Infractions received on old posts

I personally don't think it's fair to receive an infraction for an old post that was written a long time ago. There should be an amount of time from creation that a post can receive an infraction for, my suggestion is one month.

If someone really hated you then they could look up all your old posts and find a couple that could receive infractions and bam, they report you and your temp banned.

Thoughts on this?

 

I agree. However I'm sure the staff are vigilant and can take notice of when that post was posted.

 

I understand where you're coming from, but unfortunately some staff members may still occasionally give infractions for old posts.

 

Personally, I believe this should be true, but even some people report stuff days late anyways. We don't always look at the date when we infract them.

 

I don't think the staff should be required to notice the date of the post considering they have to do large amounts of spam reports. It should definitely be grounds to reverse infractions however.

 

It doesn't matter when the post took place, the main problem is that we shouldn't be infraction users multiple times for the same reason all at once.

Infractions serve as warnings, and if we just give them 5 infractions at once, it nullifies the point of infractions.

 

Don't agree. Doesn't make any sense. Why would there be a statute of limitations on something like an infraction? There are many many spam posts that aren't reported. Sometimes I'll follow links looking for evaders and find months old spam, and I report it as I do new spam. It's still against the rules, and my opinion is that date is irrelevant.

 

That just seems vindictive and counter-intuitive. Why would you report old spam that is more than 2 or 3 pages back? It is clear that those are no longer active discussions and that the spam in those threads, if not caught, is irrelevant now. Mod's shouldn't have to waste their time infracting old posts when there are hundreds of new posts every day.

 

Ok, so a users joins in 2005, within his first few days/weeks there, unaware of the rules, accidentally spams. Someone reports him in 2012 and he gets infracted.

> THAT LOGIC.

 

We agree within the T&C that we will abide the rules and supposedly have read them before even posting, so why is it okay that they do spam threads - accidentally or not - in the first few days?

'> THAT LOGIC.'

 

Do you honestly think every single user who joins Sythe reads the rules? I highly doubt it. Our aim is to keep the community active and participatory, handing out infractions for idiotic reasons such as old posts from years ago/few days joined (being new and unaware) is not going to bring about anything productive.

 

Also with the time that has passed the users have probably grown to know that what they had previously posted was deemed spam, but they were lucky that moderators didn't find it.

 

I partly agree with this, I believe that if the post is around > 15 days old the user will get banned if they receive the infraction for that post then it should not be give.

 

Yah, I could see someone looking up old posts for modscore or vengeance. A 30-60 day period may not be a bad idea.

 

People have tried this on me more times than I can count, although I've never gotten an infraction for that.

The way I see it that person still broke a rule (i.e. spamming) no matter when it was the post was made. I agree doing it after a year or something is pretty silly, though. Maybe something like 6 months or something would be better, although not everyone always checks the date on posts.

 

No support as well, honestly if you are posting something that is breaking the rules it doesn't matter when you broke the rules bottom line is you broke the rules and I am saying you as a general term.

 

Lets just close this cus we are gonna agree to disagree, the posts were made. So they should be punished if someone notices it at a later time.

Just like someone saying "thanks" "added" then it's reported a week later. They should be punished, they know it's spam.

So Denied.