Fandom Forums

Fandom Forums (http://www.fandom.com/forums//index.php)
-   Announcements (http://www.fandom.com/forums//forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Tweaking of the Flamming rules. (http://www.fandom.com/forums//showthread.php?t=34658)

Shino 11-19-2007 01:02 AM

Tweaking of the Flamming rules.
 
The current infraction for Flamming will not be changed. A new one called "Minor Flamming" which will be worth 5 points, last for 10 days, but will not be stackable, is now created. Basically that means if you get two minor flame infractions in one day you will be banned for 10 days, instead of 20.

Also, two minor flame infractions will equal one major flame infraction in regaurds to the 3 strikes = perm ban. 6 minor flames = perm ban. 2 major flames + 2 minor flames = perm ban, 1 Major flame + 4 minor flames = perm ban, ect. This is to prevent continuous "minor flamming" of other members without fear of a perm ban.

In reguards to the above changes, if I see anyone complain about "that should be a major flame instead of a minor one" or vice versa, I will get rid of those changes and will go back to the way they were before this post.

There will not be any listed "guidelines" as for what constitutes a "minor" or "major" flame, that will be left upto the infracting mod and will be checked by me for fairness.

Lastly, I will change all auto-ban infractions to 5 day bannings, instead of the current 7.

All flames directed to any/all staff will be treated as a Major Flame and you will be banned for it no questions asked.

Please, I do not want any comments concerning anything in this post, thats what my PM box is for. I only want questions requarding these new rules (ie. a question to better understand something.) If you post in this thread and you are not asking a question, you will recieve an infraction.

G 11-19-2007 02:55 AM

Re: Tweaking of the Flamming rules.
 
Okay I have a question.

Since the '3 bans for flamming = perm ban' thing was set I have been banned once for flamming so I have 2 strikes left but with this new system you have made does that mean we all start over with a clean slate? aka I would be back to back to having 3 strikes b4 a perm ban?

Shino 11-19-2007 06:52 AM

Re: Tweaking of the Flamming rules.
 
No, seeing as how this doesnt really affect anything other than giving you more chances.

Miburo 11-19-2007 09:15 AM

Re: Tweaking of the Flamming rules.
 
Uh, is there any sort of universal criteria for either a major flame or minor flame so that infractions will be dealt with consistently regardless of the moderator? Or is it still just up to the discretion of whatever moderator is on the case?

Also, does it matter if the person being 'flamed' feels offended by the flame? Or is it still the "if anyone reports it, or the mods see name calling=auto-infraction" policy that's been used?

Freshgrease 11-19-2007 11:00 AM

Re: Tweaking of the Flamming rules.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Miburo (Post 1336398)
Uh, is there any sort of universal criteria for either a major flame or minor flame so that infractions will be dealt with consistently regardless of the moderator? Or is it still just up to the discretion of whatever moderator is on the case?

Also, does it matter if the person being 'flamed' feels offended by the flame? Or is it still the "if anyone reports it, or the mods see name calling=auto-infraction" policy that's been used?

He said that it was up to the moderator to decide whether or not it is a major or minor flame, and that he would check the fairness of the decision. By Shino checking the fairness of the infraction, it eliminates mods from making too biased of decisions. If you are particularly worried about me, remember I could have banned you for insulting me several times as a flame, but I havn't given you an infraction in God knows how long.

Ofcourse, my guidelines are rather lenient, but others are not. Minor: Noob, idiot, retard, or any of their derivatives not related to sex. Major: Anything refering to f*cking *insert insult*, "Eat shit and die", and other sexual references. I realize we all aren't prepubescent children, so I allow a bit more than what would be expected on a kid's show's forum.

I used to, however, look over a few things that I thought wern't worthy of banning for ten days, but now those are worth less and I don't have to worry about being too rough with my moderation.

Miburo 11-19-2007 11:42 AM

Re: Tweaking of the Flamming rules.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Freshgrease (Post 1336431)
He said that it was up to the moderator to decide whether or not it is a major or minor flame, and that he would check the fairness of the decision. By Shino checking the fairness of the infraction, it eliminates mods from making too biased of decisions.

Yeah, I saw that. What I was asking was are the mods deciding what is minor and major based on some universal set criteria so that there is an overall consistency in moderation or was it up to them to individually decide what they think is minor or major. From your answer, it looks to be the latter.

Also wanted to know if the person had to express being offended by the 'flame' before any infractions were handed out, since it was something that was addressed in the discussion contained in the "Flame Rules!!" thread. Since you didn't address that, I'm going to assume that it's going to work as it has done previously instead.

Quote:

If you are particularly worried about me, remember I could have banned you for insulting me several times as a flame, but I havn't given you an infraction in God knows how long.
First off, no, I wasn't asking this because I was worried about you. My question had nothing to do with any mod in particular, nor did it have any underlining messages. Just trying to make sure I understood this shit as clearly as possible, that's all.

Secondly, you couldn't have justifiably banned me for shit. I've always followed the rules based on how Shino has defined flaming via how infractions were handled. Fuck that noise, dude. : )

So just to get this straight, it's pretty much exactly the same as before (Where name calling=flaming), just that now people won't get banned for weak ass shit like calling someone a "noob" and other silly things like that?

Shino 11-19-2007 04:51 PM

Re: Tweaking of the Flamming rules.
 
We've always taken the context of the situation into account, and thats not changed. Although I'm not going to make them PM the flamee to see if he was offended each and every time before handing out an infraction. If they want to do that, thats fine, but I'm not going to force them to every time.

