It is inevitable, unless he takes the VINYLONE route.
Which Is Worse?
- Thread starter Scat
- Start date
It is inevitable, unless he takes the VINYLONE route.
Prior record matters. That's just the way it is. We can see what all of each user's past warnings and infractions were for and when new posts are reported we frequently check to see what they've been warned/infracted for in the past. Repeat behavior is more likely to be infracted than a one-off.
For example, under current moderating practice we've generally given those who evade the profanity filter one warning with an infraction on subsequent attempts. The theory here is that after you've been given the warning you "know the rule" so future violations can be handled with a greater eye to consequences.
Trout's most recent infraction was for leaving abusive reputation comments. He's received infractions and warnings for the exact same behavior at least four times. I like the guy, but he just can't leave well enough alone. At some point, personal responsibility does have to kick in. Trout is the poster that we are most often accused of giving preferential treatment, but he's also a poster that everyone complains whenever he goes dark due to too many infractions. Obviously this is one the mods can't "win" in the public view.
As for spoonerisms: My understanding is that a couple have been effectively grandfathered in rather than requiring that some long-term posters change their usernames. That's the way it is.
For example, under current moderating practice we've generally given those who evade the profanity filter one warning with an infraction on subsequent attempts. The theory here is that after you've been given the warning you "know the rule" so future violations can be handled with a greater eye to consequences.
Trout's most recent infraction was for leaving abusive reputation comments. He's received infractions and warnings for the exact same behavior at least four times. I like the guy, but he just can't leave well enough alone. At some point, personal responsibility does have to kick in. Trout is the poster that we are most often accused of giving preferential treatment, but he's also a poster that everyone complains whenever he goes dark due to too many infractions. Obviously this is one the mods can't "win" in the public view.
As for spoonerisms: My understanding is that a couple have been effectively grandfathered in rather than requiring that some long-term posters change their usernames. That's the way it is.
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
Idea. Might it help if an infraction results in an automatic loss of one point in rep power? I'm not saying people give too much of a **** about it but it could help. Trout seems to care some about his rep power. And perhaps people will think twice before posting something shady. Just an idea. One that would have to be done manually but still. Certainly couldn't hurt.
Good idea, but I don't think there's anyway to manually adjust rep power, so there would be no way to implement it.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
I also agree with maybe finding some other measures other than banning him. Im hoping its only for two weeks; seriously, even if he hated my guts, I think I can fairly speak for the whole board when i say that he is one of the many reasons I go here in the first place. Hes always one of the first posters that comes to mind when I think of why this forum can be such an awesome place, and its for many reasons. I think the board pushing forward to ban him permanently might come back to bite them in the *** later into the future. I dont think the moderators realize how crucial the top 10 or so posters of a board are, to its health; posters like Trout are what seperates a forum like this one, from something like the Jazz section of Real GM. Just saying.
First of all, nobody is "pushing to ban him". Secondly, just because someone is in the top 10 posters (according to you, but probably not everybody else), should they be moderated differently? Given MORE leniency? Allowed MORE warnings/infractions?
What is your solution? Declare that the rules don't apply to certain posters?
And for the record I believe Trout was banned off of RealGM in less than one week.
It should be just like when Michael Jordan is sitting on five fouls, it's tied and there's less then a minute left in the game. He'd basically have to punch someone in the face to pick up that last foul.
I'm not saying Trout is the Michael Jordan of Jazzfanz...he's much much bigger than that.
Did you feel the same way about Hopper? Sloanfeld? What about gasol_stopper_ante_tomic (you know...the poster who only posted mis-leading thread titles)?
And for the record, in MY view, that is what happens. With franklin, when he was at three infractions, we voted to combine two offenses into one single infraction. That actually happens quite a bit. But again, if someone spends enough time trying to walk the line, eventually they trip over it.
No. I honestly just think it sucks that posters like that insist on getting themselves banned. I don't know what the rush must be like getting all those infractions, but I assume it must be worth it to them or they wouldn't do it.
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
Insist? Worth it? I doubt reason comes into play.