Disciplining of posters.

Before I begin, I want to say that this is probably the best moderated and behaved forum I've posted on, which says a lot in favour for taking a hard line against indiscretions.

I do have one small complaint regarding the consistency of how rule breakages are dealt with which the recent behaviour of Kirov and FK reminded me of. I've noticed that new posters usually receive the full force of the law here while the older established posters often get treated with a greater degree of leniency. New posters will get banned straight away for breaking the forum rules (although usually after a warning from Chaz) while the old hands will get a Yellow/Red card or just a warning for similar, anti-social behaviour. I don't think this sets a very good example.

Assuming my perception is correct, I'd like to know why this is the case and why things aren't closer to being the other way around. In my opinion, new posters can be expected not to know all the rules and etiquette expected here, while established ones should be much more aware of when they are crossing a line.

To be clear, I'm not asking that the older members get tougher treatment, but rather that the newbies receive more warnings (like getting carded) before being banned. That said, I realise that some people only come here for a troll or to circumvent a previous ban. Those people do deserve to be booted out quick smart.

Replies:

Cata wrote:

It'd definitely something to think about. I know Chaz and I have both found giving older members preferential treatment to be negative, because we've talked about it before, so it's not what we're going for.

I thought this was case. Another thing to consider is the impulse to distrust new members while knowing the older members characters a lot better.

Sci wrote:

One of the reasons this was treated differently is because I responded to it first.

Honestly if Chaz had happened upon it first, he probably would have carded them. Part of it boils down to the fact that we don't have a playbook for every situation, and different administrators have different methods.

I took care of this instance.

In this particular instance I didn't card because there was no malicious intent here, just bored members perhaps padding their post count. They received a warning via PM. Others would have perhaps yellow carded because, hey, it's just a yellow card.

Fair enough. Knowing the bit about PM's, I think you did the right thing. I probably would have done the same thing considering that, as you said, Kirov and FK weren't being malicious or deliberately annoying.

I would suggest however, that posters be notified when PM's such as that are sent out. It would let people know that the situation is being dealt with more than just a "stop it guys" or whatever.

Quote:

If there is a new member who looks like they're going to cause problems, we don't really feel bad about weeding them out early. But if a member who has a history of contributing positively to the site slips up, we tend to be a little more lenient. But we hold them to a higher standard on actually "knowing" what the rules are.

Look at it this way, we look at post count average. If you're a new member, and you have 30 posts and 10 of them are racist or offensive, that's 33.333%. If you have 3000 posts, and 10 of them are offensive, that's .333%

I see your logic here. However, a broken rule is still a broken rule. II know this isn't what you're saying, but if too many exceptions are made, the door leading to corruption is opened.

And with that analogy, I think it would need to depend on the situation, if those 10 offensive posts out of 30 were made by someone who was clearly ignorant of whichever rule is being broken, A red card accompanied by a strong warning would be a better way to go then a ban IMO. And with the 10 out of 3000, if they were made in quick succession and recently, one would think that the same action should apply.

Edit: Fair enough Chaz.

I agree with what you're saying, except that in some situations I would definitely hold older members to higher standards, if they know they're doing something they aren't supposed to, such as ad homs. So I guess all I can do is keep an eye out and see how we're approaching things.

The one difference I can see is if we think someone is here to JUST spam the forum, JUST advertise a site, etc. Generally I think we give them a chance to show us otherwise, but with an older poster we already have been shown otherwise and we got a different problem on our hands.

It'd definitely something to think about. I know Chaz and I have both found giving older members preferential treatment to be negative, because we've talked about it before, so it's not what we're going for.

One of the reasons this was treated differently is because I responded to it first.

Honestly if Chaz had happened upon it first, he probably would have carded them. Part of it boils down to the fact that we don't have a playbook for every situation, and different administrators have different methods.

I took care of this instance.

In this particular instance I didn't card because there was no malicious intent here, just bored members perhaps padding their post count. They received a warning via PM. Others would have perhaps yellow carded because, hey, it's just a yellow card.

It was a pain in the ass what they did, but it wasn't really "bad", just annoying.

And also, what Cata said about newer versus older members.

If there is a new member who looks like they're going to cause problems, we don't really feel bad about weeding them out early. But if a member who has a history of contributing positively to the site slips up, we tend to be a little more lenient. But we hold them to a higher standard on actually "knowing" what the rules are.

Look at it this way, we look at post count average. If you're a new member, and you have 30 posts and 10 of them are racist or offensive, that's 33.333%. If you have 3000 posts, and 10 of them are offensive, that's .333%

Quote:

However, a broken rule is still a broken rule. II know this isn't what you're saying, but if too many exceptions are made, the door leading to corruption is opened.

I'm a bureaucrat in real life. I sure as hell don't want to be one in my spare time.

I agree with you to an extent, but I don't think this is a truly slippery slope. I exercised my judgment in the situation and I don't think that as a result we're going to be allowing holocaust denial or anything like that.

Quote:

I thought this was case. Another thing to consider is the impulse to distrust new members while knowing the older members characters a lot better.

If it had been a new member, I wouldn't have been sure it wasn't malicious... With these two, I knew it was a combination of boredom and being a jackass, rather than just being an asshole.

Frankly, I probably would have done the same thing to newbies though anyway.

Quote:

And with the 10 out of 3000, if they were made in quick succession and recently, one would think that the same action should apply.

In that case I'd still probably chalk it up to a bad day for a well established member and card them (in this case it was really just an annoyance, very minor infraction). Whereas if some n00b comes in here and makes 10 offensive posts, I'm likely going to trust my grasp of probability (that they're likely a douche) and toss them the hell out without even much of a second thought.

If you one week ban a n00b, chances are incredibly high that if they come back at all (chances are they won't, they'll just forget about it), they're just going to come back to cause trouble.

SO basically what I'm saying is that I just go with what is probable, rather than strictly adhering to the "Letter of the law" in most situations. It's not even a character thing.

Quote:

but rather that the newbies receive more warnings (like getting carded) before being banned.