[Shaun]

Out of interest for the practicality of this being implemented: wouldn't infractions being made public counteract the measure of deleting an infraction-worthy post, if you can just then see it in this "list of infractions" idea?

For example:

Blurryface calls Amy Jade a 'nasty bitch'.
Blurryface receives an infraction, the post is deleted.
Everyone heads to "Latest Infractions" and sees: "Blurryface - 2pts - reason with quoted post"

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Shaun

Out of interest for the practicality of this being implemented: wouldn't infractions being made public counteract the measure of deleting an infraction-worthy post, if you can just then see it in this "list of infractions" idea?

For example:

Blurryface calls Amy Jade a 'nasty bitch'.
Blurryface receives an infraction, the post is deleted.
Everyone heads to "Latest Infractions" and sees: "Blurryface - 2pts - reason with quoted post"

I'd assume if it were to happen, we'd just say something like

'Blurryface - 2pts - Insulting a forum member'

The infracted person would know the post in question and, in a situation where they could lie about it to rile people up, I'd say we reveal the infraction in it's entirely.

It's something I've been tempted to do often when I see people blatantly lie about why they've got infracted It's one way an open system could benefit the mods I suppose. Can't call bias if we can expose the truth when issues are raised. In the current system we kind of have to sit on our hands even when we know we can end a situation by revealing the truth.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

This thread's been mentioned in the tower and, tbh, I actually agree with the idea of, at least on a temporary basis, infractions being made public. Mainly because it will result in the wind being knocked out of a lot of people's sails when they realise that assumed bias against them doesn't exist.

In fact, to spill a little tea, a lot of people who are for this who also typically believe they are being unfairly persecuted would be faced with undeniable proof of the opposite, that they aren't infracted as much as other people are.

If this does happen, it'll be a good way to teach people to never confuse their assumptions for facts.
......................................

I'd assume if it were to happen, we'd just say something like

'Blurryface - 2pts - Insulting a forum member'

The infracted person would know the post in question and, in a situation where they could lie about it to rile people up, I'd say we reveal the infraction in it's entirely.

It's something I've been tempted to do often when I see people blatantly lie about why they've got infracted It's one way an open system could benefit the mods I suppose. Can't call bias if we can expose the truth when issues are raised. In the current system we kind of have to sit on our hands even when we know we can end a situation by revealing the truth.

It seems that we both want the same innovation for exactly the same reason.

Just for the record, Dezzy, I am NOT always referring to you when I refer cryptically to 'certain parties' because - and this may surprise you - I do not think that you are behind most of the 'punishments which I personally receive and perceive as 'unwarranted', but I do feel that the current 'closed' system does NOTHING to prevent you - as the Mod who is the most vocally active in most 'heated' Serious Debate threads - as being blamed or unfairly 'scapegoated' in a LOT of cases.

As you so rightly suggest in both these quoted posts, revealing Infractions in their entirety will 'nail the lie' in any wrongly perceived bias claims and prevent frustration and resentment from 'festering' within any members guilty of such wrongful presumptions.

It will of course, also help prove when any Infractions ARE wrongly 'awarded' and that also cannot be anything but a good thing on a forum where so many long-serving, good, and pro-active members are disgruntled, because Mods - like such members - ARE only human and are fallible and CAN make mistakes.

I truly believe that this innovation CAN and WILL help restore good relations on this forum, because there IS a problem, and it is not going to be resolved by ignoring it or stepping up punishments for members who already feel that they are being treated unfairly.

Finally, I applaud whichever Mod/Admin left this thread alone and uncensored because it is helping to 'Clear The Air' just discussing this issue. Thank You.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

It will of course, also help prove when any Infractions ARE wrongly 'awarded' and that also cannot be anything but a good thing on a forum where so many long-serving, good, and pro-active members are disgruntled, because Mods - like such members - ARE only human and are fallible and CAN make mistakes.

