New Suspension System

New Suspension System

Postby Real Deal on Thu Oct 26, 2006 4:40 am

Alright...time to discuss our new suspension system here at Clublakers.

As I went through all of the posts in the "How to improve Lakers Discussion" thread, I ran across a few asking about the staff handing out suspensions. Well, unfortunately, we don't have a built-in mod to do this, on the board or in the admin control panel.

However, that won't keep us from creating a system.

Simply put, it's a six-warning system. Think of it as six fouls. For your first three warnings (fouls), you'll be handed a suspension. It's like being benched after your third foul. Most all suspensions are 7 days. After your suspension is up, you'll be "unbanned" and allowed access to the board once again. Three more warnings, which will add up to six total, and you're slapped with a permanent ban (or, if your Danny Fortson, you're EJECTED). Applying it to the game of basketball isn't just fun, but all of you will remember the number, so there will be no confusion.

You may ask, "Six warnings is a lot...right?" Yes, it is. Fortunately, we are going to step up our game a bit, and warn more often. A handful will hate this, but most should love it, because it will quickly make an impact not only by eliminating the problem, but by making the entire community aware of the consequences.

With that said, warnings will be given out for the following:
  • Personal attacks. Calling someone a loser is a personal attack. If you tell someone to "stop being dumb," we consider this a borderline personal attack, and depending on the severity of that member's response, we'll deal with it accordingly.
  • Baiting. Nobody is allowed to post anything that intentionally stirs up a fan's emotions. This does not only include non-Laker fans, either; baiting a Kings fan who registers to discuss topics here is still against the guidelines.
  • Inappropriate behavior/posting. Obviously, if you're making unnecessary posts and doing it frequently, a staff member will stop you in your tracks. It's okay to have fun in the forums, but don't go overboard.
  • No response to sig guidelines. Remember, we know when you're active, and we know when the PM's are read. If your sig is too large, or inappropriate, and we ask you to remove it, it's best to just comply and move on.
  • Any other instances of breaking the guidelines. This includes file sharing, post-padding in discussion threads, etc.

Keep in mind that the suspension system is tossed out the window in certain instances, such as posting an inappropriate picture, making severe, derogatory remarks (ex. racial slurs, malicious threats), and spamming (please look this word up if you don't know what it really means). In most cases, these are like Flagrant 2 fouls. In other words, you're ejected from the board.

The staff will keep track of all warnings. Two selected from the staff will keep these warnings on their own computers, to avoid losing them to a server crash, if we were to track them publically. For each warning given out, your post will be edited with the moderator warning in green, then quoted in the thread, so it is clearly visible not only to you, but to everyone. There will be no PM's sent out for personal attacks or baiting. The reason for this is because we figure that, if you're going to resort to those in a thread, you're going to come back and see your warning. If not, you should still know the rules.

I'll be happy to answer any questions about the system in this thread.
Last edited by Real Deal on Wed Jan 24, 2007 3:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
Real Deal

 

Postby strikemode14 on Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:17 am

Personally would like it to be less then 6 warnings. There are some people that it's obvious that they aren't going to do right.

and I had question about this part

Inappropriate behavior/posting. Obviously, if you're making unnecessary posts and doing it frequently, a staff member will stop you in your tracks. It's okay to have fun in the forums, but don't go overboard.

Does that include making unnecssary topics. Like doing the same type of topic over and over and over again.
Strikemode14 is the greatest.

http://gprime.net/flash.php/postingandyou


]
User avatar
strikemode14
Forum Manager
 
Posts: 22101
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 5:04 pm
Location: savannah

Postby Real Deal on Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:23 am

strikemode14 wrote:Inappropriate behavior/posting. Obviously, if you're making unnecessary posts and doing it frequently, a staff member will stop you in your tracks. It's okay to have fun in the forums, but don't go overboard.

Does that include making unnecssary topics. Like doing the same type of topic over and over and over again.