If a mod come across something that could go either way, or isn't sure which to give, a minor or major flame infraction, then they will ask other mods their opinion about it, or if I'm around, they'll ask me about it. That has happened in alot of instances in the past and not just with flamming infractions, but with anything they werent sure of.

slayer91 11-19-2007 08:54 PM

Re: Tweaking of the Flamming rules.
 
thank u for editing the rules.......:D
hopefully this will make it more fare for people

AnticitizenOne 11-19-2007 08:59 PM

Re: Tweaking of the Flamming rules.
 
I do agree with the noob thing being a minor flame, since if it wasn't a flame at all people would just keep doing it repeatedly and it would get annoying as hell. Overall, I like how Shino takes action as to what his members think, sets him apart from most administrators of other websites I've been a member of before. So, yeah, i like the new change, not that it'll affect me since I don't really flame people that much. Another good addition to narutolounge is a good thing.

RNB 11-19-2007 09:04 PM

Re: Tweaking of the Flamming rules.
 
I don't exactly see much positive in this change. Who decides whether they are minor or major flames? Mods who may or may not understand the writer.

I'MNOTCRAZY 11-19-2007 09:32 PM

Re: Tweaking of the Flamming rules.
 
look, it's better than all flames being major flames.

Tsuna 11-19-2007 09:36 PM

Re: Tweaking of the Flamming rules.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Redneckboy
I don't exactly see much positive in this change. Who decides whether they are minor or major flames? Mods who may or may not understand the writer.

Hence the statement, "We've always taken the context of the situation into account, and thats not changed."

Miburo 11-19-2007 10:40 PM

Re: Tweaking of the Flamming rules.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Shino (Post 1336668)
We've always taken the context of the situation into account, and thats not changed. Although I'm not going to make them PM the flamee to see if he was offended each and every time before handing out an infraction. If they want to do that, thats fine, but I'm not going to force them to every time.

Why not just assume that they're not offended unless they report it? Wouldn't that just make a ton more sense that way?

Because at things are currently, you'll reverse a flame infraction if the person being flamed states that they're not offended anyway. So as things currently work you waste time giving someone an infraction which could potentially end up banning the guy for a while, then whoever got flamed also has to waste time PMing mods telling them they're not offended just to get the guy off the hook.

With the proposed suggestion you won't waste any time doing anything because if the person is offended they'll report it, and if they don't report it then you just bypassed a fuckton of bullshit. Best part is there's absolutely zero chance of there being misinterpretations or errors since you'll know exactly how the 'flamee' feels before any action is taken. It's less work for mods, and leaves no room for bitching about mods from the forum goers. It's seriously flawless.

Shino 11-19-2007 11:25 PM

Re: Tweaking of the Flamming rules.
 
What would be the point in having mods if we did that. I could fire all the mods, and personally handle all the reported posts, seeing as how it doesnt take much effort to look at them (especially since they're all in one place) and go through them and hand out infractions when neccissary.

You can't just use the argument that if it's not reported then that means no one was offended, and since your a smart guy, I'm guessing you're choosing to not mention the other reasons why posts arent being reported to help your cause. Posts might not be reported because some of the members might not know how, or even know that there is such a fuction; or maybe they're just lazy; or possibly that they think someone else has already reported it/or someone else will..and I'm sure there are other reasons for why posts arent reported, those are just the ones that came to mind (and are possibly the biggest reasons). This is why we have mods, to find posts that aren't reported, for whatever reason, but should have been.

Miburo 11-19-2007 11:52 PM

Re: Tweaking of the Flamming rules.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Shino (Post 1337503)
What would be the point in having mods if we did that. I could fire all the mods, and personally handle all the reported posts, seeing as how it doesnt take much effort to look at them (especially since they're all in one place) and go through them and hand out infractions when neccissary.

Wait, so you're saying that you'd rather leave things the way they are so, uh, the mods have something to do? Wut?

I mean, it's not like you're paying them, right? Who cares if they're not handing out infractions all the damn time? If it's something that will totally avoid unnecessary infractions and bans, isn't that what is best for the community? Which should the important thing.

And there's still spam and shit you guys can get people for. You'll still get to hand out a ton of infractions, no worries there.
Quote:

You can't just use the argument that if it's not reported then that means no one was offended, and since your a smart guy, I'm guessing you're choosing to not mention the other reasons why posts arent being reported to help your cause. Posts might not be reported because some of the members might not know how, or even know that there is such a fuction; or maybe they're just lazy; or possibly that they think someone else has already reported it/or someone else will..and I'm sure there are other reasons for why posts arent reported, those are just the ones that came to mind (and are possibly the biggest reasons). This is why we have mods, to find posts that aren't reported, for whatever reason, but should have been.
If they are offended and want the person to be punished for offending them, why wouldn't they report it? If it's posted in the rules that flame infractions are only given out if the 'flamee' is offended, then they'd have no excuse for not reporting it. (so it wouldn't matter if someone else reported it, if it's not worth their time to report it then they obviously weren't that upset about it so no harm done) And there's no reason to pamper and encourage blatant stupidity, it's not that hard to figure out how to report a post or PM a mod. That's weak, dude.

I'm not ignoring any aspects of this to help my cause. The first minor flame infraction handed out shows a flaw in the current system, which would have been totally avoided if the proposed system was introduced. And it's been less than a day. Not only was it clearly said jokingly (Error in context interpretation), but 48 clearly wasn't offended so it should end up getting reversed anyway (So an infraction was handed out unnecessarily, 48 has to waste his time telling you guys that it was a mistake, and you'll have to reverse it).

It'll also cut down on bitching because 1)There's no chance of fuck ups at all. and 2)It wasn't the mods who made the call, they just responded to it because it was reported by the 'flamee'. Really, dude, everyone wins.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:00 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.