next »

[Psychopath]

I say no bumping and double posting.

Outlawing those are pointless unless said posts are productive.

There is a fine line between spam and not spam, that is what should be evaluated.

[FlipTaco]

Sorry, I didn't mean we should completely ignore flame wars taking place. I meant that when they do, this community is mature enough that a verbal warning should suffice. If the flaming continues, THEN we should be handing out infractions.

Yes   We basically filter between people who honestly didn't know or understand and people who are purposely breaking rules. Well, except in more severe cases like blatantly insulting other users, being racist, posting porn or other shock material, etc. which people should instinctively know not to do. But otherwise, warnings for everybody!

[electric_shaman]

Rules are sounding good so far, very much agree that signatures should be moderated, maybe not an exact specification for how large they can be, but just a guideline that they should be sensible, none obtrusive, and that mods will warn you if they are a little too gaudy.

What do people think of a slightly democratic voting system via the report button? So that after x number of unique reports, the moderater must make a judgement on the post and make public their decision, and if y more reports are submitted, then the moderator has no choice to but to give the user an infraction.
To prevent abuse of a system like this, there would have to be a rule that only users with say 50+ posts reports would be counted to the total; although this could lead to more spamming to boost post counts... which brings be to another rule:

One account per person.

[LeetFruitBoy]

Good and good.

[FlipTaco]

One account per person.

I'm not sure this is something that the moderation/administration team can easily manage. What if my brother were to make an account? What if I used a proxy server to set up and use another account? Things could get a little awkward 

I'm also not completely agreeing with this "if y more reports are submitted, then the moderator has no choice to but to give the user an infraction" rule. I know that you're looking to safeguard this kind of system but if there's even a chance that it can be abused for negative purposes then I don't really think it should be implemented.

If a moderator could ever be put in a position where they could say "Well, their post is completely relevant and isn't breaking any rules but it was reported 50/100/however many times so I have to ban him anyway", then something doesn't seem right. I think that no matter what, the final decision on whether or not a ban should be given out should  fall solely on the moderator. Giving non-moderators the slightest power to ban a person (apart from reporting a post) isn't a great idea to me.

[electric_shaman]

One account per person.

I'm not sure this is something that the moderation/administration team can easily manage. What if my brother were to make an account? What if I used a proxy server to set up and use another account? Things could get a little awkward 

I'm also not completely agreeing with this "if y more reports are submitted, then the moderator has no choice to but to give the user an infraction" rule. I know that you're looking to safeguard this kind of system but if there's even a chance that it can be abused for negative purposes then I don't really think it should be implemented.

If a moderator could ever be put in a position where they could say "Well, their post is completely relevant and isn't breaking any rules but it was reported 50/100/however many times so I have to ban him anyway", then something doesn't seem right. I think that no matter what, the final decision on whether or not a ban should be given out should  fall solely on the moderator. Giving non-moderators the slightest power to ban a person (apart from reporting a post) isn't a great idea to me.

On the first part, why should anyone need more than one account, unless they are up to something nefarious in the first place?
I do agree that it becomes complicated in rare circumstances like siblings or room-mates with accounts on the same forum though; but most forums seem to operate just fine with this rule in place despite the issue.


For the democratic reporting system, it is just an idea, because at the end of the day, the mods are going to be the only ones with the data, so if they don't want to give the member an infraction after y amount of reports, they won't have to. It's up to their own morales, it'd just be nice to be able to give them a push if they are giving a member the benefit of the doubt or if they're on the fence about it.

edit: also it's probably worth noting that if implemented, whatever values x and y are set at shouldn't be made public knowledge, to further deter abuse of the system.

And obviously if a post isn't breaking any rules, but is being reported a lot, then there is something fishy going on anyway, so they should investigate why a legitimate post is being reported, and clearly shouldn't take any action against the innocent member.

[orci]

One account per person.

I'm also not completely agreeing with this "if y more reports are submitted, then the moderator has no choice to but to give the user an infraction" rule. I know that you're looking to safeguard this kind of system but if there's even a chance that it can be abused for negative purposes then I don't really think it should be implemented.

If a moderator could ever be put in a position where they could say "Well, their post is completely relevant and isn't breaking any rules but it was reported 50/100/however many times so I have to ban him anyway", then something doesn't seem right.

I wouldn't worry about that... no one is going to be banned just because 50 people decide to gang up and hit the report button when there is no offending material present in a post. It's always going to be well-thought out decision on how issues should be handled.

[Psychopath]

I wouldn't worry about that... no one is going to be banned just because 50 people decide to gang up and hit the report button when there is no offending material present in a post. It's always going to be well-thought out decision on how issues should be handled.

