Forthcoming changes on Bans & Moderations

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

Neowin doesnt need to be democratic in order to be fair, you are confusing two different concepts.

No, I'm really not. I simply put the two concepts into one post!

[CUBBYJR2005]

sounds good to me

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

I have found the "Ignore" feature to be very handy.

One specific thing that annoys me is when a member asks a question. He is then given a factual, correct answer - but it's not the answer he wanted. So he harps on and on. This used to really frustrate me - and I was on the verge of creating another warn for myself. So I clicked the ignore button. I no longer see any of this idiots posts, and am chilled all the more for it.

...

One thing that annoys me, is when people ask a question, but then say specific answers that you can't say.

"Hey guys, my internet isn't working, can you help? Oh and it isn't my router, so don't say that."

Another thing is when people ask questions, then when they get an answer delete their posts, other people might have the same problem guys!

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

V true, Decryptor!

[macf13nd]

gosh that was a long read.

I agree with the proposed changes for the record.

And yes, I'm sure that Neobond didn't anticipate such a response and the resulting discussion... :D

(i secretly have such a childish desire to know why snyper was banned... grrr its irratating!)

?0.02

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

I know what you mean. Personally, I wanted to hear the Neowin side of things, as I heard Snyper's first hand - and to be fair - it's not really that interesting! But as I never have nor will hear the Neowin side of things, I opt to not comment or relay anything further!

[Wannes]

I've never really cared about the Snyper hype but it surprised me as he took so long to get banned. I saw him crawling every thread with irrelevant, "funny" posts.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

Members are rarely ever banned for a single monstrous incident. Most people who have been banned have an extensive rap sheet and the banning incident was no more than the feather that broke the camel's back.

[macf13nd]

I've never really cared about the Snyper hype but it surprised me as he took so long to get banned. I saw him crawling every thread with irrelevant, "funny" posts.

he did seem to be quite full of himself as well, spurred on by others. 'teh snyper' etc.

anyway, apologies for dragging this thread even further off topic!

[Wannes]

Members are rarely ever banned for a single monstrous incident. Most people who have been banned have an extensive rap sheet and the banning incident was no more than the feather that broke the camel's back.

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".

[obsolete_power]

Hmm this could go both ways. It is good to expose people that have high warning percentage (like me :p) but at the same time, some people might be inclined to refuse help to those people or to just insult them. I can just see something like this happening.

[Steven P. Administrators]

Hmm this could go both ways. It is good to expose people that have high warning percentage (like me :p) but at the same time, some people might be inclined to refuse help to those people or to just insult them. I can just see something like this happening.

What, you mean like the Neowin staff are by the very same people that have high warnings?

Hmm, thats also not very fair either is it?

PS: I know that not every member on high warnings insults Neowin and its members or staff, but generally that seems to be the rule. The whole problem is: We know why certain members are being jackasses to staff or other members, but generally members DON'T know why certain members are being jackasses, because they don't see that they have previously been warned for the same behavior!

[Farstrider]

Members are rarely ever banned for a single monstrous incident. Most people who have been banned have an extensive rap sheet and the banning incident was no more than the feather that broke the camel's back.

What would a "monstrous" incident be? A picture of a naked girl sitting in a really "ugly" pose? :laugh:

[+orgitnized Subscriber¹]

Members are rarely ever banned for a single monstrous incident. Most people who have been banned have an extensive rap sheet and the banning incident was no more than the feather that broke the camel's back.

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".

The feather? Well, you got me, but this English speaking man says "the straw that broke the camel's back." Never heard of feather - feather and horse yes, from Charles Dickens...but that's it.

Anways, on topic I think it'll be nice to see how the changes pan out. There will be a lot of people who are unaware of it and get a ton of new posts about seeing warning levels and the like. Most of the MVC members were praised but the act of praising was frowned upon by a lot of people.

Just move forth with what makes sense from what administration feels fit after running the board for sooo many years. Many members have tunnel vision from the sights they are privy to; seeing 10% out of the 100%.

I'm all for a solid user base, helpful members, consistent administration and the willingness to listen to your audience to make the board better and better in the future. The goals you guys are (formally) starting to strive to look to be in line with what I see as being a successfully managed board that can better suit the needs of the community.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

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".

I think I mixed my metaphors. I believe Ghost96 is correct. The expression is usually the "the straw the broke the camels back". I must have mixed it with "as light as a feather" or some other expression.

[NateB1]

I think I mixed my metaphors. I believe Ghost96 is correct. The expression is usually the "the straw the broke the camels back". I must have mixed it with "as light as a feather" or some other expression.

Actually that metaphor fit. I like it when someone puts a new spin on on a common metaphor, as it doesn't sound cliche.

Regarding this whole debate, let me sum up what I have been reading over the past few pages:

Goals of this program:

1. To expose people who have a high warning as a small "punishment" for breaking the rules one to many times

2. To cause people to think before they post something that might be construed as breaking the rules

3. To provide reasoning behind banning someone

Objections:

1. People won't trust those who have high warnings

2. People who have high warnings are somehow less valuable

3. My warnings were a mistake

4. People will wear their high warning badge as a sign of honor

5. People will provoke those with high warnings until they become banned.

Refutations:

1. The person who values an opinion based un a warning sign probably isn't the kind of person you would want browsing Neowin anyway. That person would be using a logical fallacy (the name is escaping me at the moment - it's not ad hominem). If someone tells me I'm having network issues with router X, and has an 80% warning sign, I'm not going to disallow his opinion outright. Maybe that person has an unrelated anger issue he's dealing with.

2. People with high warnings are just as valuable as the people who have none - from what I gather, the MVCs and some staff have warnings, and they are valued as members of the community.

