[Ammi]

..I don't think the mods could see every single post and I do see your point, Josy...but how I see it anyway, is that in any other 'rule/moderated' system, there would be clear rules, like there is here, obviously, but there is also a set consequence to that, where people who break those rules, know the precise sanction to that, which from my observations of what members say, that doesn't appear to be so here...

[Me. I Am Salman]

Why do people want this forum to be strict and boring

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Josy

Yep I think you were moaning

Really? I thought I was agreeing with Vicky but if you think thats moaning that thats up to you.

[Josy]

Originally Posted by Zee

I know it might come across like glorifying the olden days; but I really believe the warning system was superior to the infraction system. It would cause a lot of people to stop their petty arguments because most people value being able to post here over being able to have an argument with someone they dislike. With the infraction system, people know that unless they do something outrageous like invade people's privacy or spread hate speech, they'll always be allowed back.

I would like to try the 3 strike rule out too tbh.

The thing is though Zee a lot of the members that argue continuously really don't want to stop IMO, I have no idea why but to me it seems like a hobby to them, they love the drama

But yeah I agree the 3 strike rule would probably put an end to that but then certain members would no doubt end up permanently banned and how long would it be before lots were asking if they could come back?

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Josy

I would like to try the 3 strike rule out too tbh.

The thing is though Zee a lot of the members that argue continuously really don't want to stop IMO, I have no idea why but to me it seems like a hobby to them, they love the drama

But yeah I agree the 3 strike rule would probably put an end to that but then certain members would no doubt end up permanently banned and how long would it be before lots were asking if they could come back?

..what about if the third strike meant a 'cooling off period' which could be at the mods/admins discretion, depending on whether they felt the member could come back to the forum...instead of permanent bans, because reducing numbers of members wouldn't seem like a good idea, anyway...

[Josy]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..I don't think the mods could see every single post and I do see your point, Josy...but how I see it anyway, is that in any other 'rule/moderated' system, there would be clear rules, like there is here, obviously, but there is also a set consequence to that, where people who break those rules, know the precise sanction to that, which from my observations of what members say, that doesn't appear to be so here...

I think we have discussed having a clear set of infraction rules before but came to the conclusion that it wouldnt work because of the amount of infractions and points some members already have.

Like say if someone who had never even had a warning broke the exact same rule as someone who is banned every week, giving them the exact same points etc would be very unfair and that's why we cant have precise punishments to rule breaks.

[Josy]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..what about if the third strike meant a 'cooling off period' which could be at the mods/admins discretion, depending on whether they felt the member could come back to the forum...instead of permanent bans, because reducing numbers of members wouldn't seem like a good idea, anyway...

Yeah I think something like that would be a great idea.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Josy

Yeah I think something like that would be a great idea.

..I think..(and I'm only mentioning Scott because he's the only for it to have been applied to, to my knowledge..)..that an indefinite ban would be better as a final third strike anyway, because it's not in my opinion good to say 'never' but the member could have some..(limited..) contact with admin, and they would determine how long the ban lasted...the only thing then would be that once someone had an indefinate ban and was allowed back, then something would have to be decided whether after that it would just be one strike..?..or another three strikes and next time permanently...

[Z]

Originally Posted by Josy

I would like to try the 3 strike rule out too tbh.

The thing is though Zee a lot of the members that argue continuously really don't want to stop IMO, I have no idea why but to me it seems like a hobby to them, they love the drama

But yeah I agree the 3 strike rule would probably put an end to that but then certain members would no doubt end up permanently banned and how long would it be before lots were asking if they could come back?

Sure but most people do value being able to post on here more than they value getting to make a dig at someone they don't like. And the warning would generally come after things had gotten ridiculously heated, so people knew to never let things get that bad again - whereas infractions are dished out ASAP to try and put a stop to arguments, which is good, but the negative overall result is that the tension keeps simmering away.

