Bans should be issued on post quota, not time.
« on: September 21, 2018, 10:53:40 AM »
I have received a notification that I have had 6 warnings since March.

???

Well that's only one bad post a month. And I'm someone who averages close to 100 posts a month.

One errant post in one hundred isn't a habitual offender.

Someone else might have made 70 posts to my 600 and got 5 warnings ... but they'd get more grace than me.

I see this as penalising the people who post here more often over the people who just duck in to disrupt things and then leave again.

I'd ask that warnings aren't erased after a period of time ... but are erased after a number of 'good' posts. So that your posting ratio is more relevant than just an arbitrary length of time. This penalises regulars less, and casual sh**posters more.
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

*

Online Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8366
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Bans should be issued on post quota, not time.
« Reply #1 on: September 21, 2018, 02:09:58 PM »
I have received a notification that I have had 6 warnings since March.
Given that we have a warning threshold of 3 before a ban, doesn't that strike you as odd?

We already take frequency and balance of content into account. We generally promise you won't get banned sooner than 3 warnings, but that doesn't mean you will immediately get banned when you hit 4. That's for us to decide. It depends on what the issue actually is, whether or not the user is a "habitual offender", and so on.

Recently, you've been ramping up your "I'm above the rules" attitude, which is a fantastic way to ensure that we'll hold you to account. Take a step back, play it nice for a while, and you'll be back in everyone's good books. Then carry on playing it nice so that we don't have to have this conversation again. Simple!

I'm also not convinced that regular posters are penalised in any way. They hardly ever need any form of disciplining. If you have any evidence to back your thoughts up, I'd be very curious.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: Bans should be issued on post quota, not time.
« Reply #2 on: September 21, 2018, 02:31:23 PM »
I'm getting warnings for the most ridiculous infractions.

The last one comes in a post where Markjo isn't reading the thread. He is skimming it or deliberately misreading it. This isn't just my view.

Yes, because he's making an argument for the benefits of conquest. The Romans, British, etc. brought certain innovations with them when they conquered. If we didn't already have Arabic numerals or the scientific discoveries the Arabs made during the Middle Ages, then you could make a case for Arab conquest, but we do, so they no longer get to use that as an incentive, so to speak. Like, this whole discussion is ridiculous, and there's obviously a lot that Thork doesn't understand about how immigration and demographic shifts work, but he's been pretty clear about this point, and you'd have to just be skimming his posts to still not understand his logic.

So after repeatedly derailing the topic at hand ... markjo jogs off scot free, and I have a warning for saying

Thank you for confirming this with your complete incompetence.

Which it is. He has not been able to read the thread and understand it to make a considered reply. Instead he is spamming the thread with spurious objections.

That is not a personal attack. There is nothing personal about it. It is a comment on his behaviour in the thread which has been incompetent as verified by a 3rd party. A personal attack would be "You are incompetent". Not "This is incompetence".

It pales into nothingness when other posters can post
fuck off, cunt

because thork's idiot dad was too much of a cunt to find anyone else to play chess with.

fuck off, nazi cunt.

how is it possible for anyone to be this fucking retarded

he's an idiot.

How is it possible one user can have a persistent campaign of foul mouthed person attacks and have no warnings because they choose to bully other users in the nonsense forums, but I get a warning for condemning someone's posting style in one of the middling forums when they are derailing the thread?

The point of banning personal attacks is so that we all more or less get along. But it seems you can attack people however you want using whichever disgusting language you want with no regard as to how hostile they are being to other users if you do it in the lower fora, but you can't condemn someone's posting style if they are wasting yours and everyone else's time.

I think you need to stand back and look at why we have rules, rather than just letter of the lawing them without context. My last warning was ridiculous.
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

*

Online Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8366
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Bans should be issued on post quota, not time.
« Reply #3 on: September 21, 2018, 02:40:37 PM »
I'm getting warnings for the most ridiculous infractions.
I disagree.

The last one comes in a post where Markjo isn't reading the thread.
If you think markjo broke the rules, report it and we'll have a look. It gives you no jurisdiction to break the rules yourself.

It pales into nothingness when other posters can post
Okay, so I've actually wasted my time and looked at every one of these posts. In order, they were:
  • in AR
  • in CN
  • ooh, an actual insult in the upper fora. Let's see... oh, right, it got split and gary got warned for it
  • CN
  • CN
Call me crazy, but I'm noticing a pattern here.

How is it possible one user can have a persistent campaign of foul mouthed person attacks and have no warnings because they choose to bully other users in the nonsense forums, but I get a warning for condemning someone's posting style in one of the middling forums when they are derailing the thread?
Could it be that the lower fora are an anything* goes zone, and that we explicitly advise people not to go there if they're uncomfortable with it?

The point of banning personal attacks is so that we all more or less get along.
No, it isn't. Hardly anyone here gets along - we just do so with a modicum of respect. Even that is an exaggeration.

I think you need to stand back and look at why we have rules, rather than just letter of the lawing them without context.
As I already pointed out, if we were letter-of-the-lawing them, you'd have been banned long ago.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: Bans should be issued on post quota, not time.
« Reply #4 on: September 21, 2018, 02:53:10 PM »
I'm getting warnings for the most ridiculous infractions.
I disagree.
Yeah, because now you are digging your heels in. I don't remember you ever overturning each others decisions. It is very rare indeed. You'd rather just keep the peace.