That will happen literally every single day, when someones mate gets infracted for literally anything. 5 or 6 people coming for the mods at once claiming the insult was only a joke or something. People will only be coming into threads to discuss infractions instead of the thread etc. Its a stupid idea hahha.

I know Dezzy thinks it will be a way to prove that people are not unfairly persecuted (which is true) but he better be prepared for the time that member A, B, C, D, and E, all fresh from the private message chat, are all gonna fight him about member F’s fair infraction.

I mean... if you like ****shows, go ahead. I’ll be there with my ‘tol’ ya so’ glasses though.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Withano

That will happen literally every single day, when someones mate gets infracted for literally anything. 5 or 6 people coming for the mods at once claiming the insult was only a joke or something. People will only be coming into threads to discuss infractions instead of the thread etc. Its a stupid idea hahha.

I know Dezzy thinks it will be a way to prove that people are not unfairly persecuted (which is true) but he better be prepared for the time that member A, B, C, D, and E, all fresh from the private message chat, are all gonna fight him about member F’s fair infraction.

I mean... if you like ****shows, go ahead. I’ll be there with my ‘tol’ ya so’ glasses though.

I am completely mystified by your stance here, Withano.

Dezzy himself has stated how he is in favour of 'trialling' this proposition yet here you are all Quixotically mounted on your Rocinante tilting at windmills on his behalf.

Dezzy is undoubtedly one of the most intelligent and able members on this forum - yes, I do really believe that - so do you truly believe that he is incapable of taking care of himself if such a situation as the one you envisage did occur? (which it will not).

My proposition is not any kind of 'trap' it is a genuine attempt to resolve a very real issue on here for the sake of the forum, the Administrators, the members and the Mods and I genuinely believe that opening up these Infractions will be a step in the right direction for the reasons which Dezzy and me have already given.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

I am completely mystified by your stance here, Withano.

Dezzy himself has stated how he is in favour of 'trialling' this proposition yet here you are all Quixotically mounted on your Rocinante tilting at windmills on his behalf.

Dezzy is undoubtedly one of the most intelligent and able members on this forum - yes, I do really believe that - so do you truly believe that he is incapable of taking care of himself if such a situation as the one you envisage did occur? (which it will not).

My proposition is not any kind of 'trap' it is a genuine attempt to resolve a very real issue on here for the sake of the forum, the Administrators, the members and the Mods and I genuinely believe that opening up these Infractions will be a step in the right direction for the reasons which Dezzy and me have already given.

Well, you’re not really the worst offender of this (top 10 perhaps, but there are far worse), people like to lay in to the mods quite regularly, and unfortunately, most of the others in that top 10 are quite friendly with each other, so I think it will just amount to group fights, which is just ugly.

I don't see how making mods’ decisions public will limit that... i mean, it definitely will not, I guess that’s not Dezzy’s point.

I think Dezzy wants to do it so that he can point out the facts when people inevitably kick up a fuss... I think he shouldn’t because it will encourage people to angrily kick up a fuss more regularly, making the entire excercise kinda counterintuitive.

I guess my issue is not quite believing the bit I’ve bolded. And if it is actually true of you, it would not be true of several others, who would misuse this new system as a way to vent anger at the mods and believe that they’re justified in doing it.

[Amy Jade]

Originally Posted by Withano

I think Dezzy wants to do it so that he can point out the facts when people inevitably kick up a fuss... I think he shouldn’t because it will encourage people to angrily kick up a fuss more regularly, making the entire excercise kinda counterintuitive.

Haven't you noticed that's how you get your way on this forum? It's become very apparent to me in the last few months.

99% of the forum are happy with how the forum is run fundamentally and accept the odd infraction for perhaps over stepping the mark but the vocal few aren't happy so now we have to change things? We aren't meant to discuss infractions but there is going to be a thread pointing everyones out? I agree with Withano, it is bound to cause trouble.

