Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

A blanket warning in a thread does not contribute to your warning count. That requires a moderator to specifically apply a warning to your account... in which case you receive a PM telling you about it.

Yes. And it's unfortunate that they (specifically fraz) bust out that warning button in combination with a written warning seemingly 100% of the time. Making your continued insistence that the are different, as I now continue to explain, kinda silly. The entire point of this thread is the misuse and (apparent) unfamiliarity with this system by the moderators. I'm sure if it were used correctly there would be (slightly) less of an issue. However thats not the case.

And the point you're clearly missing is that if a moderator has issued you a personal warning, it's because they felt that you had done something to warrant it.

Whether or not you feel that warning is warranted is nothing to do with the automated suspension system being used correctly or not. If you're unsure why a specific warning was issued, that's something to take up with the mod in question.

I still can't believe I was banned for contributing to the general consensus in the pony thread Whatever. What's done is done

.

What? the My little pont thread?
I knew that one was gonna be big TROUBLE!!
phew I got out when the going was good to soft.

And the point you're clearly missing is that if a moderator has issued you a personal warning, it's because they felt that you had done something to warrant it.

I addressed all that in my first reply to you. This is all just rehashing.

Whether or not you feel that warning is warranted is nothing to do with the automated suspension system being used correctly or not.

It's inherent to it. An incorrectly handed warning is a ban for me. There is no difference. If I am banned for a warning which was used to preemptively prevent a breakage of the rules then I am being banned without violating any forum rules. This isn't difficult to parse. Is this precrime? I don't see any robot spiders.

If you're unsure why a specific warning was issued, that's something to take up with the mod in question.

I'll do that as soon as the mod in question ceases to display a lack of objectivity by asking me if I'm pro child murder. Repeatedly. Without cause. Until then I'm going to try to deal with other people.

Insaniak has explained the function of the auto-ban. It is just a timesaver for habitual offenders. Under the old manual system, you'd be getting the bans for the exact same posts, but they'd generally be longer than three days at this point, as repetitions of the same offense result in suspensions of increasing length under the core system. For someone with your very lengthly case file, that would probably mostly be multi-week or month-long suspensions. If the offense was borderline, or you seemed to have been provoked, we might decide to be lenient and only suspend you for a couple of days. If a user with your record is getting an auto-three-day suspension, it means you broke the rules in a specific post (the PM you receive will have a link) but we decided to go easy on you.

If you have a complaint about a moderator, you need to take it to that moderator or Yakface. You can also hit Alert Moderator on their posts if they post something offensive. We do not moderate complaints against ourselves.

I will freely admit that I am often times salty and aggressive in my opinions on this forum. Theres a hell of a lot of racist or daft people in the off topic section and when someone advocates murdering the entire population of a country I often times dispute their reasoning. If the mods did their jobs it would likely happen less, but since the primary mod of that topic section says that kind of gak all the time it brings to light a lack of adequate of objective moderation. This is the crux of this thread. The mods that are handing out these banning warnings seemingly aren't objective enough to actually have that power.

Not every time I've been banned have I even come close to deserving it. Like when I was banned for:

ShumaGorath wrote:Poastin' in a highly trivial thread and answerin' you're quandries.

1) Mass Effect 2 is not an RPG

Wrong.

2) Mass Effect 2 has a weaker story

Correct.

3) Mass Effect 2 has weaker characters

Wrong.

4) Mass Effect 2 has less customization

Wrong.

5) Mass Effect 2 is a smaller and shorter game

Only insofar as much of its content was pioneered and pasted from the first game. Gameplay times are roughly equivalent and there are just as many environments.

6) Mass Effect 2 has bad gameplay

Matter of opinion and it's universally lauded as having superior gameplay to the first.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

GalacticDefender wrote:No, I've never had it randomly go from a 10 degree turn to a 90 degree turn. And some other games require vehicles for certain missions, why shouldn't Mass Effect?

