2010-04-23, 02:00 AM
Fiel Wrote:First of all, I'm of the strong opinion that arguments should be judged on their own merit. To attack you because this obviously benefits you would result in a logical fallacy. If your argument is good or bad should fall on its own merit rather than by who said it.
Conduct Based Bans
The problem I see with these bans is that "poor conduct" is an extremely vague term. What is poor conduct? How can I quantify if someone or something is acting poorly? How much poor conduct is enough to warrant a ban? In this case, the actual ban (10 day tempban) is so extreme given the amount of offenses that a person would likely commit during a period that no one would get banned. Moving to conduct based bans instead of point-based bans would result in more people going against the rules because the 10 day tempban is a huge penalty that shouldn't be awarded for something like spamming.
Or perhaps you mean that a person who doesn't seem all that offensive and only gets infractions every now and then shouldn't be subject to a BoS. This system would really try my patience as I would have to deal with users I would rather not deal with. So yeah... this one is easy for you to say...
This was more along the lines of the second paragraph, not the removal of the points system. Someone who quickly accumulates points in a short period is much obviously more harmful to the site than someone who gets one infraction a month, and for varied reasons each time. This system essentially targets obvious trolls and trouble-makers rather than valued members of the community with loud-mouths. Loud-mouths still want to be here, they care about the site and even do things to help, and obviously should be in no way above the law, but at the same time, it's my feeling that as long as what they're doing isn't a constant issue (approximately one infraction a month isn't a constant issue) they should be given some leeway.
This method isn't about favouritism, as Heidi and Yoshi implied, so much as it is about caring about your community. It's a lax policy that still punishes offenders without dismembering the site.
Quote:Three strikes system
This system states that we should instead go for 24 points before a BoS. The theory is that if a person receives more infractions, that provides more opportunities for a person to learn. Let me ask you this, though - is there any evidence that once a person has received so many infractions that they do begin to behave better? Does a person who has received 3 or even 4 speeding tickets eventually learn not to speed? Furthermore, is allowing more infractions per person better for the forum?
Consider this. You have $24,000 and you can spend it any way you like. So you go out to expensive restaurants and eateries and start splurging money fast. You better believe when you get down to the wire of only having $2000 left that you're going to savor every dollar spent. You're going to watch every penny. Giving a person $16,000 ensures that he or she reaches this point quicker and therefore encourages more people to watch how they spend their money.
If you split that $24,000 into three parts of $8,000 and told them that once the first $8,000 were spent they'd have to go without any money for a week, you'd expect some minor changes for a brief while. If they spent the second $8,000 and told them that once it was gone, they'd need to go without any money for month, I'm inclined to believe they would spend it much more carefully. If they made it to the final $8,000 and you assured them that once that money was gone, there would never be any more money, the prudent person would be very careful about how they spent it, not even just getting down to $2,000 before realising this is all they've got.
I'd think that anyone who really wants to be here wouldn't take that last strike lightly, especially after serving two bans of increasing lengths without the ability to post.
I mean, as far as I know you've never made anyone serve even a single week so I'm not sure how you can dismiss the power of three strikes when all you've done is let people walk.
Some final words on the issue of banning, and why I think permanent bans are too extreme. I'll start by loosely quoting Fiel who noticed, "people only realise how important Southperry is to them when they're at risk of losing it," just the other day. And that's true. Being banned blows plantain. I've been there, and it wasn't a fun 10 days, now I'm facing a permanent ban and I can't help feeling like it's going to happen regardless of what I do unless I just stop posting. Nothing I've ever done is worth removing me entirely from this site, and yet that is the future I face. I know Greg is sitting in limbo right now and all he wants is to come back to Southperry because he loves this place. I'm sure he has many regrets about his actions and they'll only deepen as he spends time away.
Fiel even just said it himself, there are many examples of users who come back after three or so months with a new respect for Southperry's rules because they love it here. We all love it here. This new policy basically spits in the faces of those people who love your site but have made some mistakes. The love that we all have for Southperry, in spite of our mistakes, should mean that in time we can be forgiven. We are the children of Southperry, and as a good parent you should not disown us because we didn't live up to your expectations or because we let you down.
Sorry that's dramatic but it's the truth. I can't imagine anyone who actively posts here who wouldn't agree that they love southperry and would wish to be forgiven if they made a mistake.