Definitely. If we close one or two topics, then notice the member is making a game of it, they'll begin to receive warnings.

It's tough to really determine if this is happening, though. For instance, if a member posts negatives about Smush Parker in November, then goes back in December and makes the topic, then in January...we'll give him the warning. A great example of this would be kwamemvp's numerous efforts to slam certain players. Eventually, the entire community will catch on, and we will handle the situation as we see fit.

EDIT - not sure what happened to the second half of my post, haha...

However, if a member is posting a ton of Kwame Brown topics that are almost all directed at his play, we'll go in and let him know about it, without an official warning. If it continues, then we begin to count em up.
Real Deal

 

Postby GuRu on Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:31 am

A step in the right direction.....

Who decides when a warning is given out? One moderator, or is it a collective process? Its a pretty powerful position/decision that I think should be collectively decided on borderline decisions.

I know for a fact that there are staff members that dislike certain members and will be looking to hand out "warnings". How do I know this? Because I was a staff member at one time, and some moderators came flat out and said they didnt like certain members and would like to see them banned, but it just want possible.

My biggest fear, while I LOVE the idea of a suspension system, is that its impossible to be fair in the process. Sanctions will be missed or intentionally skipped over, guidelines will be different for some, ect.......Sure the members can help out point violations, but who wants to be the member to go and tattle on other members?
Win the Pacific. Win the West. Win a Ring
User avatar
GuRu
Better Than You
 
Posts: 30127
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 11:21 pm
Location: Michigan

Postby Real Deal on Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:56 am

GuRu wrote:Who decides when a warning is given out? One moderator, or is it a collective process? Its a pretty powerful position/decision that I think should be collectively decided on borderline decisions.

When a moderator spots a guideline being broken, the warning is handed out immediately. There's no time to go talk to anyone else on staff about it; that allows for the problem to grow. Each will make these judgements to the best of their abilities.

GuRu wrote:I know for a fact that there are staff members that dislike certain members and will be looking to hand out "warnings". How do I know this? Because I was a staff member at one time, and some moderators came flat out and said they didnt like certain members and would like to see them banned, but it just want possible.

If anyone is worried about that, they shouldn't break the rules, period.

GuRu wrote:My biggest fear, while I LOVE the idea of a suspension system, is that its impossible to be fair in the process. Sanctions will be missed or intentionally skipped over, guidelines will be different for some, ect.......Sure the members can help out point violations, but who wants to be the member to go and tattle on other members?

That's why I'll personally go in and revise the guidelines once more, to make it crystal clear what's allowed and what's not, while further defining personal attacks, baiting, spamming, etc.
Real Deal

 

Postby GuRu on Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:05 am

Sounds good.

The only problem i see is the lack of a fail safe. Who will "police the police" so to speak?
Win the Pacific. Win the West. Win a Ring
User avatar
GuRu
Better Than You
 
Posts: 30127
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 11:21 pm
Location: Michigan

Postby Real Deal on Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:12 am

GuRu wrote:Sounds good.

The only problem i see is the lack of a fail safe. Who will "police the police" so to speak?

The obvious answer would be BDG and JSM, but I've personally asked the entire staff to let me propose all of this, and to work with them all so they can apply it and turn negatives into positives. They've given me the green light, so I'm going to take some time away from my board to fix things here.
Real Deal

 

Postby crucifixion on Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:25 am

Real Deal wrote:When a moderator spots a guideline being broken, the warning is handed out immediately. There's no time to go talk to anyone else on staff about it; that allows for the problem to grow. Each will make these judgements to the best of their abilities.


Does a mod review every thread? There is a particular poster that has personally attacked me in two threads, and I just let it be since I figured the mods would give out a warning, yet I have not seen anything.

