These are the current rules on temporary bans regarding infractions:

-A user who receives 5 infractions will receive a temporary 3 day ban
-A user who receives 7 infractions will receive a temporary 7 day ban

How many times have you honestly seen someone temporarily banned because of accrued infractions? I have never seen it.

Half the time people who spam don't even get infractions, they merely get their post deleted, which makes the minimum amount of 5 infractions to receive a temporary ban that much more ridiculous, because no one will ever actually reach it before their first infractions start expiring. Personally, I would know, I have made some posts which I later thought back on and said, wow, that was pure spam, or that was merely trolling someone, yet I have 0 infraction points. The most I've ever had done is have my posts deleted. Or you see people beg for items, and try to sell auth codes, and all that ever seems to happen is yet again, their posts deleted, and nothing more.

I'm not saying the mods shouldn't use discretion, and not all posts that break rules need to be dealt with by handing out infractions. My point is that the minimums need to be brought down, because the current requirements for a temporary ban are far too lax to actually affect anyone.

What I am suggesting is the following:

-A user who receives 3 infractions will receive a temporary 3 day ban
-A user who receives 5 infractions will receive a temporary 7 day ban.

Maybe I'm just a harsh person, but I've seen SO much spam lately that it makes me sick. It seems like unless it's blatantly screams SPAM, nothing ever happens to the actual member. The post is merely deleted and life goes on. At the moment, people could care less if they get a few infractions, because they'll likely expire before they ever get 5 infraction points.

Thoughts, comments?

So you want infractions to be given more frequently / not to expire / harsher punishments?

__________________

Essentially, yes. I just think people break the rules so often, because there is no real threat of them actually getting a punishment that means anything. The average person wouldn't even accrue 3 infractions. Most would say a 3 day ban isn't even that "harsh" of a punishment to begin with.

I'd just like to see spammers, beggers, and people who try to buy/sell things against the rules punished accordingly.

I agree, Sythe should make infractions actually mean something, it sounds like theyre just there to scare spammers, but they don't really do anything by the looks of it

O dear.

Let me preface, the staff themselves have self-proclaimed that 5 infractions is rather hard to accrue in a monthly period. So, your argument that temporary bans are hard to get is tautological in reference to what they say.

Now, I do understand how your coming from, however, let's think about activity here. People honestly don't like receiving punishment, unless your masochistic, in which case, a hospital is where you need to be. Continuing, the admins and primarily Sythe (the owner) need to take into consideration this. If they are handing out temporary bans willy nilly, no one is going to stay simply because they don't enjoy being punished. Now, if they set the prerequisites for punishment too high, then you would be right in saying 'far too lax too affect anyone'. However, it is not. I have seen countless times where notable members of the forum have been suspended for spamming. These are notable members, they have a general understanding of the rules, yet they still manage to break them and be punished. Now imagine new members who have no understanding of the rules, my o my, the site would have more temporarily banned members than active members.

Now, we've established why the rates are as they are, and why they're arguably just right, it's taken care of most of your case.

To talk about simply deleting posts. You say that mods should use their discretion, but you then imply that their not handing out enough infractions due to their discretionary use. If mods strictly enforced the rules by issuing out infractions for each and every offence, we would have everyone banned. However, it is because of this discretion that makes the 'system' fair and a positive environment.

The community also does not have much spam. As you said, mods delete it, and issue infractions at their own discretion. It's not like mods do not issue out infractions, they do. Through learning, the more undesirables one receives, infractions, the less likely they are to repeat it. Look at Variable Ratio Learning. The idea of infractions is not to ban people, it is to punish people, and if you ban people too quickly before they've learnt why they were punished so harshly per se, then they will most likely either leave the site for being improperly treated.


No Support.

__________________

i will be sure to report any infraction-worthy post of yours from now on, happy?

Id say that pretty much sums it up.

However I do think that they should be less lenient to newcomers because 75% of them end up scamming anyways.

Can't assume anything. Many new members become extremely trusted with accounts/services. I know of a few that did some free training for me for vouches and they ended up being great people who weren't looking to scam and they've become pretty active also. (This includes me lol)

Anyways... No support.

__________________

No.
I've personally seen people banned and I've been temped around two or three times.
I must say though, at one or two infractions active, I'm much more likely to post a pissed off infraction worthy response to something and not be worried about it. Once I get up to three or four I chill it down.
I have five pages of infractions, and I really don't see any need to make the punishment more severe.
The rules are in place for a reason, and this has been suggested etc. before.