Worst comes to worst, if you have two (or more) people who won't stop arguing then one or both of them will end up permanently banned and either they're both gone, or one of them chills out completely once the other one is gone. People have been asking to let certain members back for years now on the infraction system though (e.g. Stacey) and when one of them was allowed back (Thomas C) it lasted for all of a blink of an eye because he hadn't changed.

If people manage to get themselves permanently banned from a discussion forum because they can't conduct themselves in an appropriate manner then they don't deserve to be on here. People will of course feel differently about that if it's one of their friends who is permanently banned; but the rules should be strict, clear, fixed and permanent. With the infraction system, it just isn't possible to have rules at those standards which means people take the piss with them.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Zee

Sure but most people do value being able to post on here more than they value getting to make a dig at someone they don't like. And the warning would generally come after things had gotten ridiculously heated, so people knew to never let things get that bad again - whereas infractions are dished out ASAP to try and put a stop to arguments, which is good, but the negative overall result is that the tension keeps simmering away.

Worst comes to worst, if you have two (or more) people who won't stop arguing then one or both of them will end up permanently banned and either they're both gone, or one of them chills out completely once the other one is gone. People have been asking to let certain members back for years now on the infraction system though (e.g. Stacey) and when one of them was allowed back (Thomas C) it lasted for all of a blink of an eye because he hadn't changed.

If people manage to get themselves permanently banned from a discussion forum because they can't conduct themselves in an appropriate manner then they don't deserve to be on here. People will of course feel differently about that if it's one of their friends who is permanently banned; but the rules should be strict, clear, fixed and permanent. With the infraction system, it just isn't possible to have rules at those standards which means people take the piss with them.

That makes sense,people need to know their boundries,and not feel they can 'sweet talk' their way back.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..I think..(and I'm only mentioning Scott because he's the only for it to have been applied to, to my knowledge..)..that an indefinite ban would be better as a final third strike anyway, because it's not in my opinion good to say 'never' but the member could have some..(limited..) contact with admin, and they would determine how long the ban lasted...the only thing then would be that once someone had an indefinate ban and was allowed back, then something would have to be decided whether after that it would just be one strike..?..or another three strikes and next time permanently...

Yeah I would like to see indefinite bans completely replacing permanent ones and perhaps even 3/6 months bans tbh, they give a lot more flexibility and room to manoeuvre, a lot can change both on the forum and in people in a few months which might change how they post or calm them down a lot

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Yeah I would like to see indefinite bans completely replacing permanent ones and perhaps even 3/6 months bans tbh, they give a lot more flexibility and room to manoeuvre, a lot can change both on the forum and in people in a few months which might change how they post or calm them down a lot

..yeah, I agree but I also think it has to work the other way as well, in that if someone came back after an indefinite ban, say 3/6 months and started in any way referring to that ban or the reasons for it, then a strike should be made or the ban extended again... because maybe they haven't 'moved on..'...?...

[Z]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Yeah I would like to see indefinite bans completely replacing permanent ones and perhaps even 3/6 months bans tbh, they give a lot more flexibility and room to manoeuvre, a lot can change both on the forum and in people in a few months which might change how they post or calm them down a lot

I agree in principle but I don't think indefinite bans should replace permanent ones or 3/6 month ones... because it's the same thing - people know that if they behave well, they can always come back. I think indefinite bans should be taken into consideration if the moderating team feels that the person who has been banned for a lengthy period of time (3 months - permanently) is acting out of character and they feel that this person could come back and not cause any more trouble; but if you make indefinite bans the default then people still won't show any respect for the system.

[Jack_]

I don't think there's anything wrong with the infraction system, I just think people's issues with each other aren't allowed to be resolved by letting them go at it just once. I think the early stops to any arguments just makes the problem continue because the issues aren't discussed, I spoke more about this in that thread the other day though. Maybe even getting everyone that has problems with each other together to solve their problems offsite, like on Tinych*t or something might help?

