By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
mjk45 on 06 February 2019
CGI-Quality said:
📣 *NEW POLL*


Question — Should mild infractions from years past be considered for removal?

This is something I asked the mod team a few months ago, but now I'd like to hear from you! Should we consider old infractions, such as Sig Length, mild Flaming/Trolling, or Spamming for removal if the user has improved? Why would it work? Why wouldn't it? 

Only if the line is clear and concise I, would start by removing warnings where there hasn't been any more infractions since they were warned. When it comes to bans my take on it would be link it to good behaviour so that the longer the time from your last ban the further back your bans get removed , now I know this is harder to implement than what's been mooted, I would also like to see a system where extra time is added for each consecutive ban .



Research shows Video games  help make you smarter, so why am I an idiot

Around the Network
zorg1000 on 06 February 2019
CGI-Quality said:

Should moderations be expunged?

I think so. Obviously depends on the severity of the moderations, how long ago they happened and users recent behavior



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

Moren on 06 February 2019

Removing as in deleting from the mod history?

I like my old moderations there because they remind me of what kind of user I was and remind me of the old days.



potato_hamster on 06 February 2019

I don't see the point. If you're considering the age of the moderation and the user's current actions as a moderation team, you're already effectively expunging old poor behavior from current moderation decisions, aren't you?



potato_hamster on 06 February 2019
CGI-Quality said:
potato_hamster said:
I don't see the point. If you're considering the age of the moderation and the user's current actions as a moderation team, you're already effectively expunging old poor behavior from current moderation decisions, aren't you?

 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. 



Around the Network
AngryLittleAlchemist on 06 February 2019
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. 



potato_hamster on 06 February 2019
CGI-Quality said:
potato_hamster said:

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 think you misunderstood, although we've always considered moderation history. What it doesn't mean, however, is that a 10-year-old moderation automatically guarantees you'll be moderated in the current time for the same thing. That is the point of the Progressive System. Should someone go moderation free (or specific moderation free) for an extended amount of time, said user won't have to follow the Progressive System. However, if you did something in June, and then in September, and then again in December, we would follow the Progressive.

And lots of posters have improved their behavior over time. The only folks who have seen continuous issue are those who have chosen not to improve, despite moderators working with them, offering light bans/Warnings and, since I joined, pushed for a PM system before tainting a clean user's history. Measures are in place to ensure abuse of the system doesn't happen (and, if it does, you'd send that issue over to myself or Ryuu96). What a user chooses to do with those things on the table is entirely up to them. 

Regarding the poll, the idea would be to expunge very old and/or light moderations. This would not include discrimination, abuse of staff, threats, or Alternate ID extended bans.

my apologies fir the misunderstanding.



kirby007 on 06 February 2019

No thank you, im still sad that the mod history before 2008 got cleared



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.

vivster on 06 February 2019

It's not like old infractions have been taken into account for bans anyway. So I don't see the benefit of taking away useful information from mods.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Kerotan on 06 February 2019

Rol won't be happy. Didn't he make a thread once celebrating hitting a certain milestone? I don't think he'd be too pleased if most of those get removed.