on bans on certain former members.

The one-hit spam wonders can be removed from that sub-forums: nobody cares about IPB spamming bots.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

If I recall correctly that change hasn't been announced so therefore I still think/thought that forum moderators had a specific forum and global moderators could moderate all forums. You then have the Supervisors watching both and finally the administrators controlling everything. Hmm so everyone with a blue, green or red badge is actually the puppet of someone with a purple badge? :p

No, it was never announced because it was never a conscious decision. It was more a case of gradual slippage. I was one of the proponents for considering gmods and fmods equal but it seems that I was not sufficiently convincing or that the idea was just inherently unnatural (I prefer to think the latter).

We also wanted to stay on top of reported threads so there was a need to give fmods global permissions.

[Joel]

Insensitive maybe, I have a 60% warn level, being registered since 2005, and I got 3 warnings in the space of a week, 2 was due to people going into news storys just to troll and cause trouble, but these type of actions seem to be accepted, they can going start any old sh*t and soon, as you tell them to bugger off, they cry to mods and get a warning and they get off scott free. I'm sorry, people should accept actions have consequences.

So, they trolled and you got a warning without posting anything? :blink: Or is it maybe that you posted something also, hm?

As a member, you have no idea whether another member received any form of warning, so your point about getting off scott-free seems a little uninformed.

[Veedems Veteran]

Isn't that a bit way over the top and silly for just a internet forum?

Not at all. Right now, the admins are mainly focused on the many updates going on in our code backend, specifically, the front page. That leaves them little time to deal with all the smaller issues that crop up on the forums. The supervisors are a group of trusted staff members who can make decisions as far as bans and the like are concerned. Believe it or not, with the exception of spammers, no ban is allowed to be processed without review and approval by a supervisor.

Edited February 10, 2008 by bangbang023

[Fred Derf Veteran]

I'm not ashamed to have 4 warnings, because to be honest, I didn't deserve any of them.

Neowin is not a no-holds-barred cage match. I suggest that all members who think they have not deserved any warnings to re-read this document:

https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?act=boardrules

We will not permit Neowin to become a survival-of-the-fittest atmosphere. The goal is to create a positive community environment where new members will not be afraid to post. The Community Rules were created for that very purpose. There are plenty of forums that do not have established rules and where members can be banned for "not being cool". We have more of a formal process around here to try and establish and maintain law and order. If you follow the rules (or some standard of common decency), and when we do our jobs well, you shouldn't even notice us.

If we did publish warning logs then nobody would be able to say their warnings were not justified.