Request for Input - Warnings, Bans, and Rules

[Kittamaru]

Per the discussion starting here, and per James comment:

If you want an open forum discussion, why not start a thread in Open Government and ask the membership:

1. What do you see as sciforums' "mission statement" or main purpose?
2. What, if any, changes would you like to see to help advance those aims?

I am putting forth a couple questions to the membership at large. This thread is going to be with regards to the warnings and bans pattern as well as the rules.

It has been commented by a few members that SciFo is extraordinarily forgiving, to the point of giving tacit approval to bad behavior. Racism, Sexism, and other forms of atrocious behavior seems to be on the rise, and one reason I believe this to be the case is that certain folks have figured out that they can behave poorly, get warned, wait a few weeks, and return to begin again with no long term consequences.

Previously, the default expiration timer for an infraction was 3 months. This has been bumped to 6 months, making it slightly harder for such individuals to play their games. However, as stated in the above referenced thread, there are times when individuals accrue several dozen official warnings, in addition to verbal "slap on the wrist" warnings, and yet get to continue the very behavior they have been warned about.

What, exactly, is the point of having rules if the do not have to be followed?

So, I would like to ask the membership - how should things proceed? Do we tighten up the punishments a bit, removing the ability to pretend this is just a game of Grand Theft Auto and waiting for points to expire before breaking the rules again? Do we change the rules and enforce nothing but basic civility? Somewhere in between? Perhaps we leave things as they are? Or, do you have another suggestion altogether? Let us know!

 

[Daecon]

How about if the first time offenders get the standard amount of infraction points, with the point values increasing depending on how many times the poster has been warned for the same offence, or something?

For example, if posting pseudoscience gets 1 infraction point, they're obviously not having the desired effect if you're still getting just 1 point for your 20th pseudoscience infraction...

 

[birch]

How about if the first time offenders get the standard amount of infraction points, with the point values increasing depending on how many times the poster has been warned for the same offence, or something?

For example, if posting pseudoscience gets 1 infraction point, they're obviously not having the desired effect if you're still getting just 1 point for your 20th pseudoscience infraction...

ridiculous when you have a pseudoscience subforum. the other fringe is just as legitimate as religion and philosophy. there is no scientific proof for or against. the only reason it's discussed at all is because people have had unexplained experiences the world over.

i would say that only ad homs and blatant insults be moderated because the discussion will evolve based on debate using logic (if it's viable) and if it's correct, can't be refuted.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Yes... basicly... dump the over complicated ban stuff wit all the ponts an flags an whatever.!!!

Sombody in administration set up a few simple rules.!!!

If Administration feels that sombody is abusin a rule give a warnin... if they abuse it agan ban 'em.!!!

You will be surprised how quick people learn to self moderate an everbody will be happier for it.!!!

 

[Daecon]

Except logic is ignored and denied all the time by certain posters.

 

[DaveC426913]

What, exactly, is the point of having rules if the do not have to be followed?

Hear hear.

I've expressed my view before.
I'd start simple. Zero tolerance on ad homs.
They're easy to identify and they'll go a long way toward upping the civility quotient.
And they don't muzzle anyone's (good faith) ideas and opinions about the issues they choose to discuss.

 

[birch]

Except logic is ignored and denied all the time by certain posters.

then they are just fodder to point out where they are incorrect. i've found neither side is always right, depending on what the discussion is about.

the fringe is actually more challenging as it's easier to dismiss altogether. i don't think it is right to ban members like MR and GIA or give infraction points for how someone thinks or is percieved to be illogical. people make incorrect or illogical points not just in fringe subforum. if logic is as valid as science purports, then there shouldn't be an issue and people can compare one's point vs another and come to their conclusion. people have various points to shed light on. that is thinking, instead of controlling and making conclusions for them.

