A possible alternative to tore's proposal for rule change: Trollheart's system

[Trollheart]

First, let me apologise for the need for this thread. I would much rather have discussed this as part of tore's thread but he basically told me it wasn't allowed, that I should begin my own, and so this is what I've done.

I'm not going to pretend I've put the amount of scientific research into this or explored the logic to the depth that he has --- I'm not an engineer, scientist, nor, strictly speaking, human, so my proposal is going to be a lot less polished than his, and more than likely it won't touch on all the points, so I'd be very grateful if you guys could point out anything I've missed, where it falls down, if it's **** (and if so why) and of course ask any questions or make any suggestions you wish to or feel should be.

So, to repeat my original post, tore has accused me --- well, accused is probably too strong a word: he's intimated that I do nothing but complain and find fault with his rules, but come up with none of my own. So I've thought about it and this is what I've come up with. It's based on the infraction system used in football (Disclaimer: when I say football here I'm referring to real football, not the type you Americans wear suits of armour to play! And no, I will not call it soccer!) and works like this:


Note: for those not familiar with the rules of football, it's not simple but I'll simplify it. If someone commits a “foul” (illegal behaviour: this could range from kicking someone to elbowing them in the face, blocking off a player, using your hand to control the ball and so on) they get a Yellow Card. Their name is taken and they are on a warning. If they do the same thing, or something similar again, or the referee finds any reason to warn them again, he may issue a second Yellow. Two yellows equal one Red Card and the player has to leave the field, can take no further part in the game and is usually out for three games. A “straight Red” can also be issued for very bad behaviour, violent conduct, deliberate attempts to take down a player who is about to score etc. Monkeytennis or Goofle can explain it in more detail if anyone needs more clarification or information.

So, during a game there are many things a player can do to find himself in the referee's notebook but, and this is important, this does not always happen. In order for the game to flow and for people to feel comfortable about making tackles, winning the ball etc there is some leeway, so whereas a bad tackle might be frowned upon, it may not necessarily be punished. When it is, a player is handed a Yellow Card. This means he is on licence; do it again and he's off. Two yellow cards equals one Red, after which the player is dismissed from the field and cannot take part in any more games for usually three matches.

In order that nobody goes mad throwing about Yellow Cards and half the teams are off the field, refs use their judgement. They, or the linesmen at the side, will note if something illegal or unwanted is done, and the player may be warned, or jut get the eye from the ref. He knows he has been spotted, and had better watch himself. After usually one warning, maybe two, or if he does something that cannot be excused, he gets a Yellow. If it's really bad he can get a straight Red, which effects his immediate expulsion from the pitch.

My idea reflects that. Say Member A starts acting up. Mod B can say “stop it, we're watching you” or similar, in the thread, to that member. If he or she does not stop, or does something else, then a Yellow Card is issued. Now, this is issued within the thread, in the open, not by PM, so that all can see it. Everyone now knows that Member A is on probation. If he or she steps out of line again, or fails to heed the warning, he or she gets a Red. This then would probably mean a week's ban.

How does this differ from our current system of infractions? Not that much, but the important part is that it's all done out in the open, where everyone can see, so not only has Member A got the message, and can't say he or she was not warned, but everyone else has seen him or her get it, so any complaining or whining later that it wasn't fair will be greeted with derision. We've all seen him or her ride the limits, be told to stop. We've seen him or her get the Yellow, so there can be no doubt they knew they were on a serious warning. In extreme cases, two Reds could make a Black Card (I think they do this in rugby?) which might then mean a month's ban for really bad or repeated behaviour that flouts the rules.

This may be seen as more work for mods, I don't know, but is it any more work than PMing everyone who needs an infraction? You're in the thread, you see the problem, you can deal with it there and then. It's in the open, there are no closed doors or kangaroo courts, nobody can be accused of having a vendetta against anyone, it's all there to see. In football, Red cards can also be appealed if the person feels they were given it unfairly, and this would be up to the mods to decide (if this system were adopted) but an appeal tribunal could be held, where the mods, in concert maybe with Member A and maybe anyone he or she offended or affected with his or her behaviour, could decide whether it should stand or be rescinded.

