Forum Rule Changes including Introduction of Infraction System

[Adamc]

Post reported. Frivolous reporting of posts.

Post reported. Repetitive posting.

 

[Craig]

Yeah you did. You got banned too.

It was an impostor.

 

[Flem274*]

It was an impostor.

Who could it have possibly been?

 

[Spark]

From what I've seen the worst bits haven't come from banter at all, but rather from snarky comments back-and-forth debating some small issue that people have wildly varying but well-set views on. RE: the whole "is Hughes/Bell a cheat" debate.

 

[Spikey]

we can still talk about kallisball right

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

Disappointed that my suggested permaban for not joining CW Tennis wasn't introduced.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Personally I'd be quite disappointed to see the banter begin to disappear in cricket chat. Some of my fondest memories of this forum are two members having a friendly crack at one another.

.

?

 

[silentstriker]

If people's definition of banter is calling someone a **** all the time, I say lift your game CW.

In my experience, most banter isn't like that anyway, so this is much ado about nothing personally.

I've been guilty of using **** too much as well, and it's something all of us have to curtail.

 

[Fusion]

If people's definition of banter is calling someone a **** all the time, I say lift your game CW.

In my experience, most banter isn't like that anyway, so this is much ado about nothing personally.

I've been guilty of using **** too much as well, and it's something all of us have to curtail.

AWTA. We're certainly not saying that banter can't exist, just that it's inappropriate to do it with abusive language.

 

[Shri]

If people's definition of banter is calling someone a **** all the time, I say lift your game CW.

In my experience, most banter isn't like that anyway, so this is much ado about nothing personally.

I've been guilty of using **** too much as well, and it's something all of us have to curtail.

Won't call you a **** as long as bull penis jokes are allowed. Promise.

 

[silentstriker]

They're allowed, I just find it hilarious that people think it's that weird. Less disgusting than what's in most hot dogs.

 

[Shri]

Bullocks.

 

[Jarquis]

Like the suggestion tbf.
If anything I think the 6 week period for infractions should be longer.

 

[fredfertang]

Not convinced about codifying moderation rules in this way. At the end of the day CW doesn't need to be a democracy, and if you're setting up a large number of closely defined offences such as are set out in the OP you really ought to go on and have a formal appeal structure and some sort of "tribunal" to decide difficult cases.

I appreciate its tricky anyway, and I personally have had strong views on some recent bans, which I've expanded on in the staff forum (for the avoidance of doubt staff have nowt to do with moderating and no more access/input to what they do than any other member), but the way I look at is that at the end of the day its James' site, and as far as I'm concerned he and who ever he appoints to be a mod can do whatever they like - if I don't like it I can always do the other thing.

I think its laudable that this is suggested, and the fact that the mods want to be seen to be even handed just goes to demonstrate that that is what they strive to do anyway - have to say though guys that imo if you go down this route you'll just be creating a rod for your own backs.

 

[silentstriker]

I think infractions are a good move and personally don't see it as a crackdown. I don't think I'd have found myself banned last summer if we'd had a points system and can think of other similar instances in the past. I remember sledger getting a 6-month ban in December 08. A lot of us thought it was way overboard as the thread he created was just a joke. If infractions had been in place, his offence wouldn't have got him enough points for even a 7-dayer I'd have thought BUT had he already had x amount of points he might not have bothered to make that thread (this is sledger we're talking about though, so you can't be sure). As such, it benefits both sides as far as I can see.

I agree that a level of consistency has to apply, if that means I can't call Burgey a **** out of the blue then so be it but I would imagine there is still room for playful digs etc. I mean if I found myself infracted for calling Australia a joke country or something, that would be a bit sad, IMO, unless I just decided to start a thread saying it. If that makes sense?

Good move, anyway.

