Using the feedback from the last post, I've found a way to make this system more user friendly. I'll be outlining the system in bullet points to avoid getting too verbose, but it's also located under rule 7 as usual.
Posts must still receive at least one report. Five reports will force moderator intervention or feedback. Particularly egregious posts with many reports may receive two infractions and result in us upgrading the punishment.
It uses a tier system, with the associated enforcement instructions outlining what enforcement will be issued. The tier is the number of infractions associated with you that we recognize.
You start at tier 0, and will only receive warnings through tier 2.
Tier 3 is a removal and a warning.
Tier 4 is a one day ban.
All proceeding tiers double the ban time from the previous tier, but there are no permanent bans.(So 1, then 2, then 4, then 8, then 16 days and so on)
You can appeal an enforcement action up to tier 6, but not beyond that.
All enforcement will still include discussion from a moderator about the way the post violated rule 7. Users are still welcome and encouraged to discuss how they think it violated it as well.
If you go a year without any rule violation, we will forgive one infraction and reduce your tier accordingly if/when we need to enforce against you in the future.
The database now only requires a list of citations and their associated tiers for each user.
This system is forgiving yet firm. You've got a fairly huge margin to fuck up, albeit not as much as with the other system, but that also means that we can't budge on this rule, same as last time. This system still manages to capture the need for guidance and is much simpler, if a bit more... exponential.
[removed]
I'd like to add that with this system, there is no 'stipend' for assholery anymore. No monthly allowances, just growing consequences. ALSO, we will still curate violation feedback made by users and welcome your input.
I like it more than the previous one.
Let me think a bit before I throw the "I love it!" card down or anything. ;)
Wow, complicated, hard to identify (no notices until you're 3 points in) and incredibly slow to forgive considering any infraction over an entire year negates all other good behavior?Who needs anti's, we'll destroy ourselves with somethig like this. If I may make a suggestion, how about being much faster to forgive and require no hold timer? If someone is being a raging asshole, it doesn't matter if 3 points reset in a week when they're collecting them even faster. If someone is doing very well and makes just one mistake, what incentive do they have to try again? It should forgive faster as it allows more opportunities to shape behavior, no? Anyone who's gotten to 4 is best served by creating a new account or not posting instead of hoping they can make it a whole year to be forgiven. With such a small community we don't need more incentive to not post.I can appreciate what you're trying to do, but part of the flaw in such a rigid system is that it is so predictable.Edit: I'm retracting my objection and will wait to see how it works.
At tier 3 that's when you're getting a post removed, but we discuss infractions with you with every citation, regardless of whether we remove it. Also, it seems that you may have missed how bans work. There are no permanent bans with this, none. At tier 4, you receive a one day ban, a ban that doubles with each future infraction. Even after 10 infractions that's 'only' a one month ban, where other communities will perm you after three strikes. We'll adjust the rule as needed, but for now, the forgiveness period stays at a year. If we find users struggling with it, we'll adjust it according to the data we acquire, before it becomes an issue. Recall that we're not enforcing against quips and one-offs. We're enforcing against paragraphs laden with personal attacks and condescension.
Also, creating a new account to bypass a ban is against Reddit's terms of service. You don't see it, but reddit automatically nukes those accounts and removes their posts when they try.
As they should. The "ten strikes but not even really" policy you've proposed here is forgiving to the point of toothlessness. Let me make a few suggestions.
If a post is considered a personal attack to the degree that you think it should be acted upon, it should be removed no matter what. The whole point of this exercise is to prevent those comments from being posted. Letting them stand for first and second "offenses" is counter to the purpose of the whole exercise.
If you're going to ban users from posting, be serious about it: week, month, indefinite. Don't pussyfoot around with one- and two-day bans, especially in a community where there's barely one or two threads a day to begin with.
Keep in mind a ban only prevents users from posting, not from reading. If a user's posts aren't contributing positively, there is no downside to making them stop posting. Nor is there any downside to lifting that ban if you think they've changed for the better.
This means I've probably reached a good middleground. I've got people saying it's too harsh and people saying it isn't harsh enough. I'll respond to your concerns anyway, however.
We don't want to censor things if we don't have to, and we want to help people, oberservers and violators alike, get a taste for what the disrespect rule means beyond just definitions, and when they can step in themselves. The point of this rule is meant to prevent censorship, and our curation would encourage them to edit their posts to fit rule 7. Removal isn't the only option so long as they cooperate.
I've actually had experience with communities that did exponential escalation like this, and you'll be surprised at how effective it is without silencing people. They did 1 and 3 day bans first for the most part, but it was deadly effective at stopping troublemaking while keeping the once-offenders active. It also means that we can be slightly stricter about what counts as a violation. At any rate, if the system doesn't sufficiently deter rulebreakers, it's not immutable. I don't expect that to be an issue, however.
To the first part, I'm quite aware. The same goes for the other forums I've moderated, but that doesn't change the fact that you're effectively censoring them. You know how I feel about 'moderator discretion' being at the forefront of a decision, though, and while your approach may seem intuitive, predictability is equally valuable. For almost all people, a week or two week ban is enough to get them to clean up their act or forget about this community.
This rule has been set up the way it is for a multitude of reasons, a number of reasons being ones that most of this community may not like to admit. At any rate, I'd let the rule actually be put into action before we say whether it's the end of the world or not.
Or modifying their behavior.
As noted, I don't view what we're trying to deal with here (outright personal attacks) as a right of our community in any way shape or form. Such things should not be condoned.
[deleted]
[deleted]
When someone join this sub and subscribe, after reading some old posts, we learn to not post anything.
That is kind of the barrier this is attempting to eliminate.
So... hello. I was more afraid about turning on js than community. It is my first reply here after few months of observing. Maybe it's really time to start talking.