Everyone else has, the driving physics of ME1 were well known to be fundamentally flawed while the environments were very poorly designed for vehicle movement (most of the vehicle explorable planets were generated by randomized algorithms and later had areas "customized" for story elements). That said, I thoroughly enjoyed the mako segments of the game and was sad to see them go. The Mako was "balanced" just fine in terms of gameplay power. In the vehicle segments you drive the vehicle. If you want to get out of your tank in a segment where you need the tank you can, and you'll die because you got out of your tank in a segment where you needed a tank. It's realistic that way.

In that instance I was banned for calling a thread response to a game article about a several year old game "Trivial". That is not a breakage of the rules. Trivial is not an insult. In the response itself I agreed with the thread poster about the article who was posting the article itself to tear it down. I wasn't even being confrontational. The mod apparently just didn't know what trivial meant.

Or how about:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:Should I start the intervention countdown clock?

No, don't get up. The French will take the lead here too.

Great. I feel so much better! If they lead that one how much will it cost the US this time?

They need an orkmoticon where he is throwing up!

The military has yet to request additional funding for the mission in libya, that was just all out of standard budget. So at the moment it's cost all of nothing outside of what we had already payed them for. I hope you never hear about the concept of touch and goes, your head will explode.

Where I am banned for noting that another posters "head would explode" if they discovered touch and goes, a form of institutionalized military waste wherein billions of dollars are spent annually on intentionally wasteful procedures in order to maintain and fully use up arguably insane budgets. The poster has a history of taking serious offense to even the smallest forms of governmental waste, with touch and goes being something that is so extreme it could "make their head explode".

Could either of these be construed as overly aggressive? Maybe. Did I break a rule? No. Should I of thus been banned? No. If you want to warn (and thus ban) me, wait until I actually violate a rule.

I think one of the big issues here is simply the fact that you're looking at what is happening to you as being 'banned', when that isn't actually what is happening at all. You are being temporarily suspended and not only that, it is a SHORT temporary suspension. In other words, it is more of a 'cool down' period to allow to stop actively participating in whatever current discussion has led you to receive the warning because honestly often that is what is needed the most (a few days away from making an 'in the moment' retort).


Just to be clear...there is no 'automated' system that hands out suspensions. We have an automated system for SMALL offenses that gives out automated warnings once a moderator flags a post as being inappropriate. Once a user receives enough of these warnings from then on any further warnings issued result in a 3 day 'cool down' suspension period.

This is entirely different from major offenses in which moderators will contact you personally via PM or email and suspend your account for whatever amount of time is deemed necessary for the infraction.


The whole point of warnings, automated or otherwise, is for you to recognize that your actions are inappropriate for the site, and you need to change them or your privileges on the site will be negatively affected. If you've hit the threshold number of warnings to the point that you're now getting the 3-day 'cool down' suspensions, that means you've been warned multiple times about your behavior being inappropriate and have still continued to break the rules.

There is a VERY simple solution to this: Don't break the rules! Make EXTRA effort to be polite and friendly at all times and you will not receive warnings ever again. I guarantee that it works.

There is a VERY simple solution to this: Don't break the rules! Make EXTRA effort to be polite and friendly at all times and you will not receive warnings ever again. I guarantee that it works.

I just posted 2 out of four of the posts that resulted in 3 day bannings. I broke no rule in either case. I wasn't really even close in either case. Thats my issue here. I understand the concept of warnings, I understand the system. It's the uneven moderation that breaks this system that i take issue with.

Theres a hell of a lot of racist or daft people in the off topic section.

Sadly you are only going to continue getting riled and upset and possibly receive more temporary suspensions.
The people with such views care not a jot whatever you say and doubtless enjoy winding people up.

Seriously I would try and give yourself a break from the idiocy and refrain from OT or more specifically posts of dubious nature.
If the gakk starts popping up in a thread, it is a sign telling you to unsubscribe.
It is so easy to get drawn into the vortex of argument and before you know it the mods are called in.

However a skilful orator you are, it is doubtful that the dipwits will be converted to reason and a more compassionate view of the rest of humanity.
In any case a troll is as a troll does, and you end up paying the price.

As an aside, if someone was very badly behaved and then changed their ways and became a model community member would their Warnings and whatnot get removed from their account after a certain amount of time (or posts) without infractions?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ma55ter_fett wrote:But what if Frazzled is wrong about something?