I hate to be a "snitch" but how long do I wait before I PM a mod and request them to take action?
Odom Light: Less filling, Wastes great
User avatar
crucifixion

 
Posts: 4051
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2005 1:39 am
Location: Posting at CL from my phone while at Staples

Postby c.Lin on Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:44 am

Great. I love the idea. I actually preached something along these lines maybe a year and a half ago.

Hopefully this will help to clean up the boards some. :jam2:
User avatar
c.Lin

 
Posts: 5249
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 2:01 pm
Location: South Bay

Postby Real Deal on Thu Oct 26, 2006 11:05 am

crucifixion wrote:
Real Deal wrote:When a moderator spots a guideline being broken, the warning is handed out immediately. There's no time to go talk to anyone else on staff about it; that allows for the problem to grow. Each will make these judgements to the best of their abilities.


Does a mod review every thread? There is a particular poster that has personally attacked me in two threads, and I just let it be since I figured the mods would give out a warning, yet I have not seen anything.

I hate to be a "snitch" but how long do I wait before I PM a mod and request them to take action?

Well, we try to review every thread, but if nothing is done about a personal attack, then definitely shoot one of us a PM, whenever you want. You don't have to wait, either.
Real Deal

 

Postby strikemode14 on Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:21 pm

I would like to add an appeal process for certain cases. If a situation occurs like Guru indicated that a mod was pushing with a warning becuase of dislike I would like it to be able to appeal it some how.
Strikemode14 is the greatest.

http://gprime.net/flash.php/postingandyou


]
User avatar
strikemode14
Forum Manager
 
Posts: 22101
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 5:04 pm
Location: savannah

Postby Vasashi17 on Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:38 pm

strikemode14 wrote:I would like to add an appeal process for certain cases. If a situation occurs like Guru indicated that a mod was pushing with a warning becuase of dislike I would like it to be able to appeal it some how.


An appeal....yeah right!

If a mod doesn't like you, its cause you deserve it.

Make an appeal with yourself on changing your approach, cause if you have it bad with a mod, you're f'd.

:man9:

Kidding of course.....

...or am I? :man12:
Image
User avatar
Vasashi17
CL Global Moderator
 
Posts: 13028
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2003 11:38 am
Location: Anywhere Purple & Gold

Postby Satan on Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:44 pm

Come one now, we all know mods never let their personal feelings effect their actions!
Peter - "But then Jesus, what religion should our family be?"
Jesus - "Six of one, they're all complete crap."
User avatar
Satan

 
Posts: 20768
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 4:23 pm
Location: Fist in the air in the land of hypocricy.

Postby TXLAKERFAN on Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:54 pm

Good idea as long as its not abused. I like the process, six is a bit much though.
<a><img></a>
Image
User avatar
TXLAKERFAN

 
Posts: 10760
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 8:20 am
Location: Houston, TX

Postby Real Deal on Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:40 pm

There's no reason for what's happening right now, as far as this discussion about moderating with bias goes. You guys are wanting things done, correct? Well, that's what's happening. There are two options: the system is accepted, or it's taken off the table. New members, vets, whatever...six warnings will result in a ban, and there's nothing left to discuss. Plus, six is a small number compared to how many times certain members have gotten away with things.

The staff can completely ignore the system as well. We can ban at four warnings. We can ban at two. It all depends on how severe the problem is. In that case, the staff will actually discuss the possibility of a ban, and if all are in favor, then it's done. Otherwise, the system will be in effect, and six warnings will be an automatic ban.
Real Deal

 

Postby Helljumper on Thu Oct 26, 2006 4:18 pm

So what if its a "personal attack" but its a joke. For example, Member 1 calls Member 2 a loser. Member 2 responds with this: :man10: and doesn't take it offensively.

Does that still merrit a warning?
Image
User avatar
Helljumper

 
Posts: 14870
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 4:40 pm
Location: Riverside, CA

Postby Real Deal on Thu Oct 26, 2006 4:29 pm

Helljumper wrote:So what if its a "personal attack" but its a joke. For example, Member 1 calls Member 2 a loser. Member 2 responds with this: :man10: and doesn't take it offensively.