The last one comes in a post where Markjo isn't reading the thread.
If you think markjo broke the rules, report it and we'll have a look. It gives you no jurisdiction to break the rules yourself.
He didn't break the rules. So short of telling him ... you aren't grasping this, try harder, what can one do?

It pales into nothingness when other posters can post
Okay, so I've actually wasted my time and looked at every one of these posts. In order, they were:
  • in AR
  • in CN
  • ooh, an actual insult in the upper fora. Let's see... oh, right, it got split and gary got warned for it
  • CN
  • CN
Call me crazy, but I'm noticing a pattern here.
Yes, the pattern is that user is extremely abusive and hides in the lower fora to attack other users of the site. Almost all of his posts are low content one line attacks on other people here. But apparently that is fine.

How is it possible one user can have a persistent campaign of foul mouthed person attacks and have no warnings because they choose to bully other users in the nonsense forums, but I get a warning for condemning someone's posting style in one of the middling forums when they are derailing the thread?
Could it be that the lower fora are an anything* goes zone, and that we explicitly advise people not to go there if they're uncomfortable with it?
If you have an account, you can read the lower fora. Many of those posts start in the upper fora, are split and then garygreen swoops in to attack. I still get the notification. I still end up reading them. And I'm interested in what other users have to say. You can't say "well some other user is harassing you, but that's your problem and now you should use less of the forum because he's hounded you out of a part of it." That's a terrible way to run the site.

The point of banning personal attacks is so that we all more or less get along.
No, it isn't. Hardly anyone here gets along - we just do so with a modicum of respect. Even that is an exaggeration.
And so where is the respect?
« Last Edit: September 21, 2018, 02:54:55 PM by Baby Thork »
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

*

Online Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8366
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Bans should be issued on post quota, not time.
« Reply #5 on: September 21, 2018, 03:00:40 PM »
Yeah, because now you are digging your heels in. I don't remember you ever overturning each others decisions. It is very rare indeed. You'd rather just keep the peace.
I just happen to disagree with you. I've looked at the posts in your most recent warnings, and honestly, they're par for the course for AR, except you made them outside of AR. Post your angry rants in the appropriate forum and your woes will go away.

Or don't. But you won't be allowed to do it in the upper.

As an aside, I made a thread about you in AR which expresses only the truest of my feelings. Meanwhile, I'm remaining polite and matter-of-fact here. You know how AR works, and you know you don't have to read it. Much like everyone else, it is your own decision whether or not you'll expose yourself to the rudeness of that board.

He didn't break the rules. So short of telling him ... you aren't grasping this, try harder, what can one do?
You just said he was derailing a thread. Now you're saying he didn't do anything wrong. Please, make up your mind.

Yes, the pattern is that user is extremely abusive and hides in the lower fora to attack other users of the site. Almost all of his posts are low content one line attacks on other people here. But apparently that is fine.
Indeed, in CN and AR it is. If you don't like it, don't participate in those boards. We'll keep the rest of the forum clean and sterile so you won't have to work yourself up over it. If you'd like, we can restrict your access to the lower fora so that these posts never pop up in your searches, notifications, etc.

If you have an account, you can read the lower fora.
See above. This is a genuine offer, and one that's always been open.

And so where is the respect?
In the upper. :)
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: Bans should be issued on post quota, not time.
« Reply #6 on: September 21, 2018, 03:04:27 PM »
Tell you what. Go fuck yourself.

See you in a few weeks.
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8425
  • Boom
    • View Profile
Re: Bans should be issued on post quota, not time.
« Reply #7 on: September 21, 2018, 03:05:13 PM »
Your complaint about warnings is petulance, as evidenced in this thread. You don't like being told what to do, and that seems to be the crux of the issue here.  Sorry, but it isn't going to happen in this case. You get more leniency that most people. You are at 3 warnings since July, which could easily be 6 or 7 in the same time period (not going back to March). I can show you posts that you probably should have been warned for if you would like.

If you are uncomfortable with what garygreen says in the lower fora, there are a multitude of ways to go about handling it, but your 'whataboutism' trying to justify your position isn't an actual argument. Markjo himself recently got a 3-day ban for less inflammatory posts in the upper fora after three warnings. I doubt you actually care about any of this, but in case I am wrong we can certainly address it.

In the case of garygreen, if you are actually feeling uncomfortable or harassed, then you can let us know, since that isn't allowed in any of the fora. You can also just ask him yourself to knock it off if you don't want to take the aforementioned suggestion. Lastly, you can simply stop going to the lower fora failing all else.
Please make sure to check out these resources to ensure that your time at tfes.org is enjoyable and productive.

1. The Rules

2. The FAQ

3. The Wiki

You're doing God's work, junker.

Re: Bans should be issued on post quota, not time.
« Reply #8 on: September 21, 2018, 03:06:34 PM »
No ban me. I'm not going to post here for a while anyway. I don't agree with the rules ... do what you have to do.
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8425
  • Boom
    • View Profile
Re: Bans should be issued on post quota, not time.
« Reply #9 on: September 21, 2018, 03:07:20 PM »
Tell you what. Go fuck yourself.

See you in a few weeks.

Nah, we can start with 3-days. You aren't special. Now go cry into your pillow about how the mods are unfair.
Please make sure to check out these resources to ensure that your time at tfes.org is enjoyable and productive.

1. The Rules

2. The FAQ

3. The Wiki

You're doing God's work, junker.