Jump to content

Making Infractions Public


St Chalet
 Share

Recommended Posts

Quite a bit of debate on whether to do this.

 

Personally I was open to the idea, but having done it on a thread earlier I am not so sure it is a good idea.

 

The forum software does not make it easy (or even possible as far as I aware) to do this in an automated way so it would be down to Mods and admin to manually post them manually.

 

In addition a lot of the posts we infract are deleted without the majority of the users getting to see them. Having to leave posts there, or the mystery of what they might of been is probably more damaging than the offence itself.

 

If you are interested how it panned out see the thread in question http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?28699-Wonders-of-the-solar-system

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it was the announcement that ruined the thread, it was the unexpected nature of it. People were not expecting to see your announcement as it hadn't been announced! Personally, think it's a decent enough idea. I would edit the offending post with a heading INFRACTION AWARDED and in the reason for editing bit state the reason for the infraction. If the post was offensive then you could remove the offensive words. You would need to stop the poster from reediting though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it was a good idea and in the most people reacted the way they did because they didn't understand what the f*ck was going on, TBF the majority of MOD abusing power was because they didn't realise you were going to do it and forewarning would have minimised it.

 

Also, you Infracted Deppo for making a snipe remark about Hypo which is a little bit double standards when you think about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it was a good idea and in the most people reacted the way they did because they didn't understand what the f*ck was going on, TBF the majority of MOD abusing power was because they didn't realise you were going to do it and forewarning would have minimised it.

 

Also, you Infracted Deppo for making a snipe remark about Hypo which is a little bit double standards when you think about it.

 

Don't disagree with your first paragraph, in hindsight a bit of warning would have been a better idea.

 

PS. How do you know Hypo hasn't been infracted for the same?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah public infractions is bull****. Mods going mental. Deppo means no harm and lightens things up. Yet he gets infractions. Alpine destroys the main forum and nothing.

 

Utter ********. He's a ***** isn't he. Infract me sideways. Add some sarcasm too.

 

A thread discussing the wonders of the universe descends into a mod wielding his power to dish out infractions on an Internet forum. Good stuff.

 

And you know this how?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leave Deppo alone ( in pure Britney fan glory)

 

TBF he brings a bit of life to a forum that has died a lot over the past few years

 

I agree...he does actually make me laugh and it's blatantly obvious that half of what he posts is not serious.

The real problem is the people who can't use common sense and tell the difference between having a bit of a laugh and being a c*nt, and then report every tiny little thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree...he does actually make me laugh and it's blatantly obvious that half of what he posts is not serious.

The real problem is the people who can't use common sense and tell the difference between having a bit of a laugh and being a c*nt, and then report every tiny little thing.

 

Exactly this

 

Can we infract anyone who reports as being a little bit too serious ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite a bit of debate on whether to do this.

 

Personally I was open to the idea, but having done it on a thread earlier I am not so sure it is a good idea.

 

The forum software does not make it easy (or even possible as far as I aware) to do this in an automated way so it would be down to Mods and admin to manually post them manually.

 

In addition a lot of the posts we infract are deleted without the majority of the users getting to see them. Having to leave posts there, or the mystery of what they might of been is probably more damaging than the offence itself.

 

If you are interested how it panned out see the thread in question http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?28699-Wonders-of-the-solar-system

 

I think there's a compelling argument in this for keeping infractions private. Sadly, the problem is a wider one of perceived fairness. When Deppo was briefly banned, dune sailed on regardless - and yet EVERYONE knows he's been banned before and has been allowed for no obvious reason to breach rules which apply to others. It was the same thing with Nineteen Canteen et al. He even boasted to several of us by PM that he had re-emerged in about five different guises - all known to Admin. If there were a clear argument that justifies this, the clamour for making infractions public would probably go away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the idea, I think before when this has been discussed I came to the conclusion that it was a good idea. The only concern for me is work, there's not an easy way of implementing this, we would have to write the code ourselves and we're busy enough as it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was almost certain this was enabled just by changing a 'Registered User' and 'Full Member' permission in the VB CP?

 

Lots of other forums have it. You just click on their profile and it tells you all about them etc as it does normally and has a page of their infractions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the idea, I think before when this has been discussed I came to the conclusion that it was a good idea. The only concern for me is work, there's not an easy way of implementing this, we would have to write the code ourselves and we're busy enough as it is.

 

The "member departures thread" could just be typed out manually, no need to over complicate it really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "member departures thread" could just be typed out manually, no need to over complicate it really.

 

That'd just never ever ever happen.

 

Anything manual is too much hassle to consistently keep up to date.

 

We tried that just between the admins and it didn't work - so would be even less likely to work on here for everyone to see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That'd just never ever ever happen.

 

Anything manual is too much hassle to consistently keep up to date.

 

We tried that just between the admins and it didn't work - so would be even less likely to work on here for everyone to see.

