Moderation Point System Discussion

[RoyBatty is alive]

IMO toxic idea when you start trying to categorize posts and assign penalties..esp politics which has infected everything/    You agree with a point however far askew from politics it is, as a moderator you might think, yeah, that is totally true, and think that is not really political and give no infraction.  No accusation, simple human behaviour.

 

You might as well go penalize "Teddy" or whatever his name is right now.  One reason why i hardly visit shoutbox anymore, far too political, not much better than PPP.

[Buffalo Boy]

    For me, the thing that bugs me is the personal, back and forth bickering across pages and pages of a thread.
     You can disagree vehemently about a subject without it turning into a name calling catfight.

     I agree with a three strikes and a defined period of lockout ( 2 weeks) without the ability to interact. You could then add another level of “ If banned three times Your out for a much longer period”.

     Simpler seems better.

Thanks for the great job you guys do providing this site💪

     

[Buddo]

If there's going to be a language 'filter', it would be nice to be able to find out in advance, what is, or isn't acceptable. i.e. a list somewhere.

 

There have been, over the years, a few occasions when you get a poster who tries to start a topic repetetively. Imho, the best way to deal with that, is to ban them from posting for a week. I'm not sure how that would fit into a 'points' system.

 

Newbs shouldn't be allowed to start new topics immediately. Some combination of replies, or time as a member, should come into play.

 

If you can have points expire, yet still be 'visible', I think that will help decisions about actually giving points and possibly bans.

 

Some sort of automated response will also help, if someone is getting points. e.g. 'You have got an infraction for x points because you posted something that was Political/Abusive etc.

 

Points given, should probably be non-debateable.

 

Bans probably should be appealable, but only if they are longer than a couple of weeks, or a month onward.

 

I would also say that bans need only really be for posting, anything, anywhere. This is, after all, a community, and I think denying fans the ability to read the forums, is perhaps an unnecessary step.

 

Hopefully, some of the suggestions will, eventually, make the life of your average Mod, easier. I will say that generally, they do a terrific job already, and my thanks goes out to them, and SDS for providing us with this platform.

 

[GottaRun]

The big one for me is abuse.  I'd give people a one week ban on first abuse, a year on the second, and lifetime after that. 

I'd make the first actions fairly light (I consider a 1 week ban from posting only light) but I would make the follow up actions more severe.  At that point the person has received a short ban, been given all of the rules, and chosen to ignore them.  People like that are tedious to deal with and take the focus away from football.

Real glad you are tackling this, I've found this place unbearable lately and spent most of my time on a different board.  

Edited September 29, 2020 by driddles

[SDS]

6 minutes ago, Buddo said:

If there's going to be a language 'filter', it would be nice to be able to find out in advance, what is, or isn't acceptable. i.e. a list somewhere.

 

There have been, over the years, a few occasions when you get a poster who tries to start a topic repetetively. Imho, the best way to deal with that, is to ban them from posting for a week. I'm not sure how that would fit into a 'points' system.

 

Newbs shouldn't be allowed to start new topics immediately. Some combination of replies, or time as a member, should come into play.

 

If you can have points expire, yet still be 'visible', I think that will help decisions about actually giving points and possibly bans.

 

Some sort of automated response will also help, if someone is getting points. e.g. 'You have got an infraction for x points because you posted something that was Political/Abusive etc.

 

Points given, should probably be non-debateable.

 

Bans probably should be appealable, but only if they are longer than a couple of weeks, or a month onward.

 

I would also say that bans need only really be for posting, anything, anywhere. This is, after all, a community, and I think denying fans the ability to read the forums, is perhaps an unnecessary step.

 

Hopefully, some of the suggestions will, eventually, make the life of your average Mod, easier. I will say that generally, they do a terrific job already, and my thanks goes out to them, and SDS for providing us with this platform.