3. Well, that is what the appeal function is for. Probably your warning was justified, and if not, look at what you did and don't do it again, even if you may think it is perfectly OK.

4. If they wear their high warning badge as a sign of honor, they probably won't be around Neowin for very long. I wouldn't worry about it.

5. The person with a high warning should just not respond. Remember, no one is forced to post here - better let the provocation go without a response than risk your membership on Neowin. And besides, the person posting the provocation runs the risk of getting a warning. At least for me, the prospect of getting banned would be enough motivation for me to stop posting in those threads for a while. There is also the useful "ignore" button that is available for ignoring people who get under your skin.

Am I missing anything?

[Fred Derf Veteran]

Am I missing anything?

I think the real reason is more:

"Would you please stop talking about banned members to whom we gave every possible chance and if you only knew what we went through, the abuse we took, the time we spent then you would understand what we go through and stop ranting about nazi moderation when the reality couldn't be further from that description."

then the line of thinking was:

"If they could only see one of the ban logs that requires you to page down three additional pages then perhaps they would understand, perhaps they would love us again and announce a 'Hug a volunteer moderator day'."

I think that Neobond just got one too many letters that contain every possible swear word and variation of the word for sexual intercourse (some positions of which are not humanly possible). Needless to say, this type of email is invariable follow up by another email a week later which pleads for another chance on Neowin. It gets extremely frustrating. By the way, that second email never fails to appear. It's like magic or something.

Yes, it is possible to get an erroneous warning. Yes, it is possible that we have a staff member who had a bad day (or even month). There has to be a better way of communicating that displeasure in a respectful way. I'm sure Neobond or the Supers would like feedback about "Power Hungry Mods" or even, gasp, "Power Hungry Supers". I forward such information that I hear to others here who are in a leadership role. One such statement may be ignored. Perhaps that member is unstable or simply bitter but if we get several similar reports then we will certainly investigate and then potentially take action. Staff positions are not for life, they should be constantly earned. Perhaps some people think that Neobond has only promoted his real life friends or that we form some secret club. I was just a regular member. I've never met any other staffer in real life. For all they know, I may not exist. :D

[leesmithg]

I'd like to announce that soon we will be changing the way bans and moderations are handled on Neowin.

Anyone currently on 40% warn rating will automatically have their warn bar shown globally, the members that continue to frustrate and test the staff will be exposed in this manner. Neowin is a community and it is only fair that your peers know who the bad apples are. Time and time again certain members invoke an additional warning even after the automatic reduction comes into force.

I'd bet that we are the only community that even has an automatic reduction system, the result is that certain members may actually break the rules on more than 5 occasions because after 6 months the warning level is reduced by 20%.

Additionally we will also be adding a forum at the foot of the index that shows members who have been banned, what rule they broke and when, no personal information will be shown (such as PM exchanges) but it should give other members an idea as to how lenient we have remained and show the extent of rule breaking on that members part.

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 up.

I know some of you may say, "Well, hell I'll just make a new account!" we are quite good at finding members who do that, and someone who has to create a new account to escape bans or warnings isn't the type of member we want here or the community would want, not to mention those types usually crop up quite quickly on our radar.

Discuss!

PS: We will announce when it comes into force, at the moment we have a few projects on the table and this is one thats being moved up to "priority"

I get the feeling some people will wear the 40% as a badge of honour.

However, will be interesting to see those on 40%+

[Colin-uk Veteran]

I beg your pardon? Unless I'm very much mistaken, one of the reasons for the "mvc" designation is so posters will recognize those who have proven themselves helpful over time and give their posts a little more weight. If you're saying that was neither the intent nor the result perhaps you can explain the purpose of "mvc" designations.

I think what he was saying was something along these lines:

Poster1: I need help with this

Poster2: Do this

Poster1: Oh... well you're not an MVC... I'll wait for one of them to chime in

That fortuantely never happened.

What shockz said is correct, that is what i was trying to say lol, i just suck at explaining things :p

[+BeLGaRaTh Subscriber¹]

Just to ask again, as my question around 10 pages ago wasnt answered :) .. for people who are on 20% warn (like myself for calling an idiot a despicable person) will our warns be reduced in the "global reduction" or is it only a global reduction for those on 40% or more?

I just wanna know, as I am on my first warning in nearly 7 years :p

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Just to ask again, as my question around 10 pages ago wasnt answered :) .. for people who are on 20% warn (like myself for calling an idiot a despicable person) will our warns be reduced in the "global reduction" or is it only a global reduction for those on 40% or more?

I just wanna know, as I am on my first warning in nearly 7 years :p

40% to 20% only is my understanding.

20% doesn't show to the public anyway, so you've nothing* to worry about ;)

* Well you told us all it's at 20% anyway :p

[zeta_immersion]

Sounds like a great improvement. Hopefully the additional information that will be shown about bans will help to avoid situations like the 'snypergate' scandal.

also, showing 40%< bans publicly should persuade those with such warning to keep their nose clean.

will the reduction period remain at 6 months?

/note to self, trademark the words 'snypergate'

just out of curiosity ... what was the snypergate scandal?

[+BeLGaRaTh Subscriber¹]

* Well you told us all it's at 20% anyway :p

erm, I havent got any warnings, probably, I mean ish ...

Was just worried about the warn showing, one warn in nearly 7 yrs is pretty good me thinks (especially with my recent state of mind :p)

[Fred Derf Veteran]

Just to ask again, as my question around 10 pages ago wasnt answered :) .. for people who are on 20% warn (like myself for calling an idiot a despicable person) will our warns be reduced in the "global reduction" or is it only a global reduction for those on 40% or more?

I just wanna know, as I am on my first warning in nearly 7 years :p

Your question was not answers because the details have not been fully flushed out.

[Glowstick]

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.