Look, I don't know: I'm doing this on the fly. But it seems on its face a fairer and more equitable system. If I go over the top and someone hits me with a Yellow card (even if I think I should not have got that card) and continue in that behaviour and then get a Red, what protest can I raise? And who will support that, seeing what happened? I think it 's better than someone disappearing off the board and everyone wondering where they went, and why they were banned. It also, to return to the football analogy, allows everyone not only to play nice but to play rough if they want, aware they are being watched and not to push it too far. Nobody's afraid to slide in with a tackle, but by the same token everyone knows that an elbow in the face will not be tolerated. This would of course apply to all members, as on the pitch the captain can be as easily carded as a defender, and the player costing seventy million can go just as can the one costing ten. And as in football, if the ref (mod) does not see the infraction then it can be brought to his or her attention by way of reporting. The mod can then investigate and see if the card is merited.

So to recap, it could go like this:

Step 1: Member A is talking to Member B and calls him a ***got
Mod B says "That's not acceptable language. Knock it off."

Step 2: Member A then uses the word again.
Mod B says "I warned you; your're on thin ice buddy" (if he or she wishes to give two warnings: that would be up to the mod. He could if he wanted go on to step 3 immediately after step 1)

Step 3: Member A continues in the same behaviour
Mod B says "Ok mister! That's it! You have a Yellow Card!"
(That could be bolded) If possible, as I said, a Yellow flag or something could then appear on Member A somewhere. I really don't know the logistics of it, if it's easy or hard to do, but surely something could be done? Even a spreadsheet with names on it? I don't know, but something)

Step 4: Member A, now Yellow carded, remains the same as he was.
A mod says: "Another yellow for you and that's a Red. Enjoy your week off."

Problem dealt with, again in view of all participating members within the thread. No behind-the-scenes skullduggery or ulterior motives can be claimed or accused.

If this were to be implemented, I wonder if a yellow card/red card symbol could be added to the member's panel, like their post count, join date etc, just on a temporary basis, until the card has been worked off?


An embyronic idea, certainly, but on the face of it, what do you guys think? Would it work? Have I forgotten anything? Does anyone have questions, want to challenge it? What does tore think? What about the other mods?

I fully expect (though hope I'm wrong) that tore will come in here and sneer at my ideas, saying “What about this?” and “You haven't thought about that!” and “How does this solve the other?” which is fine if he does. I'm open to suggestions, corrections, ideas. I would just rather this did not become a slanging match between us. He refused to let me propose this in his thread, so now I have to make my own.

May the best system win, or, indeed, none!

[Pet_Sounds]

The beauty of this is its simplicity. I also think it's a good compromise between our existing system and the proposed system.

Maybe the Yellow cards and Red cards would work best if they're simply a set number of infractions? That eliminates the need to install a new system.

[Cuthbert]

Interesting.

Let's say someone gets a yellow, when does it expire? Pick up five within a season and it's a one game ban, so when does the MB season end? A week?

Also who is actually the admin on here? Let's say we all agree to a new rule system or whatever, is it actually going to be implemented? I posted a thread a while back with some suggestions and the response was basically, it doesn't matter, admin don't do anything anyway.

I can see the logic behind it, but let's compare two hypothetical examples - if it's made public and Mod A gives two warnings before a yellow and Mod B gives one warning before a yellow, both for similar incidents to two different members, then it's not really consistent or fair modding.

I don't think making it public is a good idea, will just cause more hassle for the mods.

[Carpe Mortem]

I didn't read all that, but I would be honored if you named me your second in command, you over enthused sailor cat.

[Guybrush]

I got some concerns. I'll try and present them in a tidy way.