 

Why would it be too much hassle? It works fine on footballforums with far more members. It'd take about 60 seconds to type out the username, the infractions given and the reason why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "member departures thread" could just be typed out manually, no need to over complicate it really.

 

Sorry mate, but I'm buggered if I'm updating another thread each time I have to infract. Automation of the information is the only way really

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bet everytime you updated the thread with the latest infraction it would get another thread made about it too!

 

This is the other fear isnt it, we spend so long arguing about infractions as it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah public infractions is bull****. Mods going mental. Deppo means no harm and lightens things up. Yet he gets infractions. Alpine destroys the main forum and nothing.

 

Utter ********. He's a ***** isn't he. Infract me sideways. Add some sarcasm too.

 

A thread discussing the wonders of the universe descends into a mod wielding his power to dish out infractions on an Internet forum. Good stuff.

 

It was a sensible thread to discuss a really good programme. I didn't want him clogging it up with his bullsh*t as he does on every thread whether it is the muppet show where it is appropriate or not. And no I didn't report him, I just saw it a minute ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry mate, but I'm buggered if I'm updating another thread each time I have to infract. Automation of the information is the only way really

 

How often do you infract people then? Must admit there are a few things which would *technically* be worth infractions which I either edit out or delete entirely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How often do you infract people then? Must admit there are a few things which would *technically* be worth infractions which I either edit out or delete entirely.

 

A cynic would suggest that if infractions were made public that Baj would be accused of double standards and so it is in his interest that that doesn't happen...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My ideal, I guess, would be to have the thread, but it's updated automatically by a bot. That way people can read it, but we don't have to go to any extra lengths beyond giving the infraction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A cynic would suggest that if infractions were made public that Baj would be accused of double standards and so it is in his interest that that doesn't happen...

 

Yawn, would probably bite if I'd not already had lunch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a yes then.

 

Infraction

I've openly stated on the thread that I am in favour of displaying infractions. I am discussing the different methods to apply this, as well as the easiest ways for moderators to maintain the information.

 

Your post is, as always, nothing short of a wind up, and that is why you are getting this infraction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably because he's the one online when the (countless) reports about your posts flood in.

 

Nothing wrong with most of the infractions I receive, it's the double standards I dislike. Infracting me for something and ignoring everyone else who have done the exact same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the interests of openess and transparency, Hypo, Ill list the other 2 infractions that you have had from me in the last SIX MONTHS

 

On my thread about selling a macbook in the buy/sell forum, you said you would buy my macbook for £500 if it had a pubic hair in it. You were infracted for a pointless remark

On the thread about "Refusing to sell a season ticket", you referred to another poster as "spastic saint". You were infracted for insulting another member.

 

This, and the two listed above are the only infractions you have received from me since 31st July last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the interests of openess and transparency, Hypo, Ill list the other 2 infractions that you have had from me in the last SIX MONTHS

 

On my thread about selling a macbook in the buy/sell forum, you said you would buy my macbook for £500 if it had a pubic hair in it. You were infracted for a pointless remark

On the thread about "Refusing to sell a season ticket", you referred to another poster as "spastic saint". You were infracted for insulting another member.

 

This, and the two listed above are the only infractions you have received from me since 31st July last year.

 

Those are my only other two. There are also ones from last year, all from you. As I said, it is not the infractions I mind about, but the double standards of yourself. The macbook comment is an infractional offence sure but then you ignore all the other buy and sell threads full of light hearted comments and even other light hearted comments in that thread itself. Surely infract them all? But no you just infract my comment and leave all the others alone.

 

Spastic saint one is fair enough, but it gets tiring when he constantly follows my posts referring to me in most things he writes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I can also guess who does the reporting.

Considering your proficient use of the "report post" button, usually because you simply just don't like the person who's posted, I really wouldn't be complaining about people reporting your posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the interests of openess and transparency, Hypo, Ill list the other 2 infractions that you have had from me in the last SIX MONTHS

 

On my thread about selling a macbook in the buy/sell forum, you said you would buy my macbook for £500 if it had a pubic hair in it. You were infracted for a pointless remark

On the thread about "Refusing to sell a season ticket", you referred to another poster as "spastic saint". You were infracted for insulting another member.

 

This, and the two listed above are the only infractions you have received from me since 31st July last year.

 

Which is quite a useful demonstration of how public reporting of infractions can work. At least it might stop the victim mentality. I'm a little agnostic on it, to be honest. A bit of give and take around the rules is desirable, i'd have thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely infract them all? But no you just infract my comment and leave all the others alone.

How do you know we "leave all the others alone"? You have no way of knowing whether a user's been given an infraction unless that person reveals it themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering your proficient use of the "report post" button, usually because you simply just don't like the person who's posted, I really wouldn't be complaining about people reporting your posts.

 

Who have I reported other than deppo and the other idiot? In fact, how many people have I actually reported in the last 6 months?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})