Also as far as I remember the three warning rule was never three strikes and a permanent ban, it was three strikes and then a ban which increased in length with every three strikes. So after the first three you'd get a day ban, the next three a week ban, the next three a month, next a year, then permanent. Or something like that...I think anyway. I prefer the infraction system but if we were to go back it'd have to be to that, three strikes and a perma ban would rid this forum of half of its members, even some mods too tbh

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Jack_

I don't think there's anything wrong with the infraction system, I just think people's issues with each other aren't allowed to be resolved by letting them go at it just once. I think the early stops to any arguments just makes the problem continue because the issues aren't discussed, I spoke more about this in that thread the other day though. Maybe even getting everyone that has problems with each other together to solve their problems offsite, like on Tinych*t or something might help?

Also as far as I remember the three warning rule was never three strikes and a permanent ban, it was three strikes and then a ban which increased in length with every three strikes. So after the first three you'd get a day ban, the next three a week ban, the next three a month, next a year, then permanent. Or something like that...I think anyway. I prefer the infraction system but if we were to go back it'd have to be to that, three strikes and a perma ban would rid this forum of half of its members, even some mods too tbh

..I understand everyone is different Jack, (that's part of the fun, yeah..)..but I think when two people are heated or more than two people, then it's best to step back, rather than continue with it..because at that 'moment' and with heightened emotions, then it's more often going to result negatively...

[Z]

Originally Posted by Jack_

I don't think there's anything wrong with the infraction system, I just think people's issues with each other aren't allowed to be resolved by letting them go at it just once. I think the early stops to any arguments just makes the problem continue because the issues aren't discussed, I spoke more about this in that thread the other day though. Maybe even getting everyone that has problems with each other together to solve their problems offsite, like on Tinych*t or something might help?

Also as far as I remember the three warning rule was never three strikes and a permanent ban, it was three strikes and then a ban which increased in length with every three strikes. So after the first three you'd get a day ban, the next three a week ban, the next three a month, next a year, then permanent. Or something like that...I think anyway. I prefer the infraction system but if we were to go back it'd have to be to that, three strikes and a perma ban would rid this forum of half of its members, even some mods too tbh

I just do not agree with the concept of having some thread where people have a go at each other until they're blue in the face. Would you let two countries bomb each other until they both felt they'd bombed each other enough? No, you'd get them to put the weapons down and let go of the anger. I don't understand why so many people on this forum have this incessant need to fight with each other. If I have a problem with someone in any aspect of my life I just try and avoid coming into contact with them where possible and being civil whenever I have to talk to them.

[Drew.]

Originally Posted by Jack_

I don't think there's anything wrong with the infraction system, I just think people's issues with each other aren't allowed to be resolved by letting them go at it just once. I think the early stops to any arguments just makes the problem continue because the issues aren't discussed, I spoke more about this in that thread the other day though. Maybe even getting everyone that has problems with each other together to solve their problems offsite, like on Tinych*t or something might help?

Also as far as I remember the three warning rule was never three strikes and a permanent ban, it was three strikes and then a ban which increased in length with every three strikes. So after the first three you'd get a day ban, the next three a week ban, the next three a month, next a year, then permanent. Or something like that...I think anyway. I prefer the infraction system but if we were to go back it'd have to be to that, three strikes and a perma ban would rid this forum of half of its members, even some mods too tbh

There are too many groups on the forum.. If one person from one group made up with someone from another there will still be someone from one of the groups that will dislike that person and the bitching and talking about them will still continue..

[Jordan.]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..what about if the third strike meant a 'cooling off period' which could be at the mods/admins discretion, depending on whether they felt the member could come back to the forum...instead of permanent bans, because reducing numbers of members wouldn't seem like a good idea, anyway...

Ew no cause the people the mods like would obviously be let back earlier.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Drew.

There are too many groups on the forum.. If one person from one group made up with someone from another there will still be someone from one of the groups that will dislike that person and the bitching and talking about them will still continue..