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Withano

Well, you’re not really the worst offender of this (top 10 perhaps, but there are far worse), people like to lay in to the mods quite regularly, and unfortunately, most of the others in that top 10 are quite friendly with each other, so I think it will just amount to group fights, which is just ugly.

I don't see how making mods’ decisions public will limit that... i mean, it definitely will not, I guess that’s not Dezzy’s point.

I think Dezzy wants to do it so that he can point out the facts when people inevitably kick up a fuss... I think he shouldn’t because it will encourage people to angrily kick up a fuss more regularly, making the entire excercise kinda counterintuitive.

I guess my issue is not quite believing the bit I’ve bolded. And if it is actually true of you, it would not be true of several others, who would misuse this new system as a way to vent anger at the mods and believe that they’re justified in doing it.

I have seen people complain about ONE mod and ONE mod only

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

It seems that we both want the same innovation for exactly the same reason.

Just for the record, Dezzy, I am NOT always referring to you when I refer cryptically to 'certain parties' because - and this may surprise you - I do not think that you are behind most of the 'punishments which I personally receive and perceive as 'unwarranted', but I do feel that the current 'closed' system does NOTHING to prevent you - as the Mod who is the most vocally active in most 'heated' Serious Debate threads - as being blamed or unfairly 'scapegoated' in a LOT of cases.

As you so rightly suggest in both these quoted posts, revealing Infractions in their entirety will 'nail the lie' in any wrongly perceived bias claims and prevent frustration and resentment from 'festering' within any members guilty of such wrongful presumptions.

It will of course, also help prove when any Infractions ARE wrongly 'awarded' and that also cannot be anything but a good thing on a forum where so many long-serving, good, and pro-active members are disgruntled, because Mods - like such members - ARE only human and are fallible and CAN make mistakes.

I truly believe that this innovation CAN and WILL help restore good relations on this forum, because there IS a problem, and it is not going to be resolved by ignoring it or stepping up punishments for members who already feel that they are being treated unfairly.

Finally, I applaud whichever Mod/Admin left this thread alone and uncensored because it is helping to 'Clear The Air' just discussing this issue. Thank You.

I'll be honest with you, I was behind the deleting of your Micheal thread and the ensuing infraction and I'll explain why since I think you believe you were being censored. I looked at that thread and reversed the situation. If, for example, Marsh made that same thread about, say, Kazanne for example. I think that would have gotten a very negative reaction and would have led to a lot of drama. When it comes to moderating decisions, I value consistency above all. If the reversed situation would have led to drama and would have probably been infracted then I couldn't not do the same for your situation.

People may confuse how I post with how I mod but everyone gets treated equally when it comes to modding. I wasn't censoring you, I was just doing what I would have done if anyone else posted that thread.

I think when it comes to the 'festering' resentment of members towards mods, a lot of that has to do, not so much with us but with certain members spreading half truths and lies and other members buying into it and sadly, I don't think going public with all infractions will completely fix that since, like I've said above, a lot of people tend to use their assumptions as facts and I don't think they'll let an actual fact get in the way of blaming the mods. A lot of people are 'disgruntled' because they are buying into a narrative that simply isn't true.

Still, I'd want to give this a trial run though just so we can completely upend a lot of assumptions about how people are infracted, I just don't think it'll stick with some people since it doesn't fit the narrative they want to portray.

I'll just say this as well, I think I've been modding this site for years now and I can probably count the amount of incorrectly given infractions on my hand (meaning ones given out of a misunderstanding). One thing people always forget is that all the mods see each other's infractions and we do tend to voice our thoughts if we disagree. If we were to reveal all the infractions, you'd see that 99.9999% are completely correct.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I'll be honest with you, I was behind the deleting of your Micheal thread and the ensuing infraction and I'll explain why since I think you believe you were being censored. I looked at that thread and reversed the situation. If, for example, Marsh made that same thread about, say, Kazanne for example. I think that would have gotten a very negative reaction and would have led to a lot of drama. When it comes to moderating decisions, I value consistency above all. If the reversed situation would have led to drama and would have probably been infracted then I couldn't not do the same for your situation.

