Trollheart

A point on reputation, and to understand where I'm coming from perhaps it's best if I continue the football analogy. Apologies to those of you who already understand what I'm about to explain, but some certainly do not, and so for their benefit let me tell you about the penalty system in football.

Normally, most or the whole of the team (up to ten players) attack the ball and drive it upfield towards the opponent's goal, where you can have say maybe five or six players attempt to score, or help one another to have an attempt on goal. But when a serious offence is committed, usually a player taking down an opposing player as he is about to shoot, a penalty results. This involves one player (usually the one fouled though not always) facing off against the goalkeeper. Nobody on either team other than these two are allowed move, they must all stand back until the ball has been kicked. All the player has to do is beat the keeper, and given that most if not all keepers tend not to save as you would expect, by catching the ball and holding it, but by batting it away, the potential for other players to score from a rebound (as once the ball has been struck everyone is back in play) is quite high, and often penalties missed are scored on the rebound.

Because this is the optimal way to score, or at least the easiest, with only one player to beat, penalties are desirable and often “played for”, which is to say, a player may encourage another to trip him up, he may fall against him or he may just try to fool the ref by falling over when a player from the opposing team is near him. This is called “diving”, though nowadays they prefer “simulation”. Whatever, it's frowned upon.

What does all this have to do with my system? I'm glad you asked. You didn't ask? Well, I'll explain it anyway. Because certain players are more, shall we say, prone to diving, they are watched more closely in incidents of this nature. In many cases, a penalty that would have been awarded to Player A is not awarded to Player B, because Player B is known for this sort of thing. It doesn't matter if he wasn't diving: his reputation precedes him and the ref decides he probably was.

In the same way, my system, if implemented, would “watch” suspect members, ie those who consistently flouted the rules, and who collected Yellow Cards on a more consistent basis than others, so that they would be more likely, by their own behavioural patterns, to incur the wrath of the mods than would, say, someone who never steps out of line. The upshot of this, while seeming unfair in one way, but is very fair another, is that the member who is “good” gets the benefit of the doubt if they transgress, whereas the one who constantly gets into trouble is looked upon less favourably. So, an example would be good, you say? You don't say? Well here's one anyway.

Member A (yes, him again: the troublemaker) posts a string of annoying, insulting messages directed at Member D. Member D is known to be quiet, calm and never gets involved in drama. She is a calming influence in most arguments and tries to talk her way out of any potential drama. But now Member D has had it with Member A, and after repeated insults (for which Member A has received, but ignored, warnings) she loses it and calls him a ****. While Member D has broken the rules, and should technically receive a warning at least, her previous good behaviour counts, and her reputation saves her. Mod A says “She's never done that before” and notes the provocation. Member A is Yellow or Red-carded, Member D is not. While that seems unfair, it's fairer than just tarring the two with the one brush, especially when Mod A can see that Member D has been more or less forced into exploding, after numerous attempts not to lose her cool.

Also, if Member C is on a Yellow and Member D, who is usually well-behaved, niggles him into making another smart remark which will get him a Red, Member E should get at least a Yellow if not a Red, depending on the seriousness of the jibe. Forcing another member into committing a breach of the rules is already enshrined in our own rules as unacceptable, and it would be the same in my system. In this case reputation may not really be recognised or used as an excuse, as this is a blatant attempt to get someone banned while trying to play the “good guy/girl” card, and that should cut no ice. Nobody should be needled, tricked, forced or trapped into making the final move that results in their receiving a ban.

__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018