How many reported posts/moderated posts/infraction points do you have?

[The Mikado]

At 16  infractions, and 150 points, we have a new leader of our moderation board!  Everybody else can step on down a notch.

edit: Whoops, missed a troll thread on my board.  Now 17, 160

who?

Stark's last duplicate account, now banned.

[Badger]

The problem with the new system is the low shelf life for infraction points. It seems it penalizes those who go on a particularly dickish rampage for a short period of time for whatever reason, but those who are chronic prickish boils on the forum can just survive on and on and on so long as they know enough to periodically keep their head down. Those consistant SOB's who perpetually drain more from the forum then they add to it are the ones most in need of sanction.

Would Hammy have ever been banned under this version?

Oh, and 3-0-0 btw.

Edit: Just got a 4th one. Wonder why....

[The Mikado]

The problem with the new system is the low shelf life for infraction points. It seems it penalizes those who go on a particularly dickish rampage for a short period of time for whatever reason, but those who are chronic prickish boils on the forum can just survive on and on and on so long as they know enough to periodically keep their head down. Those consistant SOB's who perpetually drain more from the forum then they add to it are the ones most in need of sanction.

Would Hammy have ever been banned under this version?

Oh, and 3-0-0 btw.

Towards the end, Hammy was posting over 200 posts a day, many of which were worthless.  While I wasn't a moderator at the time, I'm sure that if the current system was in place the mods of the time would get him Muted very quickly.

[Lunar]

I agree with Badger, but I think it's kind of relevant to note that these unpleasant side-effects may be intentional.  The Man may actually want to restrict our hands in all cases except short-term spam flooders.  

People who systemically troll, attack, etc., while oh-so-conscious of the rules are going to be exempt, and I'm not sure what there is to do about it.  The system is designed to catch people who are either unaware of their trolling or don't care if they're trolling, it's going to let slip through every poster who is aware and cares, but still wants to troll.

I think if Hamilton were able to hypothetically appear for the first time tomorrow, we'd have a far harder time banning him, despite something close to an infinite amount of evidence justifying that decision.  You can see that consciousness in all of his pathetic sock accounts, if he weren't such a loser and transparently obvious, things would be tougher for us in banning each one.  

We've only had the infraction system for a month and a half or so, maybe two months at max, no ones points have expired yet.  I think it's hard to deny that it's not a flawed system, but it's a more transparent system and a more fair system.  

[dead0man]

9-0-0....WINNER!

[??????????]

9-0-0....WINNER!

15-6-5

[Free Palestine]

16-8-6

[Badger]

I agree with Badger, but I think it's kind of relevant to note that these unpleasant side-effects may be intentional.  The Man may actually want to restrict our hands in all cases except short-term spam flooders.  

People who systemically troll, attack, etc., while oh-so-conscious of the rules are going to be exempt, and I'm not sure what there is to do about it.  The system is designed to catch people who are either unaware of their trolling or don't care if they're trolling, it's going to let slip through every poster who is aware and cares, but still wants to troll.

I think if Hamilton were able to hypothetically appear for the first time tomorrow, we'd have a far harder time banning him, despite something close to an infinite amount of evidence justifying that decision.  You can see that consciousness in all of his pathetic sock accounts, if he weren't such a loser and transparently obvious, things would be tougher for us in banning each one.  

We've only had the infraction system for a month and a half or so, maybe two months at max, no ones points have expired yet.  I think it's hard to deny that it's not a flawed system, but it's a more transparent system and a more fair system.  

I'm aware Dave doesn't like to be bothered with...stuff, but is there any chance of pointing this out to him and convincing him to make some minor common sense changes (like bump up the points needed for sanction and drastically reducing or eliminating the expiration of points).

[CatoMinor]

Still 0-0-0

[dead0man]

9-0-0....WINNER!

15-6-5

16-8-6

9-0-0 is better than either.  You guys have complaints against you with cause, I just got haters

[??????????]

9-0-0....WINNER!

15-6-5

16-8-6

9-0-0 is better than either.  You guys have complaints against you with cause, I just got haters

Five of the six are with cause. One is BS.

[Lief 🗽]

12-4-4

A warning to other posters: apparently attacking a poster who hasn't posted here in years is still a person attack.

[Lunar]

I agree with Badger, but I think it's kind of relevant to note that these unpleasant side-effects may be intentional.  The Man may actually want to restrict our hands in all cases except short-term spam flooders.  