To add onto this, if there is ever any event in which Orci cannot reach a conclusion on his own, he could ask for the opinion(s) of any other moderator(s) who are available. Depending on who is active and the perspectives that all moderators have, this creates a system of checks & balances where one moderator is not too powerful and does not have the final say in anything. If anything that said moderator does is called into question by another moderator, they discuss the matter in a civilized manner.

[juxtapose519]

To add onto this, if there is ever any event in which Orci cannot reach a conclusion on his own, he could ask for the opinion(s) of any other moderator(s) who are available. Depending on who is active and the perspectives that all moderators have, this creates a system of checks & balances where one moderator is not too powerful and does not have the final say in anything. If anything that said moderator does is called into question by another moderator, they discuss the matter in a civilized manner.

I'm all for this. I don't care if the power stays with the moderators, as long no one moderator is given free reign to start handing out infractions all day just because he can. If a democratic process of some kind is still involved, it's harder to abuse moderator powers.

There's always some dink moderator who thinks he can close every thread he comes across because a mildly similar thread was posted several months ago and the user didn't spend two hours using the search function to try and find it and bring it back, or possibly because it wasn't "art".

Again, I think limiting moderator use to extreme and repeat cases is the name of the game.

[electric_shaman]

Again, I think limiting moderator use to extreme and repeat cases is the name of the game.

Very much agree.

Whatever rule set is decided on, warnings should always be the first step (for non-illegal offences of course), or a small time-out if the case is severe.

[Zarkith]

Of everyone in the forum, Orci is definitely the best for the job.
There's no need for any democratic reporting system for bans with him in charge.

It goes without saying that excessive flaming is ban worthy, but excessive spamming is more of a gray area.

I think there should be a Forum Games/Spamming subforum that doesn't increase anyone's postcount for all of the forum games threads to be moved into. That's something for Kyle to handle though. (Hey Orci, would you mind passing this on? I sent a pm, but I don't think he got it)


As for avatars and signatures, I think animated avatars are okay. Orci, I didn't find your avatar the least bit distracting and I miss it.
Of course, this is not the case with certain people's signatures. Animation shouldn't be banned, but to keep it subtle maybe there should be a filesize limit for signatures with images, and a sensible vertical height limit to prevent anyone from page stretching with giantic pictures and shit like this:

a
a
a
a
a
a

etc.

[LeetFruitBoy]

Avatars: no bigger than 200x200, animated is fine.

avatars are usually about 150x150, some smaller.

[FlipTaco]

For the democratic reporting system, it is just an idea, because at the end of the day, the mods are going to be the only ones with the data, so if they don't want to give the member an infraction after y amount of reports, they won't have to. It's up to their own morales, it'd just be nice to be able to give them a push if they are giving a member the benefit of the doubt or if they're on the fence about it.

Yeah, I know, I'm just trying to address the point where you mentioned that the moderators would have "no choice" but to ban a user if their post was reported enough. It sounded a little off to me that users could 'make' a mod ban a user by reporting a post enough :P

But yes, as it's been said, it should all come down to the moderator's discretion, and the report tool should simply be a tool used for reporting posts so that the moderators don't need to watch over the forums like a hawk. An increasing number of reports should simply raise a post in priority instead of being a measure of how strict a punishment is needed.


Also, a bit off-topic, who are the "moderators" anyway? I know that we have kyle and Orci but I've never seen anybody else 

[TunnelingEffect]

I think there should be a Forum Games/Spamming subforum that doesn't increase anyone's postcount for all of the forum games threads to be moved into.

This needs to happen, the game topics are a little out of hand. Post count spam, one word replies etc.

[Naity]

I think there should be a Forum Games/Spamming subforum that doesn't increase anyone's postcount for all of the forum games threads to be moved into.

This needs to happen, the game topics are a little out of hand. Post count spam, one word replies etc.

Or in a more simple way, forum count can be removed. Just titles stays (although they could be removed for non-moderators / non-pixel artist. One good functioning model is forum with no post count and no such titles... Just moderator can give personalised titles as a reward to the users positivly active on the board. It kinda makes flood be useless and, ikn addition, force the "titles hunter" to be respectful and involved in a positive way in the community).

About the animated avatar / signature, I think it's pointless to punish it right away, although it's really annoying. Maybe a word on it in the avatar page and a first warning before punishing can be sufficient.

I wouldn't also be really picky on the grammar. This board is quite internationnal and, from what it seems, there is only a few native english speakers. Mine for instance is really flawed. in the other hand, I suppose "sum kind a int3rn3t sp34k kan b littl annoying 'kuz make sing hord 2 understan' ". Here too there is maybe something to write about, as mus as the abuse of smileys and CAPSLOCK§

Back on the toppic flood, there is also some behaviours which are annoying such as double / triple posts. Maybe reminding that there is a "edit" button is not a bad thing.

EDIT : And congrats orci for your promotion :)