 

FYI, there has been a language filter in place for probably 20 years. Second, new people haven’t been able to post new topics for almost a year now. 😂 

[Seasons1992]

1 minute ago, Buddo said:

Newbs shouldn't be allowed to start new topics immediately. Some combination of replies, or time as a member, should come into play.

 

I totally agree with this. It gets the board cluttered and you should have to ride the wave around here to learn how it "should" work.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

1 hour ago, SDS said:

4. Should points expire? If so, how long should they remain?

 

5. Should there be an appeals process (post restriction/banning) and what would this look like?

#4    ——  1 year 

 

#5  ——— Yes.  
Once warned of a potential ban allow the poster to state their point.  
 

getting  points and a 12 hour ban for spamming when one was not is worth a discussion before the ban. 
 

after the ban is too late IMO

Edited September 29, 2020 by SlimShady'sSpaceForce

[Seasons1992]

1 minute ago, SDS said:

FYI, there has been a language filter in place for probably 20 years. Second, new people camp post new topics for almost a year now. 😂 

 

As you can see, the inmates don't pay attention. 

I have to go now.............😳

[BuffAlone]

This is a finely tuned machine. I wouldn't change anything. But if you choose to, Some say "burn the whole thing down".Although I disagree wholeheartedly. personal attacks...strike. violations of warnings.. strike.All needs an individual voice. All need a coordinated and functional hearing. I know you and mods are busy, but what's FAIR is fair. Jmo Sir

[GunnerBill]

I think there should be an appeals system. 

[Westside]

I think you and the mods have a tough job and also are doing a great job. Whatever rules you decide to apply I will happily obey them. This is the best Bill's message board!!!!

[Buddo]

1 minute ago, SDS said:

FYI, there has been a language filter in place for probably 20 years. Second, new people camp post new topics for almost a year now. 😂 

 

I realise that, and the second point.

What don't know is what words are categorized as bad language, for which you could potentially get 'pointed' and the parameters for 'newbs'. Not being quite a 'newb', I don't really care about that, but it was an observation that perhaps a 'time served' as an alternative to quantity of posts might be an option. I probably didn't make myself as clear as I would like.

[BringMetheHeadofLeonLett]

If you trust the people you're working with, and from what I can tell, you should, I'd leave it in your/their hands.   Sure we all make regrettable posts from time to time... well, I do.  I'd leave it an informal judgement call/honor system- A point system is really only relevant to the game-players anyways.  

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Not to get too into the weeds, but what are the parameters for Topic Bumping to be a bad thing? If there were a couple threads from last week that I wanted to bring back up because maybe something changed, I wouldnt think that's a problem.

 

It's not a problem at all if you "bump" a topic to add changed or new information.  In fact that's not considered "bumping".

 

"Bumping" is when someone is trying to keep their topic at the top of the page even though no one is interested in discussing it or it's a low-content topic with insufficient food for discussion.

 

Occasionally someone posts a well-thought or well-researched post that people read but there's not much to add so it gets few responses and falls off the front page quickly. A "cry from the heart" about "what, I really worked on this, and no one has any comments?" (or two) or a follow-up with new info is chill, but some take it to extremes.

 

We used to have more of a problem with this when I first joined the board with folks responding "BUMP!"  over and over, sometimes on junky low-content posts that deserved to die.

Sort of like some folks use "IN!" now, but more common.  Fortunately it seems to have gone out of fashion, probably because folks started getting warned for it.

 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

Sorry you need to have to deal with this @SDS

 

but I get it. Thanks for all you do. 
 

happy with whatever is concluded 

[Bill Lewes]

1 hour ago, SDS said:

 

1. We have several default areas of concern: Politics, COVID-19, Inappropriate Language, Abusive Behavior, Inappropriate Avatar, Topic Bumping. Are there any other typical bad posts that fall into a category I am missing?

 

2. Each of those categories have default point values from 0-5. What do you think they should be?

 

3. What should happen to a member if they rack up X number of points? (Each time that get a point - the user is warned.) This can range from being able to read and not post to removing all access to the community.

