Is the infraction system resulting in over-moderation?

[So the Heroes Fall]

I'd definitely have to say yes, even if unintentionally. It gives the impression to mods they have a "duty" to delete and infract. It's kind of like giving traffic ticket quotas to cops. I don't know if the forum keeps statistics on this but I guarantee the percentage of moderated posts now is substantially higher than say 2007-2009 even though the number of trollishness isn't much different. Prior to it mods would only deal with legitimately offensive or inappropriate posts and people weren't likely to report anything but the most egregious offenders and weren't using the report system as a method of retaliation. (I think I averaged maybe two reports a year prior to the system.)

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

I don't think it's the system, but that we've cracked down on trolls.  The fact that you only got infracted twice a year is amazing, because (no offense) you are one of the more prolific trolls we have here.

[So the Heroes Fall]

No, I only reported twice a year. "Infractions" didn't exist back then. I was mod reviewed once for something that would probably be only about a 5 point infraction today (and was certainly much worse than a Family Guy clip.)

[dead0man]

(I think I averaged maybe two reports a year prior to the system.)

Are you suggesting you reported MORE posts after the system went in to practice?

[So the Heroes Fall]

(I think I averaged maybe two reports a year prior to the system.)

Are you suggesting you reported MORE posts after the system went in to practice?

Of course. That's my point. The question is how many were legitimate severe infractions and how many were just moderately annoying/trollish posts that happened to be made by posters I disliked? Even I'll admit the ratio is REALLY heavily skewed toward the latter.

I'd also argue I contribute far too many maps to be a troll.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

(I think I averaged maybe two reports a year prior to the system.)

Are you suggesting you reported MORE posts after the system went in to practice?

Of course. That's my point. The question is how many were legitimate severe infractions and how many were just moderately annoying/trollish posts that happened to be made by posters I disliked? Even I'll admit the ratio is REALLY heavily skewed toward the latter.

I'd also argue I contribute far too many maps to be a troll.

The amount of mapsyou contribute has no influence on if you're a troll.

[dead0man]

(I think I averaged maybe two reports a year prior to the system.)

Are you suggesting you reported MORE posts after the system went in to practice?

Of course. That's my point. The question is how many were legitimate severe infractions and how many were just moderately annoying/trollish posts that happened to be made by posters I disliked? Even I'll admit the ratio is REALLY heavily skewed toward the latter.

So you're saying there is a problem and you are part of it....how odd.  Ya know, you can fix part of the problem by stopping the snitching and encouraging your friends to do the same.  (and I thought a month or so ago you said you had stopped anyway?)

I'm proud to have NEVER reported a post.  Whining to authority because you don't like a person is pretty much the worst thing a person can do on a message board....especially if they then turn around and bitch about people whining to authority.

[So the Heroes Fall]

(I think I averaged maybe two reports a year prior to the system.)

Are you suggesting you reported MORE posts after the system went in to practice?

Of course. That's my point. The question is how many were legitimate severe infractions and how many were just moderately annoying/trollish posts that happened to be made by posters I disliked? Even I'll admit the ratio is REALLY heavily skewed toward the latter.

So you're saying there is a problem and you are part of it....how odd.  Ya know, you can fix part of the problem by stopping the snitching and encouraging your friends to do the same.  (and I thought a month or so ago you said you had stopped anyway?)

Yes, I did stop. That is also my point. I don't comb over people's posting histories now just to report anything that could possibly conceivably get an infraction. The question is it the validity of a system that would encourage that to ever begin with.

Look at it this way, I actually reported people for profanity a few times during that period. Prior to this, I would NEVER in a million years ever report someone for profanity.

[dead0man]

eegads man, you looked through posting history of posters you don't like just LOOKING for sh**t to report?  How many showers did it take to feel clean again once you figured out how wrong that is?  I'm not above looking for a specific thing a poster said once so I can quote it and make fun of it but even that makes me feel a bit icky (especially if it's more than 6 or so months old).

[Californian Tony]

Some particular moderators *coughcough* are taking it too far, being unable to distinguish between benign provocations and real trolling. Meanwhile, some really offensive posters (think CaDan or BSB) are left alone despite being much more harmful to the forum community. That doesn't mean the infraction system is inherently wrong, just that people should use it in a more appropriate way.

[Senator Kalwejt]

Moderation here is very random. You can troll for months and see no action taken against you or you can get overinfracted for lesser offences.

In mods defense, they can't be everywhere and can't see everything. Also, some serious trolling is never reported, while certain people do little beside overreporting.

I think we may be in a Catch 22 situation here: many people either don't want or simply fear to report stuff, even if something really warrants such an action. Moderators are sending some conflicting signals with reporting. Don't report stuff, bad, as you're letting troll go free. Report, and you're abusing the system.

[© Tweed the Younger]

I mean, if the unofficial head moderator has taken to calling the most prolific and one of the most important posters in Forum history a 'troll' it's clear the term has no meaning -- is just a catch-all for "we'd like to infract this".

[Senator Kalwejt]

I mean, if the unofficial head moderator has taken to calling the most prolific and one of the most important posters in Forum history a 'troll' it's clear the term has no meaning -- is just a catch-all for "we'd like to infract this".

See, now we're going to another extreme.