People may confuse how I post with how I mod but everyone gets treated equally when it comes to modding. I wasn't censoring you, I was just doing what I would have done if anyone else posted that thread.

I think when it comes to the 'festering' resentment of members towards mods, a lot of that has to do, not so much with us but with certain members spreading half truths and lies and other members buying into it and sadly, I don't think going public with all infractions will completely fix that since, like I've said above, a lot of people tend to use their assumptions as facts and I don't think they'll let an actual fact get in the way of blaming the mods. A lot of people are 'disgruntled' because they are buying into a narrative that simply isn't true.

Still, I'd want to give this a trial run though just so we can completely upend a lot of assumptions about how people are infracted, I just don't think it'll stick with some people since it doesn't fit the narrative they want to portray.

I'll just say this as well, I think I've been modding this site for years now and I can probably count the amount of incorrectly given infractions on my hand (meaning ones given out of a misunderstanding). One thing people always forget is that all the mods see each other's infractions and we do tend to voice our thoughts if we disagree. If we were to reveal all the infractions, you'd see that 99.9999% are completely correct.

Sincere thanks for your honesty, Dezzy.

I am chagrined about my 'Michael' post thread removal which I thought was unnecessary and about the Infraction which I thought was heavy-handed.

The thread and my OP was light-hearted, friendly to and actually supportive of Michael, but surely, even if removing it was deemed necessary as a precautionary measure for the reasons given, was it REALLY necessary to give me an infraction instead of a mere friendly note by pm or even a Warning?

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Shaun

Out of interest for the practicality of this being implemented: wouldn't infractions being made public counteract the measure of deleting an infraction-worthy post, if you can just then see it in this "list of infractions" idea?

For example:

Blurryface calls Amy Jade a 'nasty bitch'.
Blurryface receives an infraction, the post is deleted.
Everyone heads to "Latest Infractions" and sees: "Blurryface - 2pts - reason with quoted post"

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I'd assume if it were to happen, we'd just say something like

'Blurryface - 2pts - Insulting a forum member'

The infracted person would know the post in question and, in a situation where they could lie about it to rile people up, I'd say we reveal the infraction in it's entirely.

It's something I've been tempted to do often when I see people blatantly lie about why they've got infracted It's one way an open system could benefit the mods I suppose. Can't call bias if we can expose the truth when issues are raised. In the current system we kind of have to sit on our hands even when we know we can end a situation by revealing the truth.

...I’m going to quote Shaun and Dezzy’s posts just because they feel relevant to my thoughts is all...


...so much is obviously difficult for me to comment on because of my time off the forum with my illness...but even ‘going back to the day’.....it was still a thing of not being always able to feel a perspective of transparency because of deletions in threads...for instance, blurry face might have insulted Amy in such a way so it’s easy to feel....aha, you’re guilty blurry face...you broke the rules and insulted a member so really you deserved your infraction etc...but it still wouldn’t be giving an accurate thing if Amy persistently and consistently had prodded and poked Blurryface through thread after thread and over time after time etc....to the point where he had insulted her...?...I mean, we all know the rules but there is also a point where rules will inevitably be broken when people are pushed to feel and react in....enough already!!!!...I do feel these things are relevant as well to get full context to a group or community ‘dynamic’....otherwise it’s a bit like what most of us hate about BB in getting the edited highlights......but the ‘live feed’ would have given full context and full understanding....I don’t think it’s as black and white as showing a post or explaining a post when an infraction was given, I think it’s a little more complicated than questioning of own infractions...but more the participation of others or another...and is fairness being shown..?...(...because all has to be seen to be fair also, that has to have transparency...)...if for instance someone is ‘baited and trolled’, pushed and prodded etc from thread to thread and over much time...to the point where an insult is given...?....then obviously that one insult and one reason isn’t the only factor or only issue...in fact it’s relatively small in the grand scheme of trying to create ‘more harmony’...I would say, personally....people are human, people will react...whether it breaks a rule or not, you know....if someone’s posts and thoughts are constantly ‘picked at’ in negative ways...by the same member or the same few members, then it will inevitably lead to the frustrations and the insults....and I know ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’...but it’s understandable why these things happen....