 

[DaveC426913]

i don't think it is right to ban members like MR and GIA or give infraction points for how someone thinks or is percieved to be illogical. if logic is as valid as science purports, then there shouldn't be an issue. people have various points to shed light on.

Again, they're not banned for their points of view; they're banned for their atrocious way of treating people.

 

[birch]

Again, they're not banned for their points of view; they're banned for their atrocious way of treating people.

no, they were given infraction points for posting what is perceived to be illogical or supersitious beliefs too. this not 'adhering to the scientific method' in topics that do not have enough information to adhere to such stringent rules. this is based on the assumption that these topics are not real in the first place. the moderators should have not intervened and let different points of view be expressed. also, people do not adhere to the stringent scientific method in other subforums where much is based on one's opinions.

 

[Daecon]

There was no "perception" involved. It was blatant intellectual dishonesty. Their contempt of logic and rejection of critical thinking was plainly self-evident and pointed out several times, and often met with a "la-la-la I can't hear your" type of response.

 

[James R]

Deacon:

How about if the first time offenders get the standard amount of infraction points, with the point values increasing depending on how many times the poster has been warned for the same offence, or something?

For example, if posting pseudoscience gets 1 infraction point, they're obviously not having the desired effect if you're still getting just 1 point for your 20th pseudoscience infraction...

In principle, we already have that kind of system in place. Moderators can legitimately hand out more warning points to repeat offenders.

If we wanted to set it in stone, setting particular numbers of points for 1st, 2nd, 3rd offences and so on, it could be done, in principle. However, it would involve a lot more administrative effort behind the scenes, keeping track of how many times a particular poster has been warned for each type of offence. I don't think the moderators would be keen on trying to work a system with that level of complication.

cluelusshusband:

If Administration feels that sombody is abusin a rule give a warnin... if they abuse it agan ban 'em.!!!

So you want one warning, then zero tolerance. How long should the ban be for on the second offence? What if there are further offences after that? Are you advocating something like three strikes and you're out?

You will be surprised how quick people learn to self moderate an everbody will be happier for it.!!!

I doubt whether you'll get much support for your idea, but we'll see.

 

[James R]

I'd start simple. Zero tolerance on ad homs.

What do you mean by zero tolerance? What should be the penalty applied to every ad hominem statement? Should the penalties escalate or accumulate?

 

[James R]

birch:

i don't think it is right to ban members like MR and GIA or give infraction points for how someone thinks or is percieved to be illogical. people make incorrect or illogical points not just in fringe subforum. if logic is as valid as science purports, then there shouldn't be an issue and people can compare one's point vs another and come to their conclusion.

People are not currently given warnings for being illogical. If we started handing out warnings for that, nobody would be left here.

MR's warnings have been for troll-like tactics. See our current posting guidelines for what we consider to be troll-like behaviour - or just review the threads in which MR was warned.

As for GIA, if I recall correctly he took mainly to preaching an anti-religion message.

---
Anyway, we've heard what you don't want people infracted for. Do you have any suggestions for how you would run a warnings/ban system?

 

[James R]

I'm not a big fan of the first option in the poll, by the way. I can't see anybody (except trolls) wanting repeat offenders to be able to "game" the system.

The more relevant questions are:

1. Do you perceive that people are gaming the system?
2. If so, in what ways are they doing that?
3. How would you change the system to prevent it?

 

[birch]

Anyway, we've heard what you don't want people infracted for. Do you have any suggestions for how you would run a warnings/ban system?

outright insults/namecalling and racist slurs. additionally, i don't think and never did think it's wrong for GIA to preach an anti-religion message anymore than one to argue against religion or be atheist. that's his opinion and one can agree or disagree.