For the record, I wouldn't call BRTD a troll, but rather an otherwise valuable member with episodes of some trolling, that in most of cases doesn't warrant an action. But do you think it's fair to give one more preferential treatment because of long history here?

Certianly, there's a pro-veteran bias, but it doesn't make it fair. Veterans and newer members should be equal under the rules.

[© Tweed the Younger]

Certianly, there's a pro-veteran bias, but it doesn't make it fair. Veterans and newer members should be equal under the rules.

this is not drawing up a constitution in Europe in 1848.  this is a message board.  we don't have to shroud ourselves in the garbage of meritocracy.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

my main complaint is that "trolling" now includes:

1) harmless posts made with intentional humor, esp on the Forum Community Board.
2) stating opinions that are not shared among the Mods (e.g. the fellow who was infracted for creating a thread in support of the jmfcst becoming a Mod)

infracting such posts creates far too much unnecessary friction.

Whereas an example of real trolling was when I asked Andrew about living in Siberia.  That comment was not factual, was not germane to the thread, and only sought to undermine Andrew.  I disagreed with the severity of the penalty (maximum 10 death points), but it was a clear case of trolling.

But many of the other “trolling” infractions are simply unproductive in nature and do nothing but build walls of isolation – with the Mods doing most of the self imposed isolation.  In fact, many of the current Mods seem somewhat withdrawn from the normal conversation of the Forum.  It’s as if a productive member of the forum becomes a Mod and then turns himself into a librarian.

Consider the posters who have been banned permanently under the current moderation system – they would have also been banned under the prior system.  So, in effect, the current system has done nothing but cause animosity, isolated the current Mod team, and turned friends into foes.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

What harmless posts made with intentional humor are you referencing that have been infracted for trolling on the FC board?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

What harmless posts made with intentional humor are you referencing that have been infracted for trolling on the FC board?

Quote from: jmfcst on March 16, 2012, 11:00:40 am
Our first male contestant is 27 year old scholar from Pittsburgh PA.  He stands an impressive 5’ 8” tall, and has a mind like a steel trap.  Here’s…Derek:



Now, let’s meet our first female contestant from the great state of Maryland.  Her favorite movies are Fast and Furioius, Thirteen, and The Outsiders, and her musical tastes includes the band Blood on the Dance Floor…give a warm welcome to Elena:



Now, Elena, the first question is the question all Atlasian is dying to know:  Where did you meet this wonderful specimen of a man?!

Topic Deleted for Trolling with 5 (out of 10) infraction points

It’s a humorous thread that includes 100% publically disclosed information (in compliance with the TOS privacy requirements) wrapped in a make believe setting.

So, how exactly is that “trolling”?  Because of how I couched it?  As if it would have been ok if I simply said “Hey, everyone, Derek has a girlfriend [followed by her details]”?

Are you really going to tell me that my make believe game show setting is infractionable, when everything else about the thread was in complete compliance with the TOS?!

[Insula Dei]

jmfcst, for your next feat, you should expose Klecy as JewishConservative. After that, maybe you can achieve moderator status!

Yeah, please make that your next crusade.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

no, seriously, why has humor become infractionable?!  I get the impression that if I would have created a thread without humor and simply presented the facts, it would not have been infracted, so, that tells me that humorously couching it in a game show setting was infractionable.

And I'm not worried about the 5 death points, those will roll off in time...but I am worried that humor has now been deemed infractionable.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Because it's more than humor.  It's humor done to provoke a reaction out of Derek, which makes it even worse because it encourages the return of a banned troll.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Because it's more than humor.  It's humor done to provoke a reaction out of Derek, which makes it even worse because it encourages the return of a banned troll.

so, then, like I said, the humorous setting of a game show was considered "trolling".

so, if I had left out the game show joke, the facts themselves would not have been infracted?!

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Because it's more than humor.  It's humor done to provoke a reaction out of Derek, which makes it even worse because it encourages the return of a banned troll.

so, then, like I said, the humorous setting of a game show was considered "trolling".

so, if I had left out the game show joke, the facts themselves would not have been infracted?!

No - the entire thing was trolling.  Humorous or not, it would've been trolling.

If you argue it wasn't trolling, what was your purpose of creating that thread?

[Vasall des Midas]

I'd definitely have to say yes, even if unintentionally. It gives the impression to mods they have a "duty" to delete and infract.

Though some seem to be thankfully immune.

[Californian Tony]

Because it's more than humor.  It's humor done to provoke a reaction out of Derek, which makes it even worse because it encourages the return of a banned troll.

so, then, like I said, the humorous setting of a game show was considered "trolling".

so, if I had left out the game show joke, the facts themselves would not have been infracted?!

No - the entire thing was trolling.  Humorous or not, it would've been trolling.

If you argue it wasn't trolling, what was your purpose of creating that thread?

This kind of attitude is exactly the problem. Moderators should be able to differentiate between mild, harmless trolling which is made for the sake of fun, and offensive trolling which lowers the forum's quality.

(damn, I can't believe I'm siding with Jmf ! )

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

No - the entire thing was trolling.  Humorous or not, it would've been trolling.

If you argue it wasn't trolling, what was your purpose of creating that thread?

The purpose was to share some surreal information about Derek with other posters.

You do realize the TOS gives posters permission to post publically known info about another poster, right? So, how is creating a thread regarding that public info trolling?  

Does the TOS say we can post public info, but just can’t create a thread about it?