1. Public rule enforcement is disruptive

Public rule enforcement would be disruptive to the threads they take place in.

The rule enforcing posts are themselves disruptive and isn't any post an invitation for a reply? I can just imagine members starting to discuss their yellow cards in the threads as they get them. I can also imagine other members piling on that discussion.


2. Rule enforcement becomes a part of everyone's life

Moderators handing out warnings, bans and so on in public, isn't this a bit like a police state? It makes rule enforcement a part of the life for everyone, even those who don't break rules.


3. Difficult for mods to stay on top of

How does one moderator know whether or not a member has already been given a yellow card in a different thread? Either mods would have to try and search the forums for other mods punitive posts or they would have to have a system that communicates when a warning or card has been given.

The infractions system we already have in place keeps track of infractions automatically, making your suggestion seem less practical in comparison.


4. How long does a "game" last?

You would probably need to set a rule for how long a yellow card should last. Every time a member warrants a new yellow card, a mod would have to see if he or she has gotten any other yellow cards within that time period. It's just more to stay on top of.

Infractions time out automatically by themselves, so no such hurdle.


Also, just wanna clear this up.

Originally Posted by Trollheart

This may be seen as more work for mods, I don't know, but is it any more work than PMing everyone who needs an infraction?

As a mod, I believe you can choose to infract a post from a dropdown menu attached to the offending post, so it's really rather simple.

edit :

Vegangelica had great feedback to this proposal and my points are basically a rehash of some of the ones she made earlier.

[Key]

I like this idea a lot more. It's simple, and it doesn't require a complete rule restructure.

[Trollheart]

First and foremost, thank you to all who read my proposal, whether you commented or not. I'll try to address your questions and concerns now, in the order they were posted.

Originally Posted by monkeytennis

Interesting.

Let's say someone gets a yellow, when does it expire? Pick up five within a season and it's a one game ban, so when does the MB season end? A week?

I guess that would be up to the mods, but I'm thinking really only about a day. Maybe that's too short, I don't know. But the time between the first and second card should not really be too long, eg Member A gets a Yellow Card at 6pm Monday. If he/she continues disruptive behaviour, he/she should not be left for more than a few hours before getting a second yellow, and out. Again, that could be decided by the mods. I'm just concerned about people using the system to ride the limits, see how long they can last on one Yellow before a Red is forced. I wouldn't want to see that, though I'm sure it could happen in some cases.

Also who is actually the admin on here? Let's say we all agree to a new rule system or whatever, is it actually going to be implemented? I posted a thread a while back with some suggestions and the response was basically, it doesn't matter, admin don't do anything anyway.

No idea, other than Yac, which is why I would suggest the system being something that could be implemented by ourselves. Stupid idea: could avatars be spray-painted yellow or red, or a yellow/red filter be used when they get infracted?

I can see the logic behind it, but let's compare two hypothetical examples - if it's made public and Mod A gives two warnings before a yellow and Mod B gives one warning before a yellow, both for similar incidents to two different members, then it's not really consistent or fair modding.

This is probably going to happen, as I haven't built in any hard rules about how long misbehaviour (for want of a better term) is allowed go on before a Yellow is handed out. If preferred, a system of two warnings followed by one Yellow or whatever can be implemented? If that were done, then all mods would be expected to follow that system.

I don't think making it public is a good idea, will just cause more hassle for the mods.

I think having it public has to be at the heart of the system, as it's the ony way to guarantee true transparency and remove the possibility of someone thinking/claiming they have been mistreated or picked on. A hypothetical situation of my own: Member A and Member B are fighting (they are always at it, those two, aren't they?) and Member A says "**** you you're a ****" while Member B says "Shut up you. You don't know me." Member A, if he/she persists in this behaviour, gets warnings then a Yellow and then a Red, whereas Member B, who does not rise to it, gets nothing, or maybe a warning for not letting it drop. Now, later, Member A starts bitching in a thread that he or she was treated unfairly. But everyone has seen what has happened, and there is no case to answer. Now, were that to happen "behind the scenes", as it were, nobody could be sure he/she was not being singled out.

