Trollheart

Right, tore has accused me --- well, accused is probably too strong a word: he's intimated that I do nothing but complain and find fault with his rules, but come up with none of my own. So I've thought about it and this is what I've come up with. It's based on the infraction system used in football (Disclaimer: when I say football here I'm referring to real football, not the type you Americans wear suits of armour to play! And no, I will not call it soccer!) and works like this:

During a game there are many things a player can do to find himself in the referee's notebook but, and this is important, this does not always happen. In order for the game to flow and for people to feel comfortable about making tackles, winning the ball etc there is some leeway, so whereas a bad tackle might be frowned upon, it may not necessarily be punished. When it is, a player is handed a Yellow Card. This means he is on licence; do it again and he's off. Two yellow cards equals one Red, after which the player is dismissed from the field and cannot take part in any more games for usually three matches.

In order that nobody goes mad throwing about Yellow Cards and half the teams are off the field, refs use their judgement. They, or the linesmen at the side, will note if something illegal or unwanted is done, and the player may be warned, or jut get the eye from the ref. He knows he has been spotted, and had better watch himself. After usually one warning, maybe two, or if he does something that cannot be excused, he gets a Yellow. If it's really bad he can get a straight Red, which effects his immediate expulsion from the pitch.

My idea reflects that. Say someone starts acting up. A mod can say “stop it, we're watching you” or similar, in the thread, to that member. If he or she does not stop, or does something else, then a Yellow Card is issued. Now, this is issued within the thread, in the open, not by PM, so that all can see it. Everyone now knows that Member A is on probation. If he or she steps out of line again, or fails to heed the warning, he or she gets a Red. This then would probably mean a week's ban.

How does this differ from our current system of infractions? Not that much, but the important part is that it's all done out in the open, where everyone can see, so not only has Member A got the message, and can't say he or she was not warned, but everyone else has seen him or her get it, so any complaining or whining later that it wasn't fair will be greeted with derision. We've all seen him or her ride the limits, be told to stop. We've seen him or her get the Yellow, so there can be no doubt they knew they were on a serious warning. In extreme cases, two Reds could make a Black Card (I think they do this in rugby?) which might then mean a month's ban for really bad or repeated behaviour that flouts the rules.

This may be seen as more work for mods, I don't know, but is it any more work than PMing everyone who needs an infraction? You're in the thread, you see the problem, you can deal with it there and then. It's in the open, there are no closed doors or kangaroo courts, nobody can be accused of having a vendetta against anyone, it's all there to see. In football, Red cards can also be appealed if the person feels they were given it unfairly, and this would be up to the mods to decide (if this system were adopted) but an appeal tribunal could be held, where the mods, in concert maybe with Member A and maybe anyone he or she offended or affected with his or her behaviour, could decide whether it should stand or be rescinded.

Look, I don't know: I'm doing this on the fly. But it seems on its face a fairer and more equitable system. If I go over the top and someone hits me with a Yellow card (even if I think I should not have got that card) and continue in that behaviour and then get a Red, what protest can I raise? And who will support that, seeing what happened? I think it 's better than someone disappearing off the board and everyone wondering where they went, and why they were banned. It also, to return to the football analogy, allows everyone not only to play nice but to play rough if they want, aware they are being watched and not to push it too far. Nobody's afraid to slide in with a tackle, but by the same token everyone knows that an elbow in the face will not be tolerated. This would of course apply to all members, as on the pitch the captain can be as easily carded as a defender, and the player costing seventy million can go just as can the one costing ten. And as in football, if the ref (mod) does not see the infraction then it can be brought to his or her attention by way of reporting. The mod can then investigate and see if the card is merited.

If this were to be implemented, I wonder if a yellow card/red card symbol could be added to the member's panel, like their post count, join date etc, just on a temporary basis, until the card has been worked off? Well anyway...

An embyronic idea, certainly, but on the face of it, what do you guys think? Would it work? Have I forgotten anything? Does anyone have questions, want to challenge it? What does tore think? What about the other mods?

__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018

VEGANGELICA

Trollheart, I really appreciate that you are thinking creatively about how you might prefer rule enforcement to work here at MB, using your *soccer* analogy.

I think one problem with your suggested enforcement system, and the current MB system, is that it can become difficult with so many members and posts to keep track of who has been warned verbally in a thread.

In contrast, an infractions system like Tore suggests would quickly keep track of how many warnings a person receives through the system. This helps create a fairer system that "remembers" how often a member has been given warnings.