People who systemically troll, attack, etc., while oh-so-conscious of the rules are going to be exempt, and I'm not sure what there is to do about it.  The system is designed to catch people who are either unaware of their trolling or don't care if they're trolling, it's going to let slip through every poster who is aware and cares, but still wants to troll.

I think if Hamilton were able to hypothetically appear for the first time tomorrow, we'd have a far harder time banning him, despite something close to an infinite amount of evidence justifying that decision.  You can see that consciousness in all of his pathetic sock accounts, if he weren't such a loser and transparently obvious, things would be tougher for us in banning each one.  

We've only had the infraction system for a month and a half or so, maybe two months at max, no ones points have expired yet.  I think it's hard to deny that it's not a flawed system, but it's a more transparent system and a more fair system.  

I'm aware Dave doesn't like to be bothered with...stuff, but is there any chance of pointing this out to him and convincing him to make some minor common sense changes (like bump up the points needed for sanction and drastically reducing or eliminating the expiration of points).

Your guess is as good as mine.  My only point was that he may want to create a system where someone could post 20 provocative, borderline posts a day attacking other posters and saying offensive things, and face no consequences so long as the poster is aware of what he's doing and how to exploit the system, but where  intentional spam flooders get shut down, maybe not immediately, but over a few weeks in the worst case scenarios.

I mean, how else could Roch still exist here? 

[Vepres]

Reported Posts:     0
Moderated Posts:    0
Infraction Points:    0

I'm still squeaky clean

[??????????]

I agree with Badger, but I think it's kind of relevant to note that these unpleasant side-effects may be intentional.  The Man may actually want to restrict our hands in all cases except short-term spam flooders.  

People who systemically troll, attack, etc., while oh-so-conscious of the rules are going to be exempt, and I'm not sure what there is to do about it.  The system is designed to catch people who are either unaware of their trolling or don't care if they're trolling, it's going to let slip through every poster who is aware and cares, but still wants to troll.

I think if Hamilton were able to hypothetically appear for the first time tomorrow, we'd have a far harder time banning him, despite something close to an infinite amount of evidence justifying that decision.  You can see that consciousness in all of his pathetic sock accounts, if he weren't such a loser and transparently obvious, things would be tougher for us in banning each one.  

We've only had the infraction system for a month and a half or so, maybe two months at max, no ones points have expired yet.  I think it's hard to deny that it's not a flawed system, but it's a more transparent system and a more fair system.  

I'm aware Dave doesn't like to be bothered with...stuff, but is there any chance of pointing this out to him and convincing him to make some minor common sense changes (like bump up the points needed for sanction and drastically reducing or eliminating the expiration of points).

Your guess is as good as mine.  My only point was that he may want to create a system where someone could post 20 provocative, borderline posts a day attacking other posters and saying offensive things, and face no consequences so long as the poster is aware of what he's doing and how to exploit the system, but where  intentional spam flooders get shut down, maybe not immediately, but over a few weeks in the worst case scenarios.

I mean, how else could Roch still exist here? 

What determines "offensive"?

[Lunar]

Obviously we have a secret committee of oompa loompas who determine offensiveness.

Seriously, what kind of question is that?

If you have a specific complaint, as it seems you have, make that to said moderator.

[??????????]

Obviously we have a secret committee of oompa loompas who determine offensiveness.

Seriously, what kind of question is that?

If you have a specific complaint, as it seems you have, make that to said moderator.

What do you mean by offensive, like a political opinion that may be offensive or vulgarity?

[© tweed]

pitching shutouts like it's 1968

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Reported Posts:   37
Moderated Posts:   10
Infraction Points:   9

[opebo]

Reported Posts:   37
Moderated Posts:   10
Infraction Points:   9

Just one point from being banned?

I've got four 'infraction points', whatever that is, for insulting some ********** *** *******.  But in the olden days, I got only two such points for calling ****** ******.

Perhaps the points are escalating.

[Thomas D]

Reported Posts:   37
Moderated Posts:   10
Infraction Points:   9

Just one point from being banned?

I've got four 'infraction points', whatever that is, for insulting some ********** *** *******.  But in the olden days, I got only two such points for calling ****** ******.

Perhaps the points are escalating.

People aren't banned at 10. They don't get mod review until 50.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Sitting on an 8-1-0.

[opebo]

People aren't banned at 10. They don't get mod review until 50.

I find it hard to keep track of all the various edicts and proclamations.  Best to just say nothing.  Ever.

[The Mikado]

The punishments are at 50, 75, and 100.

[opebo]

The punishments are at 50, 75, and 100.

At which number am I turned into a pumpkin?