[tooki]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I have seen a few mods decisions over-turned by other mods. But I have yet to see any mod go "I apologize, I am sorry, bad decision" .

And how often do you suspect that we get members apologizing? We get lots of obvious groveling, but seldom an apology that shows any degree of actual cognizance of what they did wrong.

Too many misbehavers seem convinced that we mods/admins have wronged them, when in fact the entire problem was obvious misbehavior that we couldn't turn a blind eye to.

The infractions system simply makes it fairer, because it no longer requires us to manually coordinate who has given what consequences to a problem user. Now the system keeps track of it, without us having to shoot PMs back and forth. Plus it keeps a running tab for each user, so repeat offenders can be more easily identified (in particular, those who misbehave in forums that are moderated by different mods).

tooki

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by tooki 

And how often do you suspect that we get members apologizing?

I have. And I am only responsible for myself.

We get lots of obvious groveling, but seldom an apology that shows any degree of actual cognizance of what they did wrong.

Too many misbehavers seem convinced that we mods/admins have wronged them, when in fact the entire problem was obvious misbehavior that we couldn't turn a blind eye to.

The infractions system simply makes it fairer, because it no longer requires us to manually coordinate who has given what consequences to a problem user. Now the system keeps track of it, without us having to shoot PMs back and forth. Plus it keeps a running tab for each user, so repeat offenders can be more easily identified (in particular, those who misbehave in forums that are moderated by different mods).

tooki

I am just saying. A forum with mods that don't admit to wrong doing, is usually filled with members attempting to point out any wrong doing they believe is happening.

Some people feel they are treated less than human lets just say.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I am not perpetuating any myth. I request you read my post more carefully, and not knee-jerk and accuse me of doing or saying something I simply am not.

And please don't reply to this somehow shifting the blame of your not reading my post carefully on me.

I don't think I have misread your post, I think you are being deliberately fuzzy on this.
Every time a PL contributor who gets reprimanded by a mod/admin from what he perceives as not being politically in line with you (e. g. marden and me or vmarks and [insert member here]), one of the first accusations is that the mod's action was politically motivated. To be honest, if I had known beforehand that marden has already received one Rule 8 infraction before and two others for inappropriate language, I wouldn't have engaged in such a lengthy discussion.

I wish long-time members would contribute to put these rumors to an end.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I don't think I have misread your post, I think you are being deliberately fuzzy on this.

What the... of course it's my fault. .
My post wasn't fuzzy. Not at all. And I don't appreciate you attempting to blame shift you knee-jerking onto me.

Every time a PL contributor who gets reprimanded by a mod/admin from what he perceives as not being politically in line with you (e. g. marden and me or vmarks and [insert member here]), one of the first accusations is that the mod's action was politically motivated.

Exaggeration. I claim the reason it is REPORTED is because that reason. I've said this TWICE now. (Actually more than twice in this thread. But twice to you. )

To be honest, if I had known beforehand that marden has already received one Rule 8 infraction before and two others for inappropriate language, I wouldn't have engaged in such a lengthy discussion.

I wish long-time members would contribute to put these rumors to an end.

What rumors? The only thing I said is people REPORT people for partisan reasons.

Those aren't rumors honey.

You misunderstood my post. I don't appreciate you then coming back and blaming me for purposely trying to confuse you.

Just admit it Oreo. You didn't really read my post. Or you just skimmed it, knee jerked and responded.

You are just going on to prove what I said before about mods not admitting wrong doing, then blaming others for their mistakes.

Cut it out please.

[Kevin]

Since this has to do with infractions I am going to post it in here as well.

I posted this in another thread about a thread that had taken place BEFORE the infraction rules took place. Or was made known?

To test out this mod fairness ability I am going to mention that said thread you are referring to tooki, mostly took place before said infraction system took effect.

I know this because I took part in said thread. And once I found that the mods were actually doing something about said instances I stopped taking part in said thread.

I don't think mods and admins should be giving users infractions for things they did before the infraction system took effect.

I don't think this that is very fair on the mods part.

Because frankly, before this new system such things weren't really inforced. So those taken part in said thread didn't know that they were going to get infractions.

Had people known they were going to get infractions for participating, they may have decided not to.

I think the fairest thing to do is to remove the infractions you gave said people in said thread that participated before the infraction notice.

