Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by Scat, Sep 3, 2011.
A red infraction or a yellow? How do you determine if content is worthy of red vs yellow?
Red is an infraction. Yellow is a warning. Warning carry no points, infractions do. 3 points is a one week suspension, 4 points is two weeks, and 5 points is a permanent ban. As far as how it's determined: the mods and admins vote. Infractions and warnings stay active for 180 days.
can i buy a vote on that particular board?
Then I'm confused. I just received an infraction for posting a picture showing the Statue of Liberty flipping the bird. I was told that the infraction was due to "inappropriate content". Fine, but I have had inappropriate content removed in the past and only received a warning. One for circumventing the profanity filter, the other was for making reference to the use of a douche bag. Both were moderated and removed and I received a warning. I'm at a loss as to why those were only warnings whereas the most recent was an infraction?? I fail to see a difference between the severity of the three incidences.
Mods, can I please get an explanation?
Maybe the warnings weren't deterrents enough to keep you from posting inappropriate conduct, so maybe an infraction will.
Kinda like soccer, you know? Enough minor infractions will get you a yellow and eventually a red card.
That can be a very good way of looking at it. All I can say is, the reported posts are voted on. When it gets three votes, that's the action taken.
A warning is typically intended to be a notice to you that if you continue to make similarly problematic posts, infractions may well be forthcoming.
ditto what's been said above by others, TO WIT (that's a term that's woefully underused by the way):
1 - a warning is a notice to let a poster know that the behavior might be considered infraction-worthy
2 - a warning under ideal circumstances serves to deter the poster from similar future behavior
3 - it's always at least a little subjective, and may depend on the individual opinions of the mods, and who views the report and votes on it first. Once an option (ignore, issue warning or issue infraction) has three votes, that is the course of action that is followed. Sometimes the first three mods to view a report may all vote the same - sometimes a report may take votes from 5 or 6 mods before any option has the required three votes for action.
Hope this helps!
So basically there are really no hard and set rules, just hope that you are noticed by a more liberal member first or at least someone that doesn't have an ax to grind against you. Got it...
No, with that kind of attitude, sadly I don't think you do.
Scat does have a point though. I've rec'd warnings and infractions for things that are seen in threads on a daily basis, but because someone has "an axe to grind" with me, or because of past history, mine get reported or scrutinized a little bit more harshly. It's crazy for Colton to even hint at denying this, because it does happen.
I remember when I got an infraction for a spoonerism for Gordon Hayward, but Tonstermits and FakersLuck are just A-OK... Ah, memories... Let's not forget the fact that the whole "Rusty Trombone" thread is still alive and well, even though it has been pointed out that the definition on urban dictionary is vile beyond measure (by a mod, no less). I vaguely remember a certain poster getting an infraction for posting a cartoon picture of a woman shaving her pet beaver, infractions for cartoon poop, etc. but an entire thread based upon a "Rusty Trombone" is just fine by JF standards.
Again, for Colton to even accuse someone of "not getting it" is somewhat giggle-worthy.
I don't think your problematic posts get reported at a higher rate than anyone else's.
As far as whether you've received warnings/infractions for things that are seen in threads on a daily basis: moderators change, and different moderator crews have different thresholds for what is appropriate. My sense is that the current crew is a little more liberal than most have been historically. I really doubt that you've been given warnings/infractions by the current crew for things that are seen in threads on a daily basis.
Your spoonerism was a gay crack and was treated accordingly--especially because we had just announced that gay slurs would not be tolerated on the site. As far as their spoonerisms go, I myself voted to not allow them but as I said the current group of moderators are a bit more liberal.
Thanks for pointing it out; I hadn't read that particular thread. Thread now deleted.
Yeah, whatever. Believe what you like.
You're probably right, and I guess you'd probably know better than me.
Again, I suppose you would know more than me. I will agree with you re: the liberal moderating though, I feel like a lot gets by that wouldn't fly on the old site.
There's the rub. My spoonerism wasn't meant to be a slur at all. I detest anti-gay rhetoric and always have. As for the other guys, I see no problem with their spoonerisms either.
Well, that freaking sucks. That thread was enlightening to say the least. My apologies to the board for getting it removed.
Of course I will, and so will you. FWIW, I wasn't trying to bitch and moan about being treated unfairly, because I feel like you guys are doing a dandy job and I have no beef. I was simply just agreeing with Scat and giving some personal experiences that coincide with his experiences.
You're agreeing with the guy who has a beef, does that make you have a beef? Or does agreeing with a beef not necessarily mean the beef is passed on? Or would a guy with no beef agreeing with a guy who has a beef make it a semi-beef, or does the no beef trump the beef?
All of a sudden, I feel like I want to eat a chicken sandwich.
Ahh, what the hell. How long is he banned for?
The power of Rectenbach should not be taken lightly. Today T-ville, tomorrow the world!
So we gonna get the low down in the banned user thread, or what? Or can anyone else fill me in?