Moderators seem to want more respect and support for their decisions. Perhaps posters on this sitE can help them with suggestions how they can have a better relationship with members of the board they are moderating.
My suggestion is that they not close threads where members disagree with their decisions or threads where members are asking that site rules be changed. This simply produces more anger and ill will.
Also, there are moderators who to my surprise rarely post on the board and have been members only for a short while, Perhaps more interaction with members would be a good idea.
Perhaps others could add ideas and be constructive. It seems that currently the only way to register disapproval or to promote change is to leave the board so their are fewer posters and post. I don't think anyone really wants that. I know I don't .
I'm definitely in favour of that.
My understanding of existing rules are posters are given red card, etc for making posts against the rule. Posters may have been temporary banned as a result and when a poster has an accumulation of 3 red cards, there is ground for a permanent ban.
It is pointed out by other posters that this rule is not fair for posters who have been here for a long time because a poster who has 3 red cards in 10 years will be treated the same as one in here less than 6 months. I suggest an expiration date for a red card. Like demerit points for driver licenses in many governments, the points will expired after a period of time. Please suggest how long a red card should expire.
Under our current system
, the infractions do expire (see the second column):
Offense Expires Maximum
Discriminatory remarks Never 3
Wishing injury Never 3
Wishing death Never 2
Uttering threats Never 2
Multiple accounts Never 2
Harassment Never 3
Violation of privacy Never 3
Bashing Moderators 1 Year 7
Spam (advertising) - 1
Porn/Inappropriate images 1 year 5
Signature rule violation 1 year 7
Editing a mod's changes 1 year 5
Posting for banned member 1 year 5
Personal attack 1 year 10
Inappropriate language 1 year 10
Forum disruptions 1 year 10
Baiting 1 year 10
Trolling 1 year 10
Doping Allegations 1 year 10
Match Fixing Allegations 1 year 10
Only infractions for serious offences, such as wishing death, don't expire.
This means that technically, someone who gets 3 discriminatory remarks infractions could be permanently banned. But in practice the mods have never
banned anyone with such a low number of infractions. Typically, we don't think about banning someone unless they have accumulated at least 15 infractions (in CF's case, he had 15 or 16 in total, including 3 for discriminatory remarks, and 10 for personal attacks).
Infractions that expire are not taken into account for temporary bans. So, if someone has 8 personal attack infractions in one year, but then has no personal attack infractions until 2 years later, the 9th personal attack infraction the person gets will be counted as if it is his or her only personal attack infraction for the purpose of a temporary ban. However, if the person is being considered for a permanent ban, all of his or her infractions, regardless of whether they have expired or not, will be considered.
We chose to do this as a way of acknowledging improvement in the behavior of those who, despite a period of accumulating infractions, eventually show significant improvements in their behavior. It would be unfair to hold them accountable for past behavior that no longer represents the kind of member they are.
On the other hand, the total number of infractions (expired or not) is a good overall assessment of a member to decide a permanent ban, because it shows that, despite occasional periods of good behaviour, they may nevertheless be the type of member that will never change. This was the case for a number of members who would lay low for brief periods but frequently get back to their disruptive ways, for example, as soon as their bans expired. E.g. the former member Orgasmatron is someone like that who comes to mind, and I think SdG, who was permanently banned after 22 infractions, was the same.
That's the current state of the rules, and the logic behind having the current way of temporary and permanent bans.