Regarding bans

[Russt]

When it comes to things of little importance or general interest you're open but look, 50% of the suggestions forum is locked.

Not only is this an exaggeration, most locked suggestion threads are resolved (or decidedly unresolvable) issues.

[Eos]

If I punch someone for no reason I'm going to be charged. If I punch someone who's attacking me I'm going to get a break.

Self defense only works if your life was in danger, or you can legitimately claim to have felt it was. You're perfectly safe from cyber-flames, so firing back is never truly a defensive tactic, it's trying to out-offensive the other side until they back down.

[IsaacGS]

You're right that it shouldn't be about your feelings for the member but that's not what I meant at all. It should be entirely based on circumstance, not feelings. If I punch someone for no reason I'm going to be charged. If I punch someone who's attacking me I'm going to get a break. Not all punchs should be treated the same. In this case I verbally attacked someone who had (imo) provoked me for several days beforehand, and in any justice system that would be taken into account when dealing out the punishment. That may make more work for the moderation team but that's your job. Everything isn't black and white. As a moderator you should be willing to do some investigation. The job is a responsibility.

On this respect, there are already situations where I do take this into account. For example, the vast majority of the time, if someone had previously no infractions, especially if they're a new user, and they have done something wrong, then I'll give them a warning first, prompting them to review the rules so that they can avoid receiving a full infraction in the future. This is pretty much the only case where I can reasonably take the circumstances of the situation into account. It's too much to ask that we review the entire post history of everyone in the dispute before dealing out any infractions. By the time such a thorough investigation were finished, people would be complaining about receiving infractions about posts they made weeks into the past. I see your point but I just don't think it's a reasonable expectation. In your example there, the proper thing to do would probably have been to report the thread, or at least mention it to one of the mods so that they could look over the thread or that person as a whole. Almost everyone's going to believe their trolling accusation is accurate, so they'd all feel as fully justified to post it as you did. That just puts us back at square one, with "troll" being thrown around like crazy. Hell, if you really wanted to, you could put together a pile of evidence of why this person is a troll and include it with your report. Bottom line is, no matter how sure you are, it's against the rules to call someone a troll.

[Sarah]

Self defense only works if your life was in danger, or you can legitimately claim to have felt it was. You're perfectly safe from cyber-flames, so firing back is never truly a defensive tactic, it's trying to out-offensive the other side until they back down.

...that's not the point. Your punishment for punching someone would be invariably worse if you're the aggressor. The law may be that "your life must be in danger" but most sensible judges won't put you away if you were only defending yourself (judge judy being one of the exceptions, haha. (Also punishment would be completely circumstantial. Of course you'd probably end up with a lawsuit if you busted someones tooth or something in retaliation.)) And I never claimed that "firing-back" was defensive, but it was the result of repeated aggravation, just as it would be if someone snapped at you in real life for being obnoxious. Being annoyed at someone and saying something as mild as "you're dumb" shouldn't be weighed the same as a malicious attack.

edit:

On this respect, there are already situations where I do take this into account. For example, the vast majority of the time, if someone had previously no infractions, especially if they're a new user, and they have done something wrong, then I'll give them a warning first, prompting them to review the rules so that they can avoid receiving a full infraction in the future. This is pretty much the only case where I can reasonably take the circumstances of the situation into account. It's too much to ask that we review the entire post history of everyone in the dispute before dealing out any infractions. By the time such a thorough investigation were finished, people would be complaining about receiving infractions about posts they made weeks into the past. I see your point but I just don't think it's a reasonable expectation. In your example there, the proper thing to do would probably have been to report the thread, or at least mention it to one of the mods so that they could look over the thread or that person as a whole. Almost everyone's going to believe their trolling accusation is accurate, so they'd all feel as fully justified to post it as you did. That just puts us back at square one, with "troll" being thrown around like crazy. Hell, if you really wanted to, you could put together a pile of evidence of why this person is a troll and include it with your report. Bottom line is, no matter how sure you are, it's against the rules to call someone a troll.

For the record I actually did do this on IRC and Fiel completely dismissed it.

And as a moderator/admin it's your job to be paying attention to the users. Some users will slip under your radar, of course, but that's why there's a TEAM. You shouldn't have to review anyone's entire history but you should be able to put two and two together just from general posting habits. Even as a regular member I could sum up most other members and what their intentions are when posting because it's usually very obvious. If I say I'm against improperly calling people trolls and argue about it countless times, when the time comes that I actually call someone a troll that should be taken into account. The trolling accusation rule should be a deterrent from using the word all of the time like what was happening, not from using the word when appropriate.

