Support.

You can't write "reddit is a shitty hatefest" because it's antagonizing?

Utter bullshit. They have a shitlist and check recent postings every 2 days of those shitlisted users. They are PAID to probate those users even the reason isn't existant.
They hope those users stop posting but will never admit it.

Somebody else on the shitlist got probated for posting a legacy item because of "antagonizing nature"

And moderation defends themselves with the invented "No discussion over moderation rule"

"

Hilbert wrote:

Somebody else on the shitlist got probated for posting a legacy item because of "antagonizing nature"

Are you possibly referring to I_NO recently in that thread about legacy items when him and a bunch of people kept posting legacies and then when a mod warned them to stop he responded by continuing to antagonize?

Just wondering since I did see that happen recently. If not then all I have to say is that it is antagonizing to post legacies in a thread that's against legacies, people who do that aren't contributing to the discussion and are essentially trolling. But I don't believe someone would get immediately probated for doing that unless they were a repeat offender.

"

iamstryker wrote:

"

BINARYGOD wrote:

[
I don't think the "as long as your a good citizen, you have nothing to worry about" reasoning works.

It works for me. Honestly even if I somehow did have infractions on my record. I would just tell myself oh well its not going to affect me because I actually try to follow the rules as best I can so there will not be a reason to probate me in the future regardless.

Increasing punishment is really only going to harm the guys who aren't trying to follow the rules or who are doing a bad job of it.

"it works for me so it works for everyone"

If someone continues to be bad, they continue to get in trouble - it is the same outcome as the style you prefer, but it doesn't screw over unlucky or unfortunate people, or those that are apparently being targeted (if that is even true, have no idea).

"

Crystalgate wrote:

"

BINARYGOD wrote:

There is no reason to increase the punishment because it is the x'th offense - it doesn't work, statistically speaking, with law enforcement and it doesn't in a forum either (plenty of studies to find online to support this pov).

I did a quick Google and I found both studies that said escalating punishment does work and studies that said it doesn't. They seemed to be very theoretical though, the reasoning was done with mathematical formulas rather than statistics. I think you should link to the studies you say support your view.

Actually I retract my original statement about statistics (true, you can find studies that are on both "sides" of the issue, so that will get us no where - and that is too typical of the forums) and frame this the correct way (I would edit my original post, but it has been replied to so I let it stand):

In criminal justice the default position is to hand out punishment as the crimes are committed, that is, if you do something bad and are caught you get the sentence that fits the crime (let's ignore the affects of race and money and connections), and if you get caught again at some point (possibly for a different crime) you get punished for that and the preceding crime has no bearing (and usually is not allowed to in the court room).

"Recently" there has been a push for increased punishment with increased offenses. However, if people are going to posit that increased punishment works or is superior, then they are the ones who must prove it does, and not just using "common sense". Also, it is possible it might work in some cases and not in others, so it would actually have to be proven to work in the scenario it is being applied to (someone above mentioned something about DUI's and, on the surface, that felt ok with me, but I have no idea if it actually decreases drunk driving).

At least - when it comes to Cali's 3 strikes, the case isn't clear at all - http://www.lao.ca.gov/2005/3_Strikes/3_strikes_102005.htm.


When it comes to forums, the real topic at hand, I see no evidence in support. Actually, I have never seen anyone really study this at all, to be honest - but the op linked an article about how these forums rules (not here, but in general) are ineffective or backfire, so that's at least one data point against.

Also - I really don't think the "it's common sense" can be used as a data point for it, because *I* think it's "common sense" to just punish people as they commit the infraction and just be done with it. The alternative seems too easily abused to me. Stealing three times in Cali can get you put away for as long or longer than a murderer? I get warned 4 times across several years and one more minor infraction (no matter how long has passed) gets me a one month ban on another website with increased penalties? I do not see the logic in either case.

You have to look at the goal behind the reason for increased punishment.

Take DUI which is a simple case in NZ. If you do it (based on certain limits), it is just a fine. But repeated fines can result in loss of license.

The fine clearly does not work if the person continues to commit the crime which can cause a large amount of problems down the line.

So the punishment is "increased" to factor in that the person is aware they should not be doing so, and continues to ignore the requests for them to stop, and this prevents them from driving and possibly causing problems in the future.


This doesn't necessarily mean that as you said over several years it is tracked. And from my experience it is the same on the forums (infractions do not stay on record for years when judging the amount of temp ban).

But it is fairly simple if you consider that your cases you are citing are a different type of case. In this one the person has been told specifically 'if you continue to do so you will be probated' which is a clear and concise warning. If the person continues to do so and they are probated then they were warned, and should know better.



The system where someone warned of bad behaviour is just told not to keep posting that is one in which we assume that the person has learnt. In the situations where they clearly have ignored teh warning and have not learnt, why should we be lenient towards them IGNORING what has been told to them.

"

BINARYGOD wrote:

"it works for me so it works for everyone"

Why would it not work for everyone?

"

If someone continues to be bad, they continue to get in trouble - it is the same outcome as the style you prefer, but it doesn't screw over unlucky or unfortunate people, or those that are apparently being targeted (if that is even true, have no idea).

Without increased punishments I think its more likely someone might just take the short probation without caring. I already said why I don't think the whole "screwing over unfortunate people" argument holds water.

"

Hilbert wrote:

You can't write "reddit is a shitty hatefest" because it's antagonizing?

No probation i hope?

"

Hilbert wrote:

Somebody else on the shitlist got probated for posting a legacy item because of "antagonizing nature"

Iv heard someone got his thread deleted because Build was too OP ( 3.000.000 dps ) "antagonizing nature"

@BINARYGOD
I have been waiting for you. I knew i was not the only one with this opinion.