Originally Posted by Carpe Mortem

I didn't read all that, but I would be honored if you named me your second in command, you over enthused sailor cat.

I'm not in command of anything, honey, but you can certainly be my S-i-C if you want!

Originally Posted by tore

I got some concerns. I'll try and present them in a tidy way.


1. Public rule enforcement is disruptive

Public rule enforcement would be disruptive to the threads they take place in.

Only if there's a lot of enforcement needed. Your average thread does not tend to have too many people getting out of hand. One warning, a single Yellow maybe might be all that was needed AND it might calm the thread down, rather than the reverse. I'm not saying it would, but it might.

The rule enforcing posts are themselves disruptive and isn't any post an invitation for a reply? I can just imagine members starting to discuss their yellow cards in the threads as they get them. I can also imagine other members piling on that discussion.

Not sure what you're getting at here. To my mind, if people want to start discussing who got what and why then that's fine; it's all discussion and anyway it might end up promoting more awareness that certain things are not allowed and will be enforced if necessary.

2. Rule enforcement becomes a part of everyone's life

Moderators handing out warnings, bans and so on in public, isn't this a bit like a police state? It makes rule enforcement a part of the life for everyone, even those who don't break rules.

No. I certainly don't agree. If you see a cop handing out a speeding ticket to the guy in front of you, what is your reaction? Do you start to think about what speed you were going at, think "Thank God it's not me" or "What a ****ing police state!"? It's all in the perception. I believe the demonstration of proper, fair and transparent infractions makes for a fairer place. A police state would be where people vanish without trace, warning or reason, which in a way is how the current system could be described. Member A is no longer around. Someone posts a thread, where is Member A? and they're either told, are ignored, or someone else mentions what they think happened. This way, there is no ambiguity or mystery. That's how I see it anyway.

3. Difficult for mods to stay on top of

How does one moderator know whether or not a member has already been given a yellow card in a different thread? Either mods would have to try and search the forums for other mods punitive posts or they would have to have a system that communicates when a warning or card has been given.

I was thinking about this, and I think if necessary a database could be compiled, or even a separate thread where members' names are shown against their infractions? As I say, it's not perfect and there are probably holes in it, but if the "colour-coding" thing could be achieved, that would show at a glance, literally, who was already infracted.

The infractions system we already have in place keeps track of infractions automatically, making your suggestion seem less practical in comparison.

Maybe, I don't know. Much of this would be up to the mods, as to how much (if any) extra work which they might have to do is worth implementing this.

4. How long does a "game" last?

You would probably need to set a rule for how long a yellow card should last. Every time a member warrants a new yellow card, a mod would have to see if he or she has gotten any other yellow cards within that time period. It's just more to stay on top of.

Infractions time out automatically by themselves, so no such hurdle.

I think I answered this above. I don't know. But I thought a day for a Yelow to expire? If you don't do anything else in say 24 hours then that Yellow is removed?

Another point about my system is that it can be used to promote better behaviour if say a "Fair Play" award is looked into. That would be some meaningless title or icon or something, awarded to a member who had got no infractions in a month, or six months, or whatever. If people began to work towards that goal, while nobody wants to be the class swot, surely then it would help foster a better atmosphere? Sure, some members want to be disruptive inasmuch as they can get away with it, and be the hard men, flouting the rules, but aren't we all in essence here to enjoy ourselves, and don't we want a smoother ride and a quiet life, more or less?

[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.

[Frownland]

Death to you revolutionaries and your plans for a new order. How about we make a new rule that we make more of these massively long posts about music?

[Trollheart]

Oh I'm with you Brother! I don't think there's any need for change at all. I'm just doing this because some people think there is, and I consider it to be a fairer system than tore's (Well, I would, wouldn't I?)

About to listen to Sylvian....