...anyways, I guess really what I’m saying and what my thoughts are ...I realise that James doesn’t like threads and posts remaining in their entirety because of the negative vibe it gives the forum for any browsers and potential new members....I understand that completely...(...and there are times when individual threads../posts would be justified to be removed and deleted immediately because of a prejudice or intolerant value etc...)....but other than those occasions....maybe a compromise of leaving a complete thread without any deletions etc up for a limited time of 24hours or 48 hours, type thing....(...it could still be closed if appropriate...)...but it would help with transparency for members to have whole context...not just in that thread...’the guilty thread’.. of the infraction or infractions being revealed....but with other threads that have come before as well and what ‘has led to’....I do think that’s very relevant to feelings of ‘fairness for all’....


....maybe not, maybe I’m completely off key here...but I personally would always like to get the full context of something rather than one or two person’s ‘truths’...which may be true, but there are many truths usually....

[Ammi]

...a big shout out to the staff though.....crikey not for all the tea in China as the saying goes...

[Christmas Dynasnow]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Sincere thanks for your honesty, Dezzy.

I am chagrined about my 'Michael' post thread removal which I thought was unnecessary and about the Infraction which I thought was heavy-handed.

The thread and my OP was light-hearted, friendly to and actually supportive of Michael, but surely, even if removing it was deemed necessary as a precautionary measure for the reasons given, was it REALLY necessary to give me an infraction instead of a mere friendly note by pm or even a Warning?

I agree Kirk, it was light hearted and obviously in support of Michael who has been the target of quite a bit of late by some nasty comments but I appreciate the explanation from Dezzy and that is very helpful and positive going forward

I do think that the infraction for Kirk was unfair and should be overturned. In a situation like that it would be better for the thread to be closed and a brief explanation given and no infractions, imo.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

I agree Kirk, it was light hearted and obviously in support of Michael who has been the target of quite a bit of late by some nasty comments but I appreciate the explanation from Dezzy and that is very helpful and positive going forward

I do think that the infraction for Kirk was unfair and should be overturned. In a situation like that it would be better for the thread to be closed and a brief explanation given and no infractions, imo.

I agree with this, good post LT, I would also like someone we can chat with if we think something is unfair ,people wouldn't need to air it on the forum then.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Sincere thanks for your honesty, Dezzy.

I am chagrined about my 'Michael' post thread removal which I thought was unnecessary and about the Infraction which I thought was heavy-handed.

The thread and my OP was light-hearted, friendly to and actually supportive of Michael, but surely, even if removing it was deemed necessary as a precautionary measure for the reasons given, was it REALLY necessary to give me an infraction instead of a mere friendly note by pm or even a Warning?

Like I said, if it was anyone else they would have gotten the same so I can't make exceptions.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Sincere thanks for your honesty, Dezzy.

I am chagrined about my 'Michael' post thread removal which I thought was unnecessary and about the Infraction which I thought was heavy-handed.

The thread and my OP was light-hearted, friendly to and actually supportive of Michael, but surely, even if removing it was deemed necessary as a precautionary measure for the reasons given, was it REALLY necessary to give me an infraction instead of a mere friendly note by pm or even a Warning?

Well, yes, since that type of discussion in the public forum, discussing a member's contributions to the forum and whether they're for "real" is quite a clear rule break?

As said above, if it was made about any other member it would've had a major backlash from a lot of forum members. I'm not michael21's biggest fan, but even he should be extended that same courtesy everyone else would get tbh.