After all it would only be the FAIR thing to do.

Should those not aware of said infraction rule now be getting them for things they did when it wasn't in place?

I don't think so.

I think only new infractions should be delt with in such a way.

[Demonhood]

i don't see why slightly older posts that got overlooked initially should be exempt. they're the kind of things that we'd normally PM a user about. so it makes sense to issue an infraction instead. the rules of the forum still existed back then. perhaps the infractions could have a shorter lifespan (they do expire, after all) than normal, seeing as how the actual infraction was in the past.

[OreoCookie]

I agree. An infraction just sends a pm and keeps track of it for all mods to see. We haven't changed the rules and require members to have adhered to them before they existed.

[marden]

I was going to post this earlier but I overlooked it.

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984 

So your saying it was ok to break the rules since the mods weren't doing anything and now your complaining because you got an infraction?

Just as the mods have varying ways of administering/enforcing the established rules, so do the posters use the rules themselves AS WELL AS THE WAY THE MODS enforced them, to determine how to post.

To use an analogy, if your local cops normally allow traffic to drive 5 mph above the stated speed limit and then suddenly they all decide to allow NO leeway. One mph over the limit gets you a ticket!

Anyone who was driving with the old method of enforcement in mind would be caught and ticketed if they drove at the limit + 5 mph. Oh well, that's the breaks.

But if, for example, someone confessed to a cop that he had previously driven at 5 mph over the limit the cop should not be able to issue a ticket for an offense that occurred BEFORE the change in enforcement.

Retroactive enforcement.

I can imagine that mods are commonly dealing with offenses which take place minutes, hours even days AFTER their occurrence and so the issue of the exact time of the occurrence seldom is an issue.

But in this case Kevin has brought up a valid point where timing IS an important consideration.

The mods failed to take this into account and I can understand how they might not have realized the importance of timing in this case if, when they sit down to do their duty, it's basically going back over hours or days worth of crappy posts and crappy threads and just placing bandaids, slapping wrists and shoveling crap.

The answer Tooki provided is certainly true, that the law hasn't changed. But the reality we all must recognize is that posters take cues as to what is safe to say by the mods' behavior as well as the rules themselves.

But in ANY case, lodging an infraction on a post that was made BEFORE the change in enforcement is not fair.

To take this to it's extreme in order to make the point, it would be (in principle) like going back five years and issuing infractions to posters who violated the new system of enforcement.

This is ridiculous you say?

I said it was taking the example to an extreme to make a point.

From the standpoint of THE PRINCIPLE INVOLVED an offensive post made two days prior to a change in enforcement is just as much retroactive enforcement as an offensive post made two years prior to a change in enforcement.

If the mod(s) in question had thought about it I'm sure they would have ruled differently.

But they didn't.

Kevin has a valid point. The mods made an honest (but careless) mistake.

[mac128k-1984]

Originally Posted by marden 

To use an analogy, if your local cops normally allow traffic to drive 5 mph above the stated speed limit and then suddenly they all decide to allow NO leeway. One mph over the limit gets you a ticket!

Anyone who was driving with the old method of enforcement in mind would be caught and ticketed if they drove at the limit + 5 mph. Oh well, that's the breaks.

But if, for example, someone confessed to a cop that he had previously driven at 5 mph over the limit the cop should not be able to issue a ticket for an offense that occurred BEFORE the change in enforcement.

Retroactive enforcement.

You forgot one thing, in this case the rule was already in place and Kevin even admitted to breaking it beacause he didn't think the mods were enforcing it. Just because the infraction system wasn't runnning beforehand doesn't mean the rules could be ignored. Also one final point there have been lots of laws that were retroactive so even if you want to hide behind that agument it doesn't hold water. Regardless though the rule was in place.

[marden]

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984 

You forgot one thing, in this case the rule was already in place and Kevin even admitted to breaking it beacause he didn't think the mods were enforcing it. Just because the infraction system wasn't runnning beforehand doesn't mean the rules could be ignored. Also one final point there have been lots of laws that were retroactive so even if you want to hide behind that agument it doesn't hold water. Regardless though the rule was in place.

Just as the mods have varying ways of administering/enforcing the established rules, so do the posters use the rules themselves AS WELL AS THE WAY THE MODS enforced them, to determine how to post.