 

4. Should points expire? If so, how long should they remain?

 

5. Should there be an appeals process (post restriction/banning) and what would this look like?

First, Thanks for all the work that it must take for you and all the mods!

1)No
2)Politics -0,
Covid-19 -0,
Inappropriate Language -1 (though I can't figure out how it's difficult to not type those words),
Abusive Behavior -5 (it ought to be obvious that you can disagree with an idea, without calling the idea-giver an idiot),
Inappropriate Avatar -1 (like Inappropriate language, but I would guess we do have some young members here who don't need to think the rest of us aren't grownups),
Topic Bumping -0
3)You aren't really asking for much.  We're (mostly) all adults, a couple of marks and set em on the bench for a while.  Read only for a week.  Second offense, a month.  Third, come back with the next NFL year.

4)Use the NFL calendar.  Start of their year, give us all a fresh start.
5)No

 

[maddenboy]

1 hour ago, Fan in Chicago said:

1. Add "crusades"

2. Points should be based on severity of impact to the community. (More severe, more points).

    Politics, COVID-19=1

    Topic bumping =2

     Inappropriate avatar = 3

     Inapp Language = 4

     Abusive behavior = 5 

 

3. 10 points = post only

     15 points = vacation

     25+ points = 1 year ban

      Do we need a permanent ban ?

 

4. Need some kind of probation system. As an example, if someone gets a vacation and "earns" a certain number of points in a defined period of time, he automatically gets the next level of punishment

as an example, if someone comes back from vacation and gets another 10 points within a month, he gets a 1 year ban

 

5. Appeals should apply to bans only else it will be too much work for the mods.

 

I agree with the bolded.  I was dinged once, I appealed, and I won.  But since I wasnt banned from the site, losing the appeal or not having an appeal process wouldnt have hurt me much.

 

Or, there can be an appeal process with a priority in which the appeals are resolved.  If it results in a ban , that should get first priority for appellate review, and down from there.  If its a ticky-tak warning point but I can still visit the site, feel free to bump my appeal way down in priority (my punishment might expire making the appeal moot anyway)

Edited September 29, 2020 by maddenboy

[Hapless Bills Fan]

2 minutes ago, Buddo said:

 

I realise that, and the second point.

What don't know is what words are categorized as bad language, for which you could potentially get 'pointed' and the parameters for 'newbs'. Not being quite a 'newb', I don't really care about that, but it was an observation that perhaps a 'time served' as an alternative to quantity of posts might be an option. I probably didn't make myself as clear as I would like.

 

Hi Buddo, I don't recall the duration, but there is a "time served" option for newbies to post threads in addition to post count.  We discussed it at the time and added it in, specifically because we recognized we had a couple of "strong silent type" posters (  @The Virginian I'm talking about you) who didn't say much, but when they did say something it deserved to be seen.

 

People don't typically get "pointed" for using bad language that gets filtered, unless the "don't do that" clue bird doesn't land and their posts are a morass of ******.  Where people do get warned is when they circumvent the bad language filter by using creative spelling, combinations of asterisks and consonants, inserting spaces etc.  Which reminds me....

[TigerJ]

I would like to see points for violations expire after a length of time.  I don't really have a sense of how long that should be.  I think abusive behavior should always be reprimanded most strongly, including the assessment of points.  Inappropriate language should be the next most severely reprimanded.  After that I don't care too much.

 

I don't think about terms of service much at all in my daily posting.  I figure that if I act with consideration and courtesy as I do in daily life, I should be OK.  I had a mile reprimand once for a thread title that didn't have enough information.  I don't recall any others.

[BringMetheHeadofLeonLett]

Hmmmm.  The political boundary thing is tough.   Is there some kind of 30 degree Giant NOOOOOO!!!!!!! stamp the mods can put over a borderline post?