[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Demonhood 

i'm not involved in this most recent infraction, but never assume that the other party got off without an infraction as well.

and never use the "but the other guy is 100 times worse!" excuse. it never works. be calm and rationale in your response. personally, the second someone starts blaming someone else without addressing their own actions, they've lost in my eyes.

You know, I agree with you. But, I think my infraction worthy post was the one in response to besson3c saying he was a "cry baby" and not my legitimate post towards rollingbones/hey zeus!.

How many "infractions" do we get before we get a ban? Are infractions lifted after a set period of time? How many is there is a baker's dozen really?!?!

Off Topic: I thought obvious multiple usernames was a no no around here. I understand SWG, but to have numerous accounts not obviously linked was a violation of the rules.

[Kevin]

I think those multiple SW nicks started after the first one was banned.

[turtle777]

I have given up on understanding all the rules, because only half of them are published and then only partially enforced. On the other hand, there is a lot of knee-jerk ruling....

-t

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by what_the_heck 

I have given up on understanding all the rules, because only half of them are published and then only partially enforced. On the other hand, there is a lot of knee-jerk ruling....

-t

Agreed. If I do wrong I usually know it. But I was pretty blind sided by the "infraction" for my post to rollingbones.

Consistency is lacking in abundance around here.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I think those multiple SW nicks started after the first one was banned.

ya think?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I think those multiple SW nicks started after the first one was banned.

Was that a temp ban, or why were the new nicks not considered ban evasion ?

-t

[Kevin]

No clue. Only the ops and SWG know, and SWG acts like he has never been banned.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

No clue. Only the ops and SWG know, and SWG acts like he has never been banned.

Yeah, I remember him saying that.

Really weird. Maybe there is some truth to Rob "discovering" ban evasion

-t

[Demonhood]

most infractions expire after a very short amount of time. it varies.
and we haven't determined how many it takes before a ban is automatically assessed.

oh, and we discussed it recently and decided that multiple accounts wasn't a legitimate basis for banning someone.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Demonhood 

oh, and we discussed it recently and decided that multiple accounts wasn't a legitimate basis for banning someone.

I would say not if the person isn't hiding behind said account abusing others with them.

I think everyone knows when it's SWG posting no matter what account he uses.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

People shouldn't be punished for defending themselves from personal attacks.

It makes more sense than people being punished regardless of whether it was meant or taken as a personal attack.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

It makes more sense than people being punished regardless of whether it was meant or taken as a personal attack.

Surely it doesn't. The "Oh I was only joking" is a copout used after the person gets called out for making such attack.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Surely it doesn't. The "Oh I was only joking" is a copout used after the person gets called out for making such attack.

Your incredible mind-reading abilities aside, if the "attacked" party doesn't feel attacked, then seriously, what conceivable reason is there for the "attacker" to be punished?

And besides, "he did it first" is a cop-out and I don't even need to know the person's thoughts to know that. Whether you broke the rules first or second makes no difference to whether you broke the rules.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I would say not if the person isn't hiding behind said account abusing others with them.

Hear, hear.

[reader50]

Please note that reporting a post does not produce an infraction/edit/ban. All it does is dispatch an email to the local mods/admins, drawing their attention to the post, along with the reporter's one-line complaint.

The local Mod or Admin will make the call. I've gotten a number of complaint emails from forums that don't have any assigned Mods - in that case, all staff members get the complaint. If it's an obvious spam post, instaban. If it's something else, I pass on it about half the time because it doesn't look that bad. Borderline posts get discussed with other Mods, to see what they think.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

No clue. Only the ops and SWG know, and SWG acts like he has never been banned.

I was a member at the time he arrived, not on staff. But I don't recall SWG getting banned. Instead, we got several new members, all with SW-themed names and sigs. It took me awhile to realize they were all the same person. I never figured out why he wanted a dozen (more?) handles.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Your incredible mind-reading abilities aside,

No need for such abilities.

if the "attacked" party doesn't feel attacked, then seriously, what conceivable reason is there for the "attacker" to be punished?

Derailing threads with constant personal attack "jokes"

And besides, "he did it first" is a cop-out and I don't even need to know the person's thoughts to know that. Whether you broke the rules first or second makes no difference to whether you broke the rules.

Uh I was never arguing the "he did it first" case. I said Uncle attacked rail and rail just took up for himself. That isn't "he did it first" that is "Uncle is the only one that attacked"

Again common sense.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by reader50 

I was a member at the time he arrived, not on staff. But I don't recall SWG getting banned. Instead, we got several new members, all with SW-themed names and sigs. It took me awhile to realize they were all the same person.

Oh he was. I remember the time it happened. Soon after I joined. Of course he was a lot more personally attacky then. If that was possible.

never figured out why he wanted a dozen (more?) handles.

I think you just did.

[marden]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Received an infraction in this thread:

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...=1#post3189575


My little "personal attack" didn't even make any sense - intentionally so at that. Marden's face is an endearingly candid admission? Yeah, I'm sure he will be crying in his pillow over that. I thought it was clear that my comment was meant to be humorous, not a personal insult. A personal insult would at least have to make sense and not be made in such an intentionally pathetic nature, right?

How about applying a little common sense to the rules you choose to enforce? Rules for the sake of rules blow.

I don't care whether or not you lift this infraction, nor am complaining or whining about their being a rule like this. I would like to understand whether this is a rule that you intend to enforce regardless of context though.

I also received three infractions (issued all at the same time) for teasing Spliffdaddy in another thread for calling him a gay old goat that likes ointment. Spliffdaddy wrote to me and said that he actually enjoyed my ribbing and teasing. Like this, it was far from being mean spirited, just pure silliness like this. Can a "personal insult" like this be offensive if the "victim" is in no way offended, the offender was in no way even attempting to offend?


Sorry mods, I have great problems conforming to what I feel are rules for the sake of rules. I feel that this is one of them.

What I would suggest is to go after comments (in the P/L primarily) which are truly intended to invoke a reaction, which are truly intended to actually offend somebody out of revenge for something said earlier.

To me, it is generally quite transparent which comments were meant to be personal insults, and which good natured mutually enjoyed ribbing. Am I the only one that feels this way?

I just now saw this post and I doubt there would have been much you could have said that would have upset me.

Mods, one senses the whole infractions thing is a good idea that is struggling to find it's groove. I get the impression that some way is being sought to either reduce the numbers of minor infractions that might lead to larger ones later on, or that a way is being sought to reduce the amount of time it takes to adjudicate each abuse report.

Little do we know or appreciate the toll it takes to be a good mod.

But is this infractions thing going to be your quagmire?

Uh oh, I just got this!

Dear marden,

You have received an infraction at MacNN Forums.

http://forums.macnn.com/61/feedback/...2/#post3201572

Reason: Inappropriate Joking

-------

[marden]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I know that in my incident with Spliffdaddy where I called him an old gay goat that likes ointment, I wasn't turned in by him.

Perhaps Marden turned me in, don't know, don't care, but my point is that these infractions can also come at the discretion of a mod...

Unless somebody else turned me in for my vicious attack on the sensitive Spliffdaddy too? Hmmm....

I announce my reportage. Every time. And the only time I report is after having issued warnings. And the only times I report someone are when I know if I handled things MY way I would be cited for an infraction.

If there was no way I could be banned I would NEVER report ANYONE except for threats.