A second issue with the "yellow flags" idea, I feel, is that frequent verbal warnings in a thread disrupt the flow of the thread, can be misunderstood if the warning is given to people in general rather than specific members, and can easily be ignored by a member or members. I prefer moderation to be done mostly behind the scenes through PMs and an infraction system.

This current thread serves as a good example of how a verbal warning isn't always very effective. Janszoon gave the following verbal warning, asking people to stay on the topic of MB rules and Tore's proposals...

...but then just several pages later (after some posts between Chula and Jans to clarify whom his general warning was meant for), people made around 15 off-topic posts with critical, denigrating comments about Soulflower, culminating with this one, by a mod:

^ None of these off-topic posts that were putting down one of our members subsequent to Janszoon's warning were addressed by a moderator. This is an example of how verbal warnings weren't handed out equally in the thread, and of how a verbal warning to stay on-topic did not stop the thread from going off-topic later.

I agree with Soulflower in wanting moderators to respond professionally rather than put a member down in the threads, especially when it is a member who is upset about that very moderator behavior which makes it hard for me to trust that moderators will enforce rules fairly and courteously.

***

Enforcing rules about off-topic, short, nonsense posts:

I think some off-topic comments of a funny nature are a real asset to MB and our community, as long as they don't take over a thread that has a specific topic for discussion.

For example, my favorite off-topic funny post in this thread was the one by Frownland, which made my inner 13-year-old girl/boy chuckle...

...but when off-topic posts are intended to jab and personally attack other members, then those posts, I feel, should definitely be addressed through an infractions sytem that can keep track of how many times an individual breaks this rule: "While debating and discussion is fine, we will not tolerate rudeness, insulting posts, personal attacks, trolling, purposeless inflammatory posts or members deliberately provoking another member into committing any of these acts."

Verbal warnings and "yellow flags" in threads are imprecise and hard to quantify, and easier for members and mods, apparently, to ignore. The infactions system that Tore suggests would, I believe, help limit off-topic as well as personal attack posts in non-lounge threads.

EDIT: Welcome back, Terrible Lizard. I like your avatar!

__________________

Trollheart

Hmm. Thanks for your comments and taking the time to read it through, Vengealica. I do disagree though. If for instance a flag could be shown beside a user's name then we would all know that he or she was on a warning. If the mods have to pick out a user from a thread and send a PM to them advising of an impending infraction (I do not, heartily do not agree with automatic, computer-assigned bans or even warnings) then I think that is the same amount of work, perhaps more because in the thread you can (or they can I should say) issue the demerit, warning, card, whatever there and then, not have to remember to do it later or remind the member why they were infracted.

As I think I pointed out, but may not have been too clear about it, I would envision it ideally working thus:

Step 1: Member A is talking to Member B and calls him a ***got
A mod says "That's not acceptable language. Knock it off."

Step 2: Member A then uses the word again.
A mod says "I warned you; your're on thin ice buddy" (if he or she wishes to give two warnings: that would be up to the mod. He could if he wanted go on to step 3 immediately after step 1)

Step 3: Member A continues in the same behaviour
A mod says "Ok mister! That's it! You have a Yellow Card!"
(That could be bolded) If possible, as I said, a Yellow flag or something could then appear on Member A somewhere. I really don't know the logistics of it, if it's easy or hard to do, but surely something could be done? Even a spreadsheet with names on it? I don't know, but something)

Step 4: Member A, now Yellow carded, remains the same as he was.
A mod says: "Another yellow for you and that's a Red. Enjoy your week off."

Problem dealt with, again in view of all participating members within the thread. No behind-the-scenes skullduggery or ulterior motives can be claimed or accused.

Also, I would like to take issue with your "I agree with Soulflower". If the mod is at fault for insulting her (and it was only a little one) is she then not also culpable for voicing the opinion that he should be fired? Is this not what tore is trying to bring in, and she an advocate of it: equal and equitable treatment for all, regardless of rank or longevity?

__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018

Soulflower

Good points

Not only that... the moderators in this thread once again stood by, observed the attacking and did nothing. (which further supports my opinion that all the current moderators need to go). They address what they want to address and not all the issues pertaining to all the members.

When I go and retaliate against the constant attacking, I am "perceived" as the problem when in reality the moderators are not enforcing the rules on certain members like they should, I wouldn't have to retaliate.

Ironically, this is proving the points that Tore is arguing for.

The current moderators are not fair and do not show equal treatment to all the members. There needs to be new moderators and rules need to be enforced.

The behavior in this thread demonstrates that.