Does that still merrit a warning?

We'll know the difference. It won't be hard to tell between the two.
Real Deal

 

Postby strikemode14 on Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:13 pm

Vasashi17 wrote:
strikemode14 wrote:I would like to add an appeal process for certain cases. If a situation occurs like Guru indicated that a mod was pushing with a warning becuase of dislike I would like it to be able to appeal it some how.


An appeal....yeah right!

If a mod doesn't like you, its cause you deserve it.

Make an appeal with yourself on changing your approach, cause if you have it bad with a mod, you're f'd.

:man9:

Kidding of course.....

...or am I? :man12:


Oh I wouldn't need to ever appeal...


Bribes work much better. :man9: Whoops did I say that out loud. :man10:
Strikemode14 is the greatest.

http://gprime.net/flash.php/postingandyou


]
User avatar
strikemode14
Forum Manager
 
Posts: 22101
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 5:04 pm
Location: savannah

Postby Bballgirl85 on Thu Oct 26, 2006 8:30 pm

GuRu wrote:A step in the right direction.....

Who decides when a warning is given out? One moderator, or is it a collective process? Its a pretty powerful position/decision that I think should be collectively decided on borderline decisions.

I know for a fact that there are staff members that dislike certain members and will be looking to hand out "warnings". How do I know this? Because I was a staff member at one time, and some moderators came flat out and said they didnt like certain members and would like to see them banned, but it just want possible.

My biggest fear, while I LOVE the idea of a suspension system, is that its impossible to be fair in the process. Sanctions will be missed or intentionally skipped over, guidelines will be different for some, ect.......Sure the members can help out point violations, but who wants to be the member to go and tattle on other members?


Exactly my thoughts. Ive seen this numerous time also.

6 is a bit much should be more like 3. However this should def improve everything... Good Job guys...
~Formerly Known As I'm A Queen~

"America is false to the past, false to the present, and solemnly binds herself to be false to the future." Frederick Douglass

"Without justice, there can be no peace. He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it." Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
User avatar
Bballgirl85

 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 8:12 pm
Location: The birthplace of TRUE AND REAL Hip Hop

Postby nicehair911 on Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:19 pm

Bballgirl85 wrote:
GuRu wrote:A step in the right direction.....

Who decides when a warning is given out? One moderator, or is it a collective process? Its a pretty powerful position/decision that I think should be collectively decided on borderline decisions.

I know for a fact that there are staff members that dislike certain members and will be looking to hand out "warnings". How do I know this? Because I was a staff member at one time, and some moderators came flat out and said they didnt like certain members and would like to see them banned, but it just want possible.

My biggest fear, while I LOVE the idea of a suspension system, is that its impossible to be fair in the process. Sanctions will be missed or intentionally skipped over, guidelines will be different for some, ect.......Sure the members can help out point violations, but who wants to be the member to go and tattle on other members?


Exactly my thoughts. Ive seen this numerous time also.

6 is a bit much should be more like 3. However this should def improve everything... Good Job guys...


I can't imagine biasedness having that much of an impact.

In what instance could you name where a mod will give a warning for one poster but not another poster for the exact same post :man3:
User avatar
nicehair911

 
Posts: 12327
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 11:59 pm
Location: Wit so much drama in da LBC it's kinda hard bein Snoop D-O double G

Postby Barnstable on Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:37 am

I think the changes are great, but I would feel better if there was some kind of appeals process in place.

You Mods are human too, and since you have the power to ban someone at any time, it would be nice to know you could be reinstated if you can demonstrate that the perceived offence wasn't as it seemed.

Say a member quotes a running joke in there post but a Mod is unaware of the running joke and bans the member for attacking the other member.