__________________

Obviously you don't want to temporarily ban every other member on the site. The point is, infractions aren't a punishment. Infractions in themselves mean absolutely nothing. The only way a member is ever punished is if he or she accrues 5 or more infractions, otherwise it's just a pointless and meaningless mark on their account.

The community also does have much spam. I went through a single thread yesterday (only 2 pgs), and I reported 4-5 people, because they didn't add a single thing to the thread. I'm not talking about blatant spam. I'm talking about the following types of spam:

-Someone answers a question and 7 other people post and repeat the exact thing thing. In this case, I think all 7 people should receive infractions. It's subtle spam, but people do it all the time, and nothing ever seems to be done about it.

-Answers a question the OP isn't even asking. For instance, one person was wondering how to not make their laptop battery burn out from botting, and most were giving helpful hints. Then you have some people who just post, "Get a VPS." Now while that may be the best solution, the OP isn't asking what alternatives there are, he or she is asking how to make it so his or her laptop's battery doesn't wear out too fast. Again, the person should be infracted.

-When someone grave digs a thread, and then 5 other people post after it either replying to the topic, or simply saying, "Nice gravedigging," or things of that nature.

What I'm trying to say is there is a hell of a lot of spam, and if you don't honestly think there is, you need to go through a thread and actually read the posts and ask yourself, does this actually add anything constructive in regards to the OP? Half of the time they don't, and if they don't, it is spam, and should be treated accordingly.

Scammersaredumb, if you received an infraction for every infraction-worthy post, you would be banned for a very long time.
I don't think you know how many times myself, or others, have reported your crap for spam/off topic.

I have been banned once for infraction accumulation (sucked ass)
As well as Punker, and a few other people that I have seen.

I believe the rule should be changed from FIVE to like THREE.


But, no support on your main topic.

I'm not even reading the thread. Let me lay it out for you. The old system (2006) was 3 infractions for the first temp ban. Then at some point it was changed to 5, most likely since people were getting banned too often for too long. Then an admin (during my mod time) suggested the current system that cut ban durations down significantly (from a month) to make it harder to get temp banned since too many people were. Now, the main problem with having shorter bans is that if mods are not very similar on infraction handouts, it can quickly become unfair and unbalanced. The most important thing here is that you either choose to be lenient (2006, with warnings) with infractions meaning a lot (3 = month ban, 2 for flaming, etc) or strict with infractions meaning less (5 = 3 day ban, no warnings).

So essentially, you need to start with a staff policy regarding infractions and then build a system around that which is fair and serves its goal which is to reduce the amount of rule breaking posts on the site. It really can not be decided upon by the public as the staff are the ones who must take the first step to decide on a policy and train moderators to all stick to it and try to apply the rules similarly.

__________________

That's like saying a ball is not round.

So, reaffirming what has been said is spam?
How would the OP know if that person is right
As you said, the mods have discretion.

You forget, while botting.
Get a VPS, technically answers the question, however as you've said, mods discretion.
Mods generally infract the gravedigger. Subsequent posts can either be not knowing, or infractable at the mods discretion.

There's a hell of a lot of murder in many countries, does that mean the laws need to be changed.

Certainly not.

Spam will always exist, have you ever considered that there could be more spam without the current rules. Have you also considered the community could be worse with more stricter rules. You need an equilibrium, and SuF from experience has summed it up nicely.

__________________

My main topic/only point/suggestion is that the infraction points needed to be temp banned be changed from 5 to 3. So in other words, you completely support my topic. Thank you.

Well I agree that it should start at the staff level with a policy on what to and not to give infractions for, you also must realize that it will never happen. I'm going for the actual doable part of that problem, and that is lowering the threshold to receive a temporary ban.

Let me go on to further say, most of you seem to think a temporary ban is like a horrible thing that will just kill the membership of the site. A 3 day ban is hardly a "harsh" punishment. If anything it's still way too lenient for people who frequently break the rules.

Again, I know that there has to be an equilibrium, but the reason why so many people spam, or post things against the rules is because the worst that can happen is they receive one infraction point. It would not be worse if it was stricter or at least enforced more uniformly as a whole. If people knew they'd receive an infraction because they repeated an answer for the 7th time in a thread, most people would not post, but since they know nothing will probably happen, they do it every chance they get.

So you admit that your proposed change will cause less people to post on the forum?
Less people posting on the forum reduces activity.

There will always be spam, the way you think people think is completely flawed. People on a forum to not think that much in depth, they go, 'I know the answer *post'. Your scenario is also not considered spam in most cases.