Dogma disagrees with Frazzled quite vocally and often. He doesn't seem to have this problem.

Monster Rain wrote:As an aside, if someone was very badly behaved and then changed their ways and became a model community member would their Warnings and whatnot get removed from their account after a certain amount of time (or posts) without infractions?

There's an informal system for that. The warnings stay on record but we look at the whole history and if someone had been "clean" for a year, they would probably be treated more leniently.

Deadshane1 wrote:I've never been banned or suspended. I know how to refrain from being TOO offensive.

I dont think something like this should be left up to a program though.

Banning or suspending should have a human behind it. Someone that can weigh in all of the factors involved.

I disagree with any "autobanning" program here. The first time I'm banned by something like that, I"m gone...permanantly. (not that anyone would mind, probably. In fact....CELEBRATION!)

1. Its not. the number of warnings by moderators build to a certain level and then there is a suspension. We just don't have to keep track of it as its cumulative.
2. If you or I or anyone leaves, they will not be missed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:

A blanket warning in a thread does not contribute to your warning count. That requires a moderator to specifically apply a warning to your account... in which case you receive a PM telling you about it.

Yes. And it's unfortunate that they (specifically fraz) bust out that warning button in combination with a written warning seemingly 100% of the time. Making your continued insistence that the are different, as I now continue to explain, kinda silly. The entire point of this thread is the misuse and (apparent) unfamiliarity with this system by the moderators. I'm sure if it were used correctly there would be (slightly) less of an issue. However thats not the case.

You're right. If used correctly you probably wouldn't be here to post.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:

And the point you're clearly missing is that if a moderator has issued you a personal warning, it's because they felt that you had done something to warrant it.

I addressed all that in my first reply to you. This is all just rehashing.

Whether or not you feel that warning is warranted is nothing to do with the automated suspension system being used correctly or not.

It's inherent to it. An incorrectly handed warning is a ban for me. There is no difference. If I am banned for a warning which was used to preemptively prevent a breakage of the rules then I am being banned without violating any forum rules. This isn't difficult to parse. Is this precrime? I don't see any robot spiders.

If you're unsure why a specific warning was issued, that's something to take up with the mod in question.

I'll do that as soon as the mod in question ceases to display a lack of objectivity by asking me if I'm pro child murder. Repeatedly. Without cause. Until then I'm going to try to deal with other people.

The warnings were correct. At this point you're just complaining because you keep getting warned. If you can't abide by the simple rule to be polite-then don't post, its as simple as that.

Monster Rain wrote:As an aside, if someone was very badly behaved and then changed their ways and became a model community member would their Warnings and whatnot get removed from their account after a certain amount of time (or posts) without infractions?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ma55ter_fett wrote:But what if Frazzled is wrong about something?

Dogma disagrees with Frazzled quite vocally and often. He doesn't seem to have this problem.

Actually, he does. You might notice he stops posting for intervals.

You're right. If used correctly you probably wouldn't be here to post.

And if the rules were enforced evenly you wouldn't either.

The warnings were correct. At this point you're just complaining because you keep getting warned. If you can't abide by the simple rule to be polite-then don't post, its as simple as that.

Not the ones I posted. Remind me, how is calling a topic trivial a violation of forum rules?

ShumaGorath wrote:Actually, he does. You might notice he stops posting for intervals.

He's been a member for a long time, and doesn't have too much of an OTT post count. He comes and goes but I wasn't aware that it was because he was getting banned. He certainly doesn't make a big deal out of it if he is.

I'm interested in whether or not there is a 'clean slate' point for warnings and previous suspensions?

I used to get into a fair amount of hot water with regards to another poster who is no longer on the forum and our cobra/mongoose styled mutual loathing, I've been fairly warning free since that and I'm hopeful that periods of non-hostile and productive posting can change your rep.

I done my time man.

As a side note, shumagorath using the word 'trivial' seems a fairly 'trivial' reason for a warning, no?

Just to throw this in but isn't the real point that is being missed is that in order to get the warnings, in the majority of cases, you must be aggravating people enough for them to hit the report button and alert a mod. I'm guessing most mod action is as a result of these reports rather than mods actively policing threads/boards?

