potato_hamster said:
CGI-Quality said:
No. As long as we can see them, and current behavior is like it, it's always considered in the decision to/not to/how to moderate.
|
This actually explains a lot.
I find that pretty concerning and disheartening. This is not good at all. You're actually discouraging users from trying to improve their behavior over time,since you, know what's the point of a toxic user turning over a new leaf and acting like a model poster if continuing on with toxic behavior that just barely skirts the rules results in the exact same moderation the next time (if any) they get in moderation trouble?
Then it seems to me that perhaps the easiest and best solution is to start considering such things when moderating. To be frank,I find it a bit surprising that such a common sense approach it isn't a factor already. It really, really should be. Users should be able to redeem themselves, learn from their mistakes, and the mere presence of an entry in a moderation history table shouldn't affect that.
|
I might be wrong but I think that all CGI was saying was that if they see someone barely avoiding the ban system and showcasing the same behavior even long after their last ban, they may still ban them as if they were recently banned prior. Basically, if they act the exact same for a long time and just walk the line until they trip over it - there's still a possibility they'll be banned harshly. I don't think he was implying that the average user doesn't have their last ban date taken into account when moderating. I mean, that's why it's called the "progressive ban system".
At least I think.