There honestly isn't that much spam around, moderators do a terrific job in keeping the forums neat and tidy, and also hand out infractions accordingly and at their own discretion. Extending the ban for too long is likely to push members from wanting to continue their activity on the forums.


Your proposed idea may reduce spam marginally, however I would attribute it not to reducing spam per member count, as reducing general activity.

__________________

Infractions are useless, but are there for that 2% of the time they serve a purpose.

I only infract 3 things. Wasting staff time - for extremely stupid posts, flaming (major only) and auth trading. I just delete posts and move on with moderating. Much quicker, faster and easier.

I'm going to assume you meant "less people to post" instead of "less people to most". With that being said, yes, I would rather have 10 people who can constructively post, than 100 that can't.

I realize there will always be spam, and a limit of 3 infraction points within a month is plenty of room for anyone who makes a mistake here or there by posting something nonconstructive. What I don't seem to get is why you think a 3 day ban when you receive 3 infraction points within a month is going way overboard and a ridiculously harsh punishment.

Second, it is considered spam. For instance, someone asked if it was possible to remove a bank PIN from an account without waiting the 3/7 days. There were 10 replies that all stated, "You have to wait." Along with several posts that had absolutely nothing to do with the topic, and I mean not even slightly related to it. You're telling me that all of those posts aren't spam?

I'm not saying that if one or two people second someone else, or add on to something someone else already said that it should be spam. I'm talking about when literally member after member post the same answer over and over again. It's annoying as hell. A thread that should stop at 5 replies, goes to 25 because 10 people repeat the same thing, 5 people say something completely irrelevant, and the other ones actually post something somewhat constructive/helpful. It is spam, and the members involved should receive infraction points.

Are you serious? A 3 day ban for someone who consistently broke the rules within a months' time will push members away? No it won't. A month ban or even a week ban, yeah, that might be a bit much, but 3 days? No, it isn't too harsh.

Like I said previously, I'd rather have less members who can actually articulate an argument and form an intelligent, constructive response, than have more members who seemingly have the intelligence of a third grader and post like such.

I really don't have time to explain in detail as to why this is a contradiction, so I'll keep it brief.

If spamming is posting after the 7th time someone has posted with the exact same information. Then it stands to reason that everyone including the first poster is spamming. Given that the first poster is spamming, it is something you should acknowledge.
You either accept the proposition that every person is spamming on the forum, or you accept that your 'want' in the second sentence as completely flawed'.



More people that get temporary suspended, less site activity.

This is not an opinion post, and as such, the mod has discretion over whether he issues an infraction or not.

Above; mod discretion.


Yes it will.



Runescape is a game targeted at third graders.
This forums primary function is a blackmarket targeting runescape players.
Do the math.

Also, what you would rather is irrelevant to what Sythe, and the staff as a collective body want.

__________________

I have acknowledged that I think anyone who repeats the same reply is spamming, however you brought up the point that some people might want confirmation that what the person is posting is true, so I then said that one or two people reaffirming a reply by posting the same reply would not be considered spam. I then went on to state that if more than one or two people repeated the same thing, such as 10 people, they should be given infraction points accordingly.

I realize you can't make it a concrete rule such as, after the third time a post is repeated it is considered spam, but didn't you say you wanted staff to use discretion? Well, they still can.

I've already explained my view on this. First of all, the bans would not increase, maybe for the first month or two, but after that, the spamming would decrease, while the bans would stay the same. People would be more mindful of spamming or posting off topic comments if they knew they would receive a 3 day ban after just 3 useless posts, instead of the normal 5 useless posts.

So Sythe, and the staff as a collective body want idiots running around posting the same thing over and over again, "just to reaffirm a reply"? Or perhaps they get joy closing thread after thread about some idiot who can't read a sticky. Those people deserve to get a 3 day ban, and the community as a whole would be better off without most of them. The few that actually contribute something, would wait out the 3 day ban, and continue to use the site (hopefully being more mindful of their postings).

Exactly. I didn't word it very well; I was heavily multi tasking. I meant constructive post.

You don't understand. Activity would decrease.

Their is a constant inflow of users.
Their is a constant outflow of users.
Increasing the rate in which we ban users would increase the outflow of users, but not change the inflow.
Given that the circulation of users is the activity level, it would decrease.



They don't, they infract them, often deleting the post, sometimes closing the thread.
No, the community needs activity, even if it's from idiots, it needs activity.
An economy cannot survive with only the rich, it needs the poor as well.
I would write an essay about this, but I'll refrain from it.
The people that receive a 3 day ban would either come back, or leave. If they never received the ban they would never leave for this reason.

__________________