From above.

This is an aspect of human nature that every parent, kindergarden teacher, athletic coach, personnel manager, policeman, psychologist, etc. knows. Rules without enforcement means there is little expectation that people will follow the rules.

Furthermore, changes in the way rules are enforced are USUALLY announced ahead of time so that the citizens CAN ADJUST TO THE NEW ENFORCEMENT GUIDELINES.

Otherwise it seems unfair and breeds contempt.

If the rules were all that mattered then we should have no need for law enforcement at all.

If the way rules are enforced didn't matter to how they impact the citizenry, there would be no citizen review boards, no rules governing police procedures and no internal affairs department.
The police would just adjudicate complaints against themselves!

Then the police could just do whatever they want, any old way that they want, however they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want.

The bottom line here is that the manner in which rules are enforced DOES determine how citizens behave.

And if you just selectively (or innocently) go back to an offense that wasn't considered an enforceable offense at the time and cite it AFTER the fact with the awarding of an infraction and call that fair because the RULE still existed, then in every instance where we could go back and find cases where the rules WERE NOT enforced, I think it should be counted against the mods who were on duty at the time and let the offense go uncited.

Or are there no set rules or duties for mods, or ways of measuring the mods' performance or behavior and adjudicating complaints against them???

That would mean they can just do whatever they want, any old way that they want, however they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want.

[Dakar²]

Here's a thought. On my commute to work Staties don't patrol about 27 days out of 30.

So after 3 weeks of commuting, if I get used to speeding without repercussion, then after week 4, get pulled over, who's fault is it? Some of you sound like you're blaming the Statie.

[mac128k-1984]

Originally Posted by marden 

From above.

This is an aspect of human nature that every parent, kindergarden teacher, athletic coach, personnel manager, policeman, psychologist, etc. knows. Rules without enforcement means there is little expectation that people will follow the rules.

There's a little thing called morality and some of us follow rules not because of fear of punishment but because it right thing to do.

When we signed up here in Macnn we agreed to comport ourselves acorrding to the rules not because they may ban us. You want to break the rules there are repercussion it does not matter if the repercussions are a newly instituted or not.

You are overthinking and over analyzing this. Kevin made a conscience decision to jump and break the rule because he felt the mods were not going to do anything. He knowingly broke the rule and it seems your saying that as long as there is no enforcement he was free to break the rules and it was unfair for him to get an infractioin since there was no "grace period"

[tooki]

First of all, let me point out the absurdity of the accusation that we are giving infractions for old offenses: we don't have enough manpower to patrol every new post here, nowhere close. What makes you think we have the manpower to also go back and review old posts?

Regardless, Dakar's analogy is right on the money.

Also, none of the things we're now issuing infractions for was a non-enforceable offense before infractions. They WERE enforceable offenses, and we DID enforce them for repeat offenders. But that required us to manually keep track of it, and then eventually send out a PM with a stern warning, or a ban. Now, the infractions system lets us issue an infraction (which functions like a demerit point in grade school) which the system keeps track of. Now we can see "ah ha! this user consistently breaks the inline image rules" and have the system automatically ban based on the number of infraction points, rather than a mod's subjective impression of a user's behavior.

So really, all this is doing is making YOU, the user, know how many times we've taken note of your bad behavior, rather than us keeping track of it silently, only telling you about it when you've gone too far.

tooki

[OreoCookie]

I would also second mac128's points: you know the rules and every time you break them, you risk getting caught. As tooki said, with infractions it's easier to keep track of minor offenses as well, e. g. image posting guidelines violations.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984 

You forgot one thing, in this case the rule was already in place and Kevin even admitted to breaking it beacause he didn't think the mods were enforcing it. Just because the infraction system wasn't runnning beforehand doesn't mean the rules could be ignored. Also one final point there have been lots of laws that were retroactive so even if you want to hide behind that agument it doesn't hold water. Regardless though the rule was in place.

So states that have sodomy laws that are no longer practice, can retroactively go back and punish anyone that has had butt-sex, and you'd be ok with it?

I mean the rule was in place. Just because over the years they stopped enforcing it doesn't mean jack right?

No, that would be unfair. It would be those that didn't uphold the law in the first places fault. Inconsistency.

