Infraction Points

[Serpentine]

I think it would be beneficial for the moderators to have more flexibility when it comes to the issuing of infraction points. I think it is less than ideal that a joking "spootyhead" is exactly as terrible as an earnest "you effing cee-sucking mother-effing dee-head, you don't know ess", and the mods have no authority to distinguish between them. Same for distinguishing between an obviously honest mistake and deliberate - or at least "should definitely know better" - rule-breaking.

[Cealocanth]

Uhh...Serp? Have you tried to PM the mod that gave you an infraction?

[arguskos]

Uhh...Serp? Have you tried to PM the mod that gave you an infraction?
The way I'm reading this, it appears that this is not a complaint about a personal infraction, but a suggestion about the system entirely. 'Course, if someone knows something I don't, feel free to disregard me entirely.

On that point, this is a suggestion I agree with. The potential concern is what if moderators disagree on the infraction at hand, who does it go to? Is the benefit worth the possible trouble? Etcetcetc.

[Haruki-kun]

The potential concern is what if moderators disagree on the infraction at hand, who does it go to?

I believe the user in question goes to Roland if he thinks a moderator treated him/her unfairly and has already tried to contact the moderator in question, if that's what you mean.

[Marnath]

I think it would be beneficial for the moderators to have more flexibility when it comes to the issuing of infraction points. I think it is less than ideal that a joking "spootyhead" is exactly as terrible as an earnest "you effing cee-sucking mother-effing dee-head, you don't know ess", and the mods have no authority to distinguish between them. Same for distinguishing between an obviously honest mistake and deliberate - or at least "should definitely know better" - rule-breaking.

I'm pretty sure they let lesser offenses slide all the time, otherwise these forums would be awash with red text. Also, I'm not sure why the moderators should be the one to bend because we have trouble following their rules. :smallconfused:

[Serpentine]

While I do think I've been on the receiving end of it once, my point is about the whole system, not any individual infraction.

Marnath: What's wrong with having some flexibility in the punishment system? Unless you think stealing a lollypop deserves the same consequences as stealing a car or a million dollars, I don't think it's unreasonable to let the mods have some room for a judgement call.

[NerfTW]

What makes you think there's no flexibility or room for judgement?

[Serpentine]

See my example in the first post. Both are worth 100 infraction points.
I could give a more specific example but, well, that'd be against the rules :smalltongue:

[Knaight]

I'd consider this a massive problem with board rules, particularly as I've seen stuff understood by all involved to be joking, extremely obviously self deprecating humor, and nonetheless picked up by some random bystander and filed as flaming. When the person allegedly being flamed doesn't think there is flaming going on, the system should change, as it currently is that doesn't matter.

[Roland St. Jude]

I think it would be beneficial for the moderators to have more flexibility when it comes to the issuing of infraction points. I think it is less than ideal that a joking "spootyhead" is exactly as terrible as an earnest "you effing cee-sucking mother-effing dee-head, you don't know ess", and the mods have no authority to distinguish between them. Same for distinguishing between an obviously honest mistake and deliberate - or at least "should definitely know better" - rule-breaking.

Sheriff of Moddingham: Moderators do have that flexibility when it comes to borderline offenses, close questions, and brand new posters breaking rules that are unusual - it's called issuing a Warning and yields zero points. But allowing each moderator to hand out however many infraction points they think are deserved is an invitation to inconsistency, increased mod work load, and greater disputes over moderator action. (Not to mention the technical difficulties and complexities.)

Regarding the specific example given, we don't want people calling each other names, even in jest, because it isn't always funny to the target, tends to escalate, and suggests to readers that this is a place one can act like that. For example, in the past month posters have "jokingly" told others to "die in a fire" and said, "I.will.kill.you." Yeah, great, the poster claims they were joking and maybe they were, but these aren't comments we want here. Calling someone a "dork" may seem suitably mild to the writer but taken quite poorly by the target. We're not going to get into guessing at what people intend or what the target feels; we simply ask that people not flame each other.

As for other types of offenses, the principle is pretty much the same. We're not interested in trying to divine poster intent. That way lies madness (and lots of post hoc excuses and justifications). We have to judge what's posted, and if it violates the rules, it's going to earn an Infraction. That infraction is going to yield the same number of point regardless of which mod issues it and what they believe the poster's motive to be. It's as objective as we can make it, it makes things consistent between moderators, and allows posters to know what the result of their actions will be.

The rules already have a "severity test" built in. Stuff like double posting is worth less than restarting a locked thread which is worth less than flaming. We don't want any flaming, not matter how humorous or mild.

A moderator with questions about what to do has several other mods, plus two administrators, plus The Giant to kick it around with. A poster who questions a mod action should contact that mod, and if that's not satisfactory, me. If you don't like my judgment, there's always The Giant.

The change you propose is basically the opposite of the way The Giant intentionally structured here since the first set of Forum Rules.