For situations like that, I think it would be appropriate to be able to appeal to a Mod through PM and be able to explain the situation.
User avatar
Barnstable
CL Global Moderator
 
Posts: 14336
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 1:01 pm
Location: Queens NY

Postby Real Deal on Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:42 am

Barnstable wrote:I think the changes are great, but I would feel better if there was some kind of appeals process in place.

You Mods are human too, and since you have the power to ban someone at any time, it would be nice to know you could be reinstated if you can demonstrate that the perceived offence wasn't as it seemed.

Say a member quotes a running joke in there post but a Mod is unaware of the running joke and bans the member for attacking the other member.

For situations like that, I think it would be appropriate to be able to appeal to a Mod through PM and be able to explain the situation.

Moderators don't have the power to ban on a phpBB board. Assuming that you know this, and that I may have misunderstood your post, I'll say this: we will be able to recognize the difference between a joke and a personal attack by the way the other member responds to it. It's why you don't see us editing posts so quickly. With that said, you guys also have time to change your post.

I'll provide an example:

Loser. Just stop posting. :man10:

and

Loser. Just stop posting.

Those are two different things, most of the time. However, for the first post (which is meant to be a joke), if the other member replies and is negative about it, we'll hand out the warning.
Real Deal

 

Postby KB24 on Fri Oct 27, 2006 4:54 am

The point of treating members differently

Do we treat members differently? in one way I think yes.

I do weigh his contribution to the site and that definitely IS a factor in my opinion, vote and decision. For example if a member is here for 3 days and has already flamed 2 members, he will get a final warning without hesitation. Now on the other hand if lets say Sky flames members twice in 3 days (which is unlikely) of course he would not get a final warning, just a simple warning. (just an example)

see the difference?

And I think its ok to treat members individually based on their history on the site. The more you do for the site, the more respect you will recieve
from us and the members.

But the guidelines are the same. What seperates long time / good members from others is my (our) patience IMO. How many times did we try to get Caron1 or Lakerfool on the right track? why? because they had a strong opinion, because they had a good amount of basketball knowledge. But at some point you have to live with the concequences of breaking the guidelines.

With the new system, I think this gets even more fair because now everybody gets the same type of warning and has the same amount of chances.
Image

"It is not how big you are, it is how big you play"
"Basketball doesn't build character. It reveals it"
"Be strong in body, clean in mind, lofty in ideals"
User avatar
KB24
Site Admin
 
Posts: 55547
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 10:56 pm
Location: In Heaven

Postby Helljumper on Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:46 am

So if a member gets a warning, will it actually be a warning or will the suspension start immediately with no notice.

If possible, I think you should PM the person with the warning before the suspension actually starts. Then the suspension is served 15 minutes after the PM is read. If the PM is not read within 24 hours, the suspension starts immediately and if the person has been logged in but decided not to read the PM, their suspension is longer.
Image
User avatar
Helljumper

 
Posts: 14870
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 4:40 pm
Location: Riverside, CA

Postby Real Deal on Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:40 am

Helljumper wrote:So if a member gets a warning, will it actually be a warning or will the suspension start immediately with no notice.

If possible, I think you should PM the person with the warning before the suspension actually starts. Then the suspension is served 15 minutes after the PM is read. If the PM is not read within 24 hours, the suspension starts immediately and if the person has been logged in but decided not to read the PM, their suspension is longer.

There's a huge problem with that: the staff member that sends the PM will have to stay online for 24 hours. Otherwise, we won't know when they'll read the PM, and that gives them a chance to go through and post garbage and try to get other members in trouble while we're offline, knowing that they'll be suspended or banned anyways.

These members who are sitting on two warnings know that if they screw up again, they are suspended. I don't think they deserve a PM, with a chance to complain and time to roam and post whatever they'd like before we find that they were already notified. It's not that it's more work for the mods, it's just that the members who are breaking the rules don't deserve it.
Real Deal

 

Next

Return to Site Rules, Suggestions and Comments

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron
Advertise Here | Privacy Policy | ©2008 Sculu Sports. Come Strong.