I'm not a big fan of the first option in the poll, by the way. I can't see anybody (except trolls) wanting repeat offenders to be able to "game" the system.

that's based on what your judgement is. for example, MR and GIA post in fringe and religion predominantly. I would not consider that 'gaming' the system. there are different criteria for such subjects.

btw, since you are already aware that there is no scientific evidence as in acceptable evidence, why would you have a fringe forum anyways? what are you trying to accomplish if your position negates the open discussion of such subjects based on lack of scientific evidence as currently known? that's contradictory, isn't it?

not providing or being unable to provide acceptable scientific evidence in the fringe section for unexplainable events is what people are infracted for as well. that is a form of illogical assertion to you but it isn't to me when it's a subject that is unverifiable such as religion. why i find it harsh is because many can make assertions in other threads/subforum that are not back ed up with evidence or worthy evidence.

i find the fringe not much different than philosophy and religion so why would you be against GIA expressing an anti-religion message, which he backs up with his own reasonings, right or wrong? when members negate the existence of god or religion, using their reasonings in religion? Just as MR backs up with his rationales such as not all evidence he posts is verifiably incorrect either. Do people have to agree? No.

it's up to you if you just want a forum that discusses only 'known' and verified subjects. there are others of the same opinion. i think the fringe is a wonderful addition, imo. i don't know why people are so scared of it as if they will lose their own marbles by reading something seemingly illogical to them.

 

[Seattle]

I would get rid of the Fringe stuff and moderate only blatant name calling (we know it when we see it kind of thing). If someone says you're acting like an idiot (from time to time) that's not a problem.

If someone says you're a bitch, Jew, whatever...we all know that's over the line. If they keep doing that just get rid of them. This isn't likely to affect many posters.

If there is no Fringe section, it's likely that those kinds of posters won't be attracted to this forum. For those who are obviously gaming the system by continually playing dumb or avoiding direct discussion with "define that" over and over...that's gaming the system as is asking a derogatory question and then feigning ignorance as in...I was just asking a question.

This shouldn't really be too hard or require much moderation. One moderator used to over moderate and accused everyone of "gaslighting". That's not what I'm talking about nor is calling every post a "troll".

The point is to try to make this forum about science related subject and to attract people who are interested in science. Now, I'd say, more than half of all posters are here because they don't like science. It's just tiring and counter-productive to have a forum based on that.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

↑
If Administration feels that sombody is abusin a rule give a warnin... if they abuse it agan ban 'em.!!!

So you want one warning, then zero tolerance. How long should the ban be for on the second offence? What if there are further offences after that? Are you advocating something like three strikes and you're out?

Yeah skip the pont system an go to warnin... an the length of the bans to be determined at the time by the mod based on ther opinion of the severity of the offense.!!!

No dout thousands of hard houres have been spent makin the Sciforums rules the best they can be... but the botom line... id like to see a much simpler moderation system which i thank woud be more effective an benificial to all.!!!

"You will be surprised how quick people learn to self moderate an everbody will be happier for it.!!!"

I doubt whether you'll get much support for your idea...

I agree... any suport woud have to come from managment... an good thang for me that im oK wit thangs stayin just the way it is

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I can only add passing thoughts.
The problem is what to do with folk like the god.
There is much more but sort this and the site and members will benefit.
My belief for the benefit of the site numbers are important and the loss of any member is a very bad thing to allow to happen.
Some will say good riddens (?)
Solution.
Create a place where if you play up you are sent...you can only post in that section...keep everyone who needs watching in one place...if they post elsewhere post deleted.
Ban them from within that box..irrespective of crime one week..hopefully they settle down but if not each crime off for a week.
People come here because they gain some sort of satisfaction...take it away a few times they will behave and you still retain a member...their behaviour sees them in the bin rather than thrown right out.

This is evidence for my proposition in another thread that anyone will offer an opinion with no knowledge of what is going on.

Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I would be surprised if the site owners did not see it my way.
Alex

 

[Kittamaru]

The idea of relegating problem members to their own section had been brought up before - if memory serves, the general response was "why bother if they are that much an issue", though we did get the ability to bar chronic pseudoscience pushers from the hard science forums after sufficient warnings.