Infractions vs Warnings
 

First off - what a warning is: it's a logged communication that arrives in your PM box but is archived in two ways - once, in the database of infractions, and once as a thread in the Moderators and Admins private area.

An Infraction is exactly like a warning, but carried "infraction points" as well. These points expire after a period of time, but if you have 3 or more unexpired infraction points, the board imposes certain penalties.

The intent is that, if a board staff member needs to inform you that you have violated board rules, or that you're very close to being in violation of board rules, they use the infraction/warning system.

Note that either a warning or infraction is always linked to a specific post; no more than one such action can be attached to a given post, and it logs who issued it, when, and what was in it.

My instruction to the moderators is simple and direct: if it is close, warn. If it is clearly intentional and clearly over the line, infract. If in doubt, report.

Note that every warning and infraction is able to be referenced by each and every moderator and admin.

The statistics are not generally published - but I'll post the following:

In the last year (17 Jun 2013 to 17 Jun 2014),
There have been 53 total actions entered. Thats an average of one a week.
28 of those have been warnings.
4 infractions have been reversed. (One was wrong infraction category, one was reversal due to excessive penalty, two were rescinded after

25 infractions have been issued in the last year, overall.
5 infractions and 3 users have unexpired points.

2 user accounts have been locked by request - the account in this case has the email nulled out, and the password randomly set.

I've infracted 8 times in the last year, reversed 1.
I've issued 19 warnings in the last year.

The person most often interacted with got 3 warnings and 1 infraction in the last year. The infraction was for spammed adverts; the warnings include detrimental actions (blind links), insulting other members, and circumvention of the profanity filter.

The second most got 3 infractions; Insulting others, and two detrimental actions.

There have been two appeals of an infraction; one was commuted (the above mentioned excessive penalty), the other stood.

With an average daily postership of about 30 users, and average of over 100 discrete log-ins per day

in the last 24 hours, 241 users have logged activity.
in the last week, 516 users have logged activity.
In the last year, 3554 users have logged activity.

These numbers do not count spammers, who have been deleted, nor failed attempts to register by spammers.

Since I've come back to the forum, in February of 2013 (I left for three years because of you the first time around), I've been cited 6 times. 5 of those were by you.

Let's look at the things you cited me for...

5-5-14: You gave me an Infraction because I listed a Star Wars auction I had placed on eBay (in the proper forum).

It's not like anyone here would be interested in Star Wars or anything like that, huh?



4-22-14: You cited me...now get this...as a "detrimental action"...because I had started a thread in the CT forum about the Traveller Book, hard copy version, on RPG now. I asked about its quality. Golan2072 said that the link I used in the OP that pointed to the Traveller book was bogus.

I responded to his comment by saying, "Here ya go!". And, you thought that worthy of a Warning because I didn't identify the link.

Ridiculous.

Look, people, here is the post in question: CLICK HERE, see post #10.

This one just amazes me.





1-10-14: You cited me for insulting another member. I can't link to that because you marked it "Private", but I do remember thinking it bogus.

(If I did deserve this, then I won't argue it. I can't remember, and I can't review the post.)





11-24-13: You tagged me in my review of the movie Dredd for calling the film "a good sheeet flick". HERE'S THE POST. The reason? You didn't like me using "sheeet" in place of the more nasty word.

I turn around, and what do I see a week or so later? YOU, ARAMIS, doing the EXACT SAME THING.

I PMed you about it, and you laughed it off. THEN, you did it again, in another post. AND, I saw Rob Eaglestone do the same thing.

Did you guys exchange Warnings? Did you, Aramis, get an Infraction because you did it twice in a row, close together.

I doubt that.





6-14-13: I got tagged for "decency standards" because I started a thread in Random Static about the Cinemax show called Strike Back. It's a buddy-action show, not heavy on plot, but fun. I like it, and I thought many here would too. Another CotI member got bent out of shape because I recommended the show and described how, in the first episode, a kid is shot and killed.

So, Aramis tagged me with a Warning.

Amazing. I'd link the thread, but Aramis deleted it.

Get this: One of the other mods PMed me when this happened and said, apologetically, "Dude, you got screwed."





Look at these Warnings/Infactions! They're laughable!

And, you wonder why I don't trust you as a moderator and criticize how poorly you do the job.

One small point to add is that Aramis statistics are skewed a little high because he is an administrator. When I, as a moderator, think that a warning or infraction is called for, but want a second opinion, I report a post and make a recommendation. Then an administrator, will often issue the actual infraction or warning.

I will just add that there is another kind of warning Aramis did not talk about: the post (or thread) deletion notification warning.

This should be seen as just a formal notification of the deletion of a post/thread as seen inappropiate, but not deserving a "full" (for lack of better word) warning or infraction, instead of the formal reprimend without lasting effect, that other warnings represent (unless you have already unexpired infraction points, as their expiry date is extended by a warning).

I wonder if it would make sense, given some of the complaints about specific vendetta's, to include who "registered" the first "complaint" of any specific warning or infraction that was then sent to the "moderator panel" so that there is a clear message of "So-and-so saw this, we all discussed it, and then whomever issued the actual warning/infraction".

It will not stop the accusations of vendettas, or the perception of being unfairly singled out, but it should take a fair amount of the wind out the sails of the complaints if people get the regular reminder that these are given and upheld by a plurality of moderators despite the fact that it is the Administrators who do most of the dirty work of actually issuing warnings and infractions.

D.

Every and any report keeps registered and starts a thread on Moderators private forum, so this register exists de facto.

I was thinking more that this information get's communicated to the, each and every time, to the person getting the warning or infraction. My observational inference is that the Mods here are relatively confident that there is no vendetta, the problem is that some members perceive there to be one.

Such boilerplate-ish text would also serve as a reminder, to the member, in the event that the Mod is both the person who flagged the message and who assigns the warning/infraction, that this is decision that was made under the review of the panel of the Mods.

D.

Except giving out the name of the person doing the reporting leaves that person open to retaliation. When a member reports another member, it's better to consider it an anonymous tip that the Mods and Admins investigate.

Exactly. Telling the person who is being infracted who reported them in the first place will have a chilling effect on the reporting process. Instead of reporting, people will just stop using these boards and all that will be left is those that need the infractions.

I will usually mention if it's based upon a complaint and I concur. Not always. But I usually don't mention who.

If it's the same pair, person A reporting person B repeatedly, we tend to look more callously upon the reports - think "boy who cried wolf" - we still look at the post and see if it hits the point where we think it needs action.

In one case, the action was to suggest to the reporter that they need to develop a thicker skin towards the two people they were reporting about.