I am not saying these people above did no wrong. I am saying since BEFORE NOW the mods never punished people for such a thing in such a way. So those who did it above did it knowing the consequences before making said decision.

They however did not in this case.

So the mods can do what they want. But my reasoning is sound.

[mac128k-1984]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

So states that have sodomy laws that are no longer practice, can retroactively go back and punish anyone that has had butt-sex, and you'd be ok with it?

in a word Yes.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984 

in a word Yes.

Oh please. If this happened there would be outrage.

You are just agreeing with it now because disagreeing with it would totally be bad for your argument.

retroactive punishment is always lame.

[tooki]

But again, that discussion is moot, because we're not going back and doing retroactive punishment.

And besides, you're really confusing applying a law retroactively (i.e. passing a new law, but punishing people for the act performed before the law was passed), and statute of limitations (i.e. how far you can go back and punish for a law that was active when the act was performed).

We don't have a clearly defined statute of limitations here, but as I said before, it's moot because we don't have the manpower to do it, even if we wanted to, which we don't.


Besides, your cry of "inconsistency" is ludicrous. The only way for a jurisdiction to have perfectly consistent enforcement of laws would be to either a) never enforce, or b) have a police state where everything is monitored 24/7. The fact that spot checking (the basic form of enforcement used in real life police) will not catch the majority of offenses does not make it inconsistent, so long as those people who are caught are treated fairly.

tooki

[mac128k-1984]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Oh please. If this happened there would be outrage.

You are just agreeing with it now because disagreeing with it would totally be bad for your argument.

retroactive punishment is always lame.

Using your example there would be, but from my perspective, they got what they deserved for breaking the law. That is others (not me) would be outraged.

here's my example - what about all of those priests that molested boys 10 or 20 years ago should they not be prosecuted ? By your reckoning they shouldn't.

The rules (or laws) are on the books. It doesn't matter when the powers at be decide to punish (or prosecute). Provided its with the statue of limitations.

As for me disagreeing just because... Well you got that all wrong. I stand by my words and convictions and since you really don't know me, you really cannot make a comment on that, well make it and accuratly describe me that is.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by tooki 

But again, that discussion is moot, because we're not going back and doing retroactive punishment.

I disagree. You are giving a punishment to people that simply didn't exist when they made those posts.

Part of punishing people for something is them knowing the consequences before they do said action.

When they made said posts the consequences they took were different than the ones that they were given.

Had they known what they consequences would be, they might not have chosen to do such a thing. They choose to do said actions based on what the consequences at the time was. Which was basically ignored and nothing done about.

It's a bait and switch type deal.

This is ALSO what I told you would happen long ago when mods didn't enforce it's own rules and wasn't consistent. That people would ignore it rules because nothing consistently was being done.

So now you decide ok, lets crack down for whatever reason which is fine by me. But you shouldn't punish other people for what you mods caused yourself.

No you didn't make those people do those bad awful things. But when they weighed the consequences with what usually happens, that action starts not being so bad. And starts being seen as accepted because of the inconsistent actions.

And besides, you're really confusing applying a law retroactively (i.e. passing a new law, but punishing people for the act performed before the law was passed), and statute of limitations (i.e. how far you can go back and punish for a law that was active when the act was performed).

No, I am not confusing anything. Read above.

We don't have a clearly defined statute of limitations here,

You guys have a lot of things not defined. That way you can make up rules as you go along to justify actions.

Besides, your cry of "inconsistency" is ludicrous.

It's not. And I am not the only one that has complained about lack of consistency in the forum.

The only way for a jurisdiction to have perfectly consistent enforcement of laws would be to either a) never enforce, or b) have a police state where everything is monitored 24/7. The fact that spot checking (the basic form of enforcement used in real life police) will not catch the majority of offenses does not make it inconsistent, so long as those people who are caught are treated fairly.

tooki

You can have the amount of mods you have now, and still be MOSTLY consistent.

I'd be happy with MOSTLY consistent. And I am sure most of the users would too.

Again you don't have to do what I asked above about revoking said infractions. That is up to you.

But to act as if my complaint isn't legitimate.. well I guess we will have to disagree.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984 

Using your example there would be, but from my perspective, they got what they deserved for breaking the law. That is others (not me) would be outraged.

People choose or do not choose to break laws based on the consequences.