If so, then maybe Shuma you are better served working out exactly what it about you or the way you say things that generates such a response?

filbert wrote:Just to throw this in but isn't the real point that is being missed is that in order to get the warnings, in the majority of cases, you must be aggravating people enough for them to hit the report button and alert a mod. I'm guessing most mod action is as a result of these reports rather than mods actively policing threads/boards?

If so, then maybe Shuma you are better served working out exactly what it about you or the way you say things that generates such a response?

With the exception of the "trivial" warning every warning I've received has been so while in a thread where I was actively debating with a mod. Most of my interactions with frazzled imply that he was warning me in most cases on his own, certainly he has said as much in the few PMs we've shot back and forth. I didn't copy paste every warning post I've received because some of them have been deserved. I can accept that. I can see when and where I am in the wrong. I can also see when and where I am not. When it's a 50/50 split between the two I get concerned that maybe theres something else going on.

ShumaGorath wrote:

filbert wrote:Just to throw this in but isn't the real point that is being missed is that in order to get the warnings, in the majority of cases, you must be aggravating people enough for them to hit the report button and alert a mod. I'm guessing most mod action is as a result of these reports rather than mods actively policing threads/boards?

If so, then maybe Shuma you are better served working out exactly what it about you or the way you say things that generates such a response?

With the exception of the "trivial" warning every warning I've received has been so while in a thread where I was actively debating with a mod. Most of my interactions with frazzled imply that he was warning me in most cases on his own, certainly he has said as much in the few PMs we've shot back and forth. I didn't copy paste every warning post I've received because some of them have been deserved. I can accept that. I can see when and where I am in the wrong. I can also see when and where I am not. When it's a 50/50 split between the two I get concerned that maybe theres something else going on.

So what this thread is really about then is not so much the auto-banning system (or the counter for warnings if you prefer) but the fact that you have a personal beef with Frazzled and feel he is handing out warnings for no reason? Again, as iterated earlier, you would probably be better off discussing this with Yak or Lego in PM/email rather than airing dirty linen in public, so to speak. Can't really see anything productive coming from this thread.

This forum has a very diverse range of nerdy gaming weirdos on it.

Some of them come to hate some others.

I have no doubt that I could post a gentle message to folks to remember to be kind to kittens and the elderly and people who have already taken a dislike to me would /report it and then, if there was a mod who didn't like me, that mod could issue a warning. Given that happening several times, I'd find myself taking frequent 3 day vacations.

Given that there is likely even less love between Shuma and Fraz then between me and a certain previous poster on dakka, it would seem prudent of mods in certain cases to say honestly 'I really don't like this guy and would appreciate it if one of the other mods would adjudicate on him/her'.

The current system is going to suffer from the flaw of vendetta/personal dislike/automatic and impersonal ruling device.

If the system was created due to a lack of moderators, lets just have more moderators... Filbert seems a nice chap...

filbert wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

filbert wrote:Just to throw this in but isn't the real point that is being missed is that in order to get the warnings, in the majority of cases, you must be aggravating people enough for them to hit the report button and alert a mod. I'm guessing most mod action is as a result of these reports rather than mods actively policing threads/boards?

If so, then maybe Shuma you are better served working out exactly what it about you or the way you say things that generates such a response?

With the exception of the "trivial" warning every warning I've received has been so while in a thread where I was actively debating with a mod. Most of my interactions with frazzled imply that he was warning me in most cases on his own, certainly he has said as much in the few PMs we've shot back and forth. I didn't copy paste every warning post I've received because some of them have been deserved. I can accept that. I can see when and where I am in the wrong. I can also see when and where I am not. When it's a 50/50 split between the two I get concerned that maybe theres something else going on.

So what this thread is really about then is not so much the auto-banning system (or the counter for warnings if you prefer) but the fact that you have a personal beef with Frazzled and feel he is handing out warnings for no reason? Again, as iterated earlier, you would probably be better off discussing this with Yak or Lego in PM/email rather than airing dirty linen in public, so to speak. Can't really see anything productive coming from this thread.