[Eos]

...that's not the point. Your punishment for punching someone would be invariably worse if you're the aggressor. The law may be that "your life must be in danger" but most sensible judges won't put you away if you were only defending yourself (judge judy being one of the exceptions, haha. (Also punishment would be completely circumstantial. Of course you'd probably end up with a lawsuit if you busted someones tooth or something in retaliation.)) And I never claimed that "firing-back" was defensive, but it was the result of repeated aggravation, just as it would be if someone snapped at you in real life for being obnoxious. Being annoyed at someone and saying something as mild as "you're dumb" shouldn't be weighed the same as a malicious attack.

I think you missed the point that the situations themselves are just not comparable. Being jumped in an alley is nothing at all like an online argument with someone. There's no need to swing at all, so anyone swinging is equally guilty and equally the aggressor. "He provoked me" isn't applicable when you have ample time to think before you react and know the consequences.

For the record I actually did do this on IRC and Fiel completely dismissed it.

Report feature = More mods to see, better chance of one of them caring and/or having time to look.

[Fiel]

Yes, you did do that on IRC, and then you left immediately. I couldn't even talk with you.

For the record, what Swerve wanted was not a good idea. He wanted a democratic system for bannings, and as with Flugzeug, democratic infraction systems don't work on a forum as there's too much bickering. So yes, he wanted a change to the moderation system, but definitely not the changes that I put in place. You're grasping at straws here and painting me to look like something I'm not and that bothers me.

But it's a real shame that you think it's okay for your members to feel like they can't speak their mind. That's the message I'm getting from the end of that paragraph. Don't push the issue to me sounds like don't be yourself. I don't push any single issue on the forums, all of my warnings have been single instances. So I don't see any other way that I should take that.

Definitely a straw man here. You're building up this argument about what I said ("don't be yourself", which isn't even close to what I said) and then attacking it. What I'm saying is that if you don't want to be banned, don't create situations where you could be banned. Simple as that.

[Sarah]

Yes, you did do that on IRC, and then you left immediately. I couldn't even talk with you..

I was referring to my "trolling accusation" point. I didn't want to contend the ban.

[Kalovale]

As well demonstrated on page 1, you can get your points across without kicking up dust here and there just fine. I think it's not about whether or not to address your opinions if they prove to be offensive, but the way you address them. While it is a matter of individual personalities to decide how rigorous/reserved one tends to be, not breaching the borderlines of "attacking other users" doesn't in anyway limit you from what you can potentially say, or what you will eventually say.

"You're an idiot.." and "I don't think that is very wise of you.." convey the same message, one nets you possible satisfaction plus an additional infraction point, the other does neither, and not everyone takes pleasure from attacking other people. I see more harm than good in being overly critical. You have time to think, think.

If you don't think the latter statement does justice to your intention behind the post, you're most likely trying to attack and spite the person just because, and that attitude alone deserves an infraction.

[Blaine]

If you can argue without insulting people, Sarah, do it. There's no reason to insult someone on a forum, of all places.

I think the way this forum is run is brilliant. There's got to be something good going on in the mod forum, because there's no hate bannings, (I know there has to be at least one mod that fairly heavily dislikes at least one member of this forum), and you have 7, seven, SEVEN points before you get a ten day ban, then you're given a whole new chance. Start over! You get to accumulate SEVEN more points, before you're totally banned. I remember when this kid was being foolish around the Warrior forum and a bit in the old General Maple forum, and I thought I fairly well torched his ass, and I thought I'd get infracted for it..but no, I only got a warning. After that I thought to myself, "What the pineapple are these guys doing to get banned left and right? It isn't that hard to stay within the lines here."

About the insulting thing...a bit of swearing inside

I'm gonna bypass the swear filter in here, look away if you don't want at least a mild amount of cussing.

Is there really a need to insult someone? If some random prick over Xbox Live said something to me or Berzerk like "You're a cock sucking piece of shit," are we going to care? No. Because it's some random that has no connection to our life, and an insult from such a person is nearly worthless. Doubly so for something like being called a dumbass on a Maplestory forum. The only reasons for insulting someone are:

a) You can't be bothered to think of something better.

or

b) You don't think they're smart enough to fight with logic.

or

c) You yourself can't think of anything better to say.

or, finally,

d) You know it will get to them.

That last reason is probably the most used one. If you dislike someone and you know they're insecure about...oh..say...them being poor, you're probably going to make poor person jokes at them. The same goes for swearing versus not swearing; if people didn't think anything of the words, they wouldn't really have any meaning and hardly anyone would swear, unless they think it makes them sound cool, which means them assuming that other people think the words mean a lot. If you respect the person enough to give them the opportunity to use logic, then there's no reason to swear or to insult them. I personally don't think Maple is something worth fighting or swearing over...to be honest.