Those people who broke the law deserve to be punished the way a person would have gotten punished at the time of their crimes.

People who practice sodomy now, do so believing nothing will happen. They decided the action was worth more than the punishment. Which is no punishment. Even though the law exists, it isn't practiced.

So them doing so is a direct result of said law no being lax.

here's my example - what about all of those priests that molested boys 10 or 20 years ago should they not be prosecuted ? By your reckoning they shouldn't.

Uh, if they were arresting and jailing people for molesting boys 10 or 20 years ago, sure they should be.

[mduell]

What's the ETA for the infractions system going live?

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by mduell 

What's the ETA for the infractions system going live?

Last week.

[Kevin]

I was thinking about how the system works and how long the infractions take place.

It would take A LOT of infractions over a short period of time for someone to actually get banned.

[rickey939]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I was thinking about how the system works and how long the infractions take place.

It would take A LOT of infractions over a short period of time for someone to actually get banned.

Haha, exactly.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Last week.

I don't see it in my User CP like in the screenshot above.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by mduell 

I don't see it in my User CP like in the screenshot above.

Did you get one?

[Kevin]

BTW

http://forums.macnn.com/images/misc/redcard_small.gif

It's not showing up.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I disagree. You are giving a punishment to people that simply didn't exist when they made those posts.

What are you talking about? We are NOT going back and issuing infractions for old posts. We have neither the time, manpower, nor inclination to do so.

I don't know where you got the idea that we're doing that.

tooki

[Kevin]

I got an infraction for posts I made before the infraction system was known. I am supposing others did as well in the same thread?

[Chinasaur]

Un.Be.Lieveable. This is a thread about the Infractions system and look what it degenerated into.

The usual suspects can't stop bickering long enough to give feedback, positive/negative, on a forum-wide system.

Can the MODS get this thread back on track? I for one agree that this should NOT have been rolled until the rules were set. Saying that "it's already in use" is not a good enough reason not to suspend it's further use until those rules are in place and published.

You ALWAYS test software before rolling it out. You always post the rules before you enforce them.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Chinasaur 

Can the MODS get this thread back on track? I for one agree that this should NOT have been rolled until the rules were set. Saying that "it's already in use" is not a good enough reason not to suspend it's further use until those rules are in place and published.

The rules haven't changed, there is only an additional mean to enforce them … which is particularly helpful to go after minor offenses.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I got an infraction for posts I made before the infraction system was known. I am supposing others did as well in the same thread?

The post you received an infraction for (11-17-2006, 07:32 AM) was made after Infractions were introduced in this thread (11-16-2006, 05:46 PM). Additionally, an earlier thread exists about infractions, dated 11-11-2006.

Moreover, the infractions do NOT change WHAT things are not permissible, they're just a new way to track problem posts and let you know that we're tracking it. Derailing threads was as prohibited before infractions as it is now, and the same goes for all the rules. Let me repeat: infractions are not introducing new rules, they're just a way of letting you know that we're enforcing existing rules. Naturally, this does not mean that we will not add or change rules.

tooki

[tooki]

Originally Posted by Chinasaur 

Can the MODS get this thread back on track? I for one agree that this should NOT have been rolled until the rules were set. Saying that "it's already in use" is not a good enough reason not to suspend it's further use until those rules are in place and published.

You ALWAYS test software before rolling it out. You always post the rules before you enforce them.

As you can plainly see, our rules were originally posted almost a year ago, and were last updated in August.

I think it's entirely reasonable for us to enforce those rules.

tooki

[Kevin]

It's clear like everything else that is ever brought up to you, that you don't see what we are saying.

This is really nothing new with this place.

You may not agree, but the complaint was a legitimate one.

Regardless the infractions really do little. It would take a lot of infractions over a small period of time to even get banned.

So it's basically back to wear we were.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Regardless the infractions really do little. It would take a lot of infractions over a small period of time to even get banned.

Uhh, yeah. That's the point. The idea isn't to instaban everyone who makes a mistake, the idea is to weed out repeat, problem offenders.

Also, we will be introducing consequences for lower infraction counts. For example, we could set it up to automatically deny lounge access to users with a certain infraction point count.

tooki

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by tooki 

Uhh, yeah. That's the point. The idea isn't to instaban everyone who makes a mistake, the idea is to weed out repeat, problem offenders.