It's a concern about the system being vulnerable to overzealous mods who are apparently unaware of who is being effected by the system. Without the mods the system doesn't do anything, but it's the warning system thats been banning me. Not the mods. Also, as I've said, I've sent emails to leggo and yak previously and have never been responded too.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:This forum has a very diverse range of nerdy gaming weirdos on it.

Some of them come to hate some others.

I have no doubt that I could post a gentle message to folks to remember to be kind to kittens and the elderly and people who have already taken a dislike to me would /report it and then, if there was a mod who didn't like me, that mod could issue a warning. Given that happening several times, I'd find myself taking frequent 3 day vacations.

Given that there is likely even less love between Shuma and Fraz then between me and a certain previous poster on dakka, it would seem prudent of mods in certain cases to say honestly 'I really don't like this guy and would appreciate it if one of the other mods would adjudicate on him/her'.

The current system is going to suffer from the flaw of vendetta/personal dislike/automatic and impersonal ruling device.

If the system was created due to a lack of moderators, lets just have more moderators... Filbert seems a nice chap...

That often in fact occurs MGS, for a variety of posters and Mods. I tend to do the majority of reporting in the OT historically as I tended to be more involved in the OT.

Sounds good, it would be a bit like whatever they call it when a lawyer says he cannot represent a client as his own belief in the guilt/innocence means he would not be able to represent effectively.

I'm still not sure about an automated system issuing penalties though, extenuating circumstances etc...

At first I though "autoban? that's not right." But I guess I see the point of it now. Not all the mods can know the amount of warning every poster has. In this system they are there to merely judge each incident on its own. An equivilent is that they act more like police than judges.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Sounds good, it would be a bit like whatever they call it when a lawyer says he cannot represent a client as his own belief in the guilt/innocence means he would not be able to represent effectively.

I'm still not sure about an automated system issuing penalties though, extenuating circumstances etc...

Its not like that.

MGS makes a post. frazzled is bored, and MGS's "contribution" check hasn't cleared yet, so he has the option to send an official warning (which is a whole process) or hit the red triangle of death. The red triangle of death keeps a tally of warnings (note these go to the poster via PM each time). At a certain, relatively high count, it will suspend the poster for I think 2 days. Repeated red traingles thereafter will result in more suspensions but the time does not accumulate. These warnings are for minor infractions, but if a poster builds up enough, he gets zapped. It takes a lot though, and thats the point. It was put in place to be higher level than a "knock it off" post in a thread, but is substantially less than an offical warning.

If we "went official" the suspensions would come much more quickly, if not instantly, and tenor of those would build quickly. For kiss and grins (or if that check doesn't clear MGS!) and a mod were out to get a poster, this would be the route taken. there's a full on paper trail as Yak would inevitably get a query and would look at the record book so to speak.

Wait, the rules here actually allow the mods to give warnings to people their in conversations with, and stay mods?

I think that's the real problem. If there's a conflict of interest you should be calling in a different mod to deal with problems.

Requia wrote:Wait, the rules here actually allow the mods to give warnings to people their in conversations with, and stay mods?

I think that's the real problem. If there's a conflict of interest you should be calling in a different mod to deal with problems.

You're assuming thats not the case now. Don't.

Frazzled wrote:

Requia wrote:Wait, the rules here actually allow the mods to give warnings to people their in conversations with, and stay mods?

I think that's the real problem. If there's a conflict of interest you should be calling in a different mod to deal with problems.

You're assuming thats not the case now. Don't.

But... That isn't the case.

(edited for correctness)

Frazzled wrote:

Requia wrote:Wait, the rules here actually allow the mods to give warnings to people their in conversations with, and stay mods?

I think that's the real problem. If there's a conflict of interest you should be calling in a different mod to deal with problems.

You're assuming thats not the case now. Don't.

So are you denying you issued a warning to Shurma while in an argument with him? I had assumed the lack of denial meant it happened.

While I think openess and transparency is all for the good this is feeling a tad personal for public discussion.

Surely, as said above, the correct form of correspndence ought be private, leaving the public discussion for a more general debate about the workings of the banning system?

How many warnings does it take to auto-ban anyway?