Fiel would never ask us to be anything but ourselves, just to slightly curtail our actions to fit to a pretty loose set of rules. If people weren't allowed to be themselves, would Alloy have Goggles? Fiel have his chinchillas everywhere? I be allowed to post in what some people call blinding red font? ( To you.) Probably not. I've seen a lot of forums that are a lot closer to dictatorship than this one. Fiel, Isaac, Ryan, and the others aren't out of line for suggesting that we adhere to a few rules. They don't want to have to run a veritable mosh pit. If you can't argue a point without bluntly going out and calling someone a dumbass...shoo.

I think the infraction system is fine...it didn't even need to be changed. Common sense is supposed to be the first step, and that should eliminate the need for an infraction system...but apparently that isn't used here...in a lot of cases.

Pornography spoiler!

Hur hur, no pictures, you pervs.

This isn't the place for porn guys...it's a forum mostly centered around a 2D game that's marketed for children under 15. If you're looking for porn, go to Brazzers or RedTube. If you want erotic anime...use 4chan or Sankaku. Come on now...this isn't Southperotica, like Fiel said.

THESE RULES AREN'T THAT HARD TO FOLLOW.

Edit: Sarah...you can only take situational decisions so far. Would it be fair if I wrote out a large string of cuss words directed negatively towards you and had the mods write it off because Isaac and Fiel are two of the best friends I've taken from my tenure on Maple? No. You shouldn't need situational judgement on a forum, and if you're letting someone get to you over time, ignore them, block them so you don't see their stuff, do something about it. If you let someone agitate you in more than one thread, step away for a while. At least find time to come up with a response that won't get you infracted. That's probably a forum discussion's best tool: Time. You have as long as you need to think of a witty comeback that won't get you banned. I'm sure you can think of something that doesn't involve cussing or insults in a few hours, there's no deadline on replying to whatever he/she said.

Think about something before you do it, and if you're even in doubt about whether or not it'll get you infracted, don't do it.

[Bomber]

You claimed to have enabled the private messaging system for banned users, but it doesn't work. If you click private messages it just reloads the infraction page.

As far as everything else goes, I don't really care. I think you're sending the wrong message by saying "go ahead and create another account, you can get away with anything if you're a valued member." I understand this for a permanent ban (re: greg coming back as grog) but if it's a 10 day ban it should be unacceptable. Serve your ban or appeal; if your appeal fails then serve your ban. The people who are accumulating points aren't bad for the site and therefore should never be put on the BoS list, they're just being themselves. But you're almost baiting them into getting BoS/IP'd with this system by encouraging them to immediately come back after a temp ban.

I just served 10 days, I know it's really difficult. 10 days is kind of excessive for someone who's just accumulated points, especially since points last THREE MONTHS. Which, in thinking about it, is also excessive. No one is going to be an angel for three months when they've got 5 - 6 points, and those of us with a penchant for speaking our minds are getting screwed for a quarter of the year, and that's unfair. It's a forum, for god's sake.

And on that note, the whole infraction system is kind of bull. I shouldn't have been banned for what I said. I flamed, I should have been infracted, but what I said was in no way deserving of a ban. I had two points left, I should have been able to slip by with a 1-point infraction for flaming. I could see a two pointer if I was continuously harassing Bomber, but it was an isolated incidence. Rules shouldn't be set in stone, that's a really gross and abusive way to run a community. Everything should be based on circumstances, rules should be a guideline; a reference, not a sentence. Everyone who's a little mean shouldn't immediately be condemned to a ban in their future with certainty. People who push it continuously should, but I was walking on damn eggshells for a month. I had two points left and nothing I said in that post was worth losing both of them.

This is a nice start on a system that needs to be completely rewritten but it's still not good enough, especially if you want a real growing community. People shouldn't live in fear of a heavy-handed moderator giving them ridiculous infractions because it's "the rules." Everything is circumstantial and should be treated as such. I did a lot of reflecting in the last 10 days and I've always known I'm not a great member or role-model by any means, and I'm not passing the blame for the things I've done wrong. But at the same time, the southperry administration is far from perfect so I don't know what you expect from us.

I've got a lot more to say but right now I'm just really flustered. I'm always going to be willing to work with you to make southperry a better place though, and you're always going to need my input. Not just mine, everyone's. I think that gets overlooked a lot.

Ehhh, I got infracted too. I say I deserved it in a sense. But we all share our times.
Just be thankful we don't get perma banned for 7 infactions.
-4 points here, don't be so harsh about it.-
Edit: After reading my ign twice, I already feel dumb.