"

BINARYGOD wrote:

l post, but it has been replied to so I let it stand):

In criminal justice the default position is to hand out punishment as the crimes are committed, that is, if you do something bad and are caught you get the sentence that fits the crime (let's ignore the affects of race and money and connections), and if you get caught again at some point (possibly for a different crime) you get punished for that and the preceding crime has no bearing (and usually is not allowed to in the court room).

Exactly!


The WEAKNESS OF SUPPORT is that it uses misdeed A to increase punishement on Misdeed B, that's WRONG.

Prior infractions have to differentiate between all actions.

If someone gets a greater probation for continuing posting stupid screenshots on threads. Again and again and again.. okay! Maybe.
What if he entered a debate thread and got angry and made an attack on someone.

Should he get a big probation because of prior infractions(stupid screenshots) or just a warning?

I say : Just a warning.

"

BINARYGOD wrote:

Also - I really don't think the "it's common sense" can be used as a data point for it, because *I* think it's "common sense" to just punish people as they commit the infraction and just be done with it. The alternative seems too easily abused to me. Stealing three times in Cali can get you put away for as long or longer than a murderer? I get warned 4 times across several years and one more minor infraction (no matter how long has passed) gets me a one month ban on another website with increased penalties? I do not see the logic in either case.

QED
Total BS.

"

BINARYGOD wrote:

http://www.lao.ca.gov/2005/3_Strikes/3_strikes_102005.htm

Interesting.

"In November 2004, California voters considered Proposition 66, which aimed to significantly revise the Three Strikes law. In rejecting Proposition 66, voters seemed to reaffirm their support for the measure. Though the proposition failed to pass, the level of support for it (47 percent) does suggest some sentiment among California citizens to reconsider aspects of the law, including the provision of sentences of 25 years to life for offenders whose most recent crime is nonserious and nonviolent."

GGG's forum is worse. It looks at different non serious 'prior actions' and uses them without differentiating any of them to add them up when choosing to make a greater probation.

"

Real_Wolf wrote:

(infractions do not stay on record for years when judging the amount of temp ban).

I think infractions stay.

"

Real_Wolf wrote:

The system where someone warned of bad behaviour is just told not to keep posting that is one in which we assume that the person has learnt. In the situations where they clearly have ignored teh warning and have not learnt, why should we be lenient towards them IGNORING what has been told to them.

What about those who are not been told anything and get bigger probations because they commited a DIFFERENT misdeed in the past?
read my first sentences.



_________






Someone just got 10 days probation for saying : " fuck off "

Are you serious? This is ridiculous! Dat famous mature forum where saying 'fuck' is allowed(and not in battle net), dat forum where devs say : " we try to not be dicks " @Qarl?@Mike? Don't remember which one.

Ridiculous...


@Support: don't you see soemthing wrong here?
Jesus christ.

"

InexRising wrote:

[...]
Someone just got 10 days probation for saying : " fuck off "

Are you serious? This is ridiculous! Dat famous mature forum where saying 'fuck' is allowed(and not in battle net), dat forum where devs say : " we try to not be dicks " @Qarl?@Mike? Don't remember which one.

Ridiculous...


@Support: don't you see soemthing wrong here?
Jesus christ.

You use mature language to insult somebody directly, like in your example -> Warning/Probation
You use mature language to color your fucking statement, not directed at anybody -> Okay

What is there not to get? Do you live on planet earth?

"

No probation i hope?

No but a copypasta PM, I guess some report troll clicked on the report button and given supporter used ctrl+f "shitty" and removed the 2 line sentence I saw that happen several times.(But you can easily guess by the activity of given user who the report troll is)

But I got probated for "advocating RMT" when I critisized the challenges all being deceided by RMT.

/i Because it's that hard to find who given person is on the fools gold RMT board or ebay for MMORPGs. Support does a great job banning them.... /i

The "Let's probate shitlist users for fun" order can be seen. Once I am probated isbox1 is next on the list and I know who comes before me ;D

"

Iv heard someone got his thread deleted because Build was too OP ( 3.000.000 dps ) "antagonizing nature"

So GGG creates legacy items and once somebody shows off legacy items it's antagonizing good too know.
Dime show show off his 26% implicit rarity Demigods amulets.

"

Are you serious? This is ridiculous! Dat famous mature forum where saying 'fuck' is allowed(and not in battle net)

It became disallowed because of "fuck that loser" because people evaded the 3 word detection by writing fuckthatloser or fuck.that.loser so Blizz is only looking for fuck(but not fvck)

"

You use mature language to insult somebody directly, like in your example -> Warning/Probation

"Fuck off" is a reaction not an aggression.

This moderation is just as bad as the attempt of trolls pking people at HC bandits provocating them and then attemping them to get muted with success.

"

What is there not to get? Do you live on planet earth?

And here we see a perfect example of comments that lead to "Fuck off" this is a secondary way of saying: "You are stupid"

"

Hilbert wrote:

"

What is there not to get? Do you live on planet earth?

And here we see a perfect example of comments that lead to "Fuck off" this is a secondary way of saying: "You are stupid"

Exactly, I actually thought of answering that. But i decided to not answer until he answers my question i asked him a page or pages back first.
_

In case someone wants to ask the same question i think i have to clarify :
The wrong thing here is to give a user 10 days probation for the misdeed : "saying fuck off to another user".
Prior infractions should not lead to this probation. THIS misdeed SHOULD not be answered with 10 days probation!

This is HORRIBLY WRONG.

__

If the user said "fuck off" and repeated this behaviour OR SIMILAR ONE ( answering forum users with short non respecting comments ) then i could agree and support giving a user greater probations. But he probably said 'fuck off" for the first time.


Prior infractions system might look nice at first glance but they are badly used. Different infraction should not add up.


This system is weak, does not compare at all to what other video game companies are doing(Video 1st page).