That's exactly right - one of the big reasons this came about is to make sure members don't feel that their bans 'come out of nowhere', or that they were banned for something that others got away with. It's very hard for us mods to keep track of all warnings, official and otherwise, all the infractions, etc considering the time zone. Many times, we don't know if a moderator has warned a member in the past unless they also post in the moderating forum (which for minor warnings, sometimes you don't). At every point, there is a set history of all warnings/infractions that the member is aware of and knows what will lead to a ban....and if the person has issues with an infraction, they can talk to us and we can address it before getting to the point where they are banned.

And it's absolutely right regarding warnings that people may not read in a fast moving thread such as match threads during the Ashes or WC.

 

[Burgey]

No, only yourself and moderators will be able to see your points. So there will not be opportunity for people to look round for people almost at ban-level and bait them.

Bugger.

 

[cpr]

Not convinced about codifying moderation rules in this way. At the end of the day CW doesn't need to be a democracy, and if you're setting up a large number of closely defined offences such as are set out in the OP you really ought to go on and have a formal appeal structure and some sort of "tribunal" to decide difficult cases.

I appreciate its tricky anyway, and I personally have had strong views on some recent bans, which I've expanded on in the staff forum (for the avoidance of doubt staff have nowt to do with moderating and no more access/input to what they do than any other member), but the way I look at is that at the end of the day its James' site, and as far as I'm concerned he and who ever he appoints to be a mod can do whatever they like - if I don't like it I can always do the other thing.

I think its laudable that this is suggested, and the fact that the mods want to be seen to be even handed just goes to demonstrate that that is what they strive to do anyway - have to say though guys that imo if you go down this route you'll just be creating a rod for your own backs.

Fair point well made.


As someone who doesn't venture too much into CC, don't really give a toss how bad its got in there... I'm worried what this will do to OT, where its a much more regular set of posters, who's knowledge and friendship stretches beyond posts on a forum, and in young bloke style, the banter is thick, fast and usually base level insults.

I think if we are trying to make it more 'family friendly', then maybe there needs to be a seperate section for OT at least, only available to those not possessing a frail conscience, either behind a password (available to those who dare) or behind a big BE WARNED sign. Bear in mind anyone who's not old enough to know better cannot sign up without parental input, (thus ruining PEWS pulling chances and gaining me at least 3 points in the process), I don't think it should be made too big an issue in OT of some of these infractions, as its far clearer they are in jest rather than in argument. Sure if someones unhappy at the comments, warn the offender that he's picking on a mardarse, but 3 PPC (points per ****) will leave OT like a Ghost Town

 

[Flem274*]

I think if we are trying to make it more 'family friendly', then maybe there needs to be a seperate section for OT at least, only available to those not possessing a frail conscience, either behind a password (available to those who dare) or behind a big BE WARNED sign. Bear in mind anyone who's not old enough to know better cannot sign up without parental input, (thus ruining PEWS pulling chances and gaining me at least 3 points in the process), I don't think it should be made too big an issue in OT of some of these infractions, as its far clearer they are in jest rather than in argument. Sure if someones unhappy at the comments, warn the offender that he's picking on a mardarse, but 3 PPC (points per ****) will leave OT like a Ghost Town

Suggested something similar to Somerset last night. Problem is CWers have always mingled in the same threads, so having a thread for more rustic members might not catch on.

 

[cpr]

Suggested something similar to Somerset last night. Problem is CWers have always mingled in the same threads, so having a thread for more rustic members might not catch on.

Therein lies the problem with my idea It'll become insular and elitest, as few, if any newer members join in.

I'm for the system outlined by the mods, it has a fair amount of sense behind it, but i feel enforcing it the same way in CC and OT will kill the banter in the latter (probably improve the former a hundred times though)... I may be in the minority who prioritise OT over CC, so i'd just have to accept that.

 

[Furball]

Suggestion - James or anyone else with admin duties should set up a subforum in the mod's forum so that anytime someone's infracted (assuming it's the same system that was there when I was a mod) it creats a thread in that subforum, in the same sort of way the reported post subforum works.