I don't think anyone would want an insta-ban. That would be silly.

Also, we will be introducing consequences for lower infraction counts. For example, we could set it up to automatically deny lounge access to users with a certain infraction point count.

tooki

As long as those infraction counts are made public (How many infractions for what punishement). Good idea.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

As long as those infraction counts are made public (How many infractions for what punishement). Good idea.

Funny you should mention it:

Originally Posted by what_the_heck 

Once in place, will there be an explanation how it works, how it is triggered etc.

Originally Posted by tooki 

Yes, I think it's entirely reasonable for us to lay out the infraction system to the user once we've hashed it out.

So, when and where will those rules be laid out ?

-t

[tooki]

Good gracious you folks are paranoid, demanding, impatient, and dense -- I have to keep repeating myself because you don't absorb what I tell you.

Infractions are not new rules. They are a new way of keeping track of violations of rules that have been in place for a LONG time. The rules are the same, they are the ones that have been posted PUBLICLY for about a year.

Right now, we have set up one "test" automatic consequence: banning at 30 points. We set that up just to experiment with the process of setting it up, since nobody's gonna be getting 30 points so long as we keep issuing 1-point infractions that expire in 10 days. (Remember, to trigger this, you need 30 current, unexpired infractions -- it does not include expired ones. And if you did reach 30 active ones, you'd be banned only until one of the infractions expired. As soon as you had 29 active infractions, you'd be un-banned automatically.)

So right now, for all intents and purposes, the infractions don't do anything other than keep a tally of how many times we've reprimanded you. (As opposed to us guesstimating or trying to remember how many times it's been.)

Later, after we've discussed it in the Mods forum, we'll set up and tell you what consequences will happen at given point thresholds.

tooki

[tooki]

I also need to remind you that an infraction is not a punishment, as some of you seem to have believed earlier in this thread. Collecting too many infractions leads to consequences, but they are not consequences in and of themselves.

tooki

[besson3c]

Isn't calling people dense an infraction?


Just being an ass, don't mind me...

[Kevin]

Double Post

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by tooki 

Good gracious you folks are paranoid, demanding, impatient, and dense -- I have to keep repeating myself because you don't absorb what I tell you.

And you wonder why you have so many friends.

I was referring to something you JUST BROUGHT UP.

Dig?

[rickey939]

[newbieMacUser2006]

Whoa. As a newbie to this forum (but not a message board newbie, been on message boards for a decade) this is way to anal for me. infractions? Whew. We need to lighten up I think...although I do realize if a post is indecent, insulting, etc it might need to be deleted.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by newbieMacUser2006 

Whoa. As a newbie to this forum (but not a message board newbie, been on message boards for a decade) this is way to anal for me. infractions? Whew. We need to lighten up I think...although I do realize if a post is indecent, insulting, etc it might need to be deleted.

Oh, a n00b ? You're gonna LOVE MacNN.
It can be as good as it is idiosyncratic at times.

-t

[tooki]

Originally Posted by newbieMacUser2006 

Whoa. As a newbie to this forum (but not a message board newbie, been on message boards for a decade) this is way to anal for me. infractions? Whew. We need to lighten up I think...although I do realize if a post is indecent, insulting, etc it might need to be deleted.

It's gotten to the point here that we need them. We have been very permissive in so many ways, and we need to crack down because people have become obnoxious.

tooki

[besson3c]

Tooki, if you are going to do this sort of thing, just do it... Don't bother with the constructs of little systems and rules and points and stuff, just do it and justify that you are doing this out of what is in hte best interests of MacNN, and say that if the user doesn't like it they can find another board.

But before you do this, think about the consistency in which the mods will enforce this, the real objectives, how to favor context over hard and fast rules, and what message you wish to send as to minimize this impact.

That is my advice.

[tooki]

What are you talking about? That didn't make any sense.

We can't explain this system to you all any more clearly than we have. I can't understand why you all don't understand that it's a tool that will help the exact things you all complained about before we added this.

This is a typical example of "you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't" because you all will complain even when we deliver what you wanted.

tooki

[besson3c]

Tooki: if that was in response to what I wrote, you aren't understanding what I'm saying.

But it doesn't matter, because it sounds like your mind is already made up.... 's cool.