..yeah, I do think there are lots of groups, which I never noticed before when I first posted but maybe that was always so....'back in the day' it felt more of a Community....

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Jordan.

Ew no cause the people the mods like would obviously be let back earlier.

..there is no 'mods like' and 'mods don't like'..there are mods who connect with different people and those people vary from mod to mod...mods aren't a 'mould' of one thing and all like minded when it comes to members personalities....

[Jordan.]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..there is no 'mods like' and 'mods don't like'..there are mods who connect with different people and those people vary from mod to mod...mods aren't a 'mould' of one thing and all like minded when it comes to members personalities....

Sorry but no i disagree, the mods can be cliquey and people like MMI who none of them like would suffer worse from this happening.

[Kazanne]

Mods are humans , they will like some members more than others ,it is inevitable , I only know a couple(maybe 3) members who have the bottle to challenge them as others fear they will be infracted , banned ,whatever, it's quite noticeable how some always agree with a mod because they fear their wrath , lol ,I try and get on with most people but it doesn't always happen , so I just try and chat with people I get on with. People know the rules when they join so no excuse really for a permanent ban, some people actions don't deserve a 'second' chance imo .

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Jordan.

Sorry but no i disagree, the mods can be cliquey and people like MMI who none of them like would suffer worse from this happening.

..I'm not going to talk about specific members, but from what I see on the forum as a regular poster, actions are usually justified and that for me is why a 'slog it out' area wouldn't be a good idea because I think sometimes, and it could happen with any of us....it's good for people to take a step back/distance and look at their own part in things..which is really hard when you're 'involved' yourself and probably not always easy if it's a friend, but you do have to look at the actions of people you like as well..we all have done that at some point, I'm sure...

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Mods are humans , they will like some members more than others ,it is inevitable , I only know a couple(maybe 3) members who have the bottle to challenge them as others fear they will be infracted , banned ,whatever, it's quite noticeable how some always agree with a mod because they fear their wrath , lol ,I try and get on with most people but it doesn't always happen , so I just try and chat with people I get on with. People know the rules when they join so no excuse really for a permanent ban, some people actions don't deserve a 'second' chance imo .

..I don't see it as anything to do with 'bottle', if someone is breaking a rule then there isn't anything to 'challenge'..?.....yeah, mods are human and because of that, then members will naturally like some of them as well/it's a genuine thing...but not all mods will connect with the same members and not all members will connect with the same mods...

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Jack_

I don't think there's anything wrong with the infraction system, I just think people's issues with each other aren't allowed to be resolved by letting them go at it just once. I think the early stops to any arguments just makes the problem continue because the issues aren't discussed, I spoke more about this in that thread the other day though. Maybe even getting everyone that has problems with each other together to solve their problems offsite, like on Tinych*t or something might help?

Also as far as I remember the three warning rule was never three strikes and a permanent ban, it was three strikes and then a ban which increased in length with every three strikes. So after the first three you'd get a day ban, the next three a week ban, the next three a month, next a year, then permanent. Or something like that...I think anyway. I prefer the infraction system but if we were to go back it'd have to be to that, three strikes and a perma ban would rid this forum of half of its members, even some mods too tbh

We have private messaging that should suffice for that stuff. The problem is, a lot of members like their laundry to be aired in public..its no fun without an audience.

The three strikes I think you mis-remember One warning was an instant ban, 2nd after that was a longer ban, and third was permanent. We had another system running alongside that where members got ministrike thing against them, to let other mods who might not know history and stuff know if the member was a serial troublemaker or not..which helped decide if a warning was justified. Also IIRC, other members could see if someone had got a warning fo a post..which helped with the cries of 'X gets away with everything, bias' etc that we have now

I dont think half the members would be gone at all. think people would stop pushing their luck like thy do at the moment. And if people cant control themselves, then I think the forum is better off without them anyway