Some ideas for the ban system.

[Mr.Sam]

Firstly this isn't to be viewed as a negative thread, I'm just suggesting some possible changes to the current ban system.

--

The current System
The current ban system is that if you receive xx amount of infractions your cautioned/temp banned/banned.

I think that it should rely on a moderator to judge whether the person deserves a ban, say someone had 5 infractions they would be cautioned (number may be off but this is just an example) and the 5 infractions are from low offences such as double posting I don't think that they should be banned.

--

My Idea
I think that offences should have levels, you would have low level offences such as double posting, medium offences such as avoiding the filter and higher offences such as scamming... and so on.

depending on the level of infractions the user has should decided when the ban is and for how long.

Examples (please note this is just a rough guide, obviously more thought would have to go into this part)

if user a had 1 or 2 infractions for scamming then should receive a perm ban. (high level offences)

if user b had 5+ infractions from double posting they should receive a caution. (low level offences)

if user c was constantly negative to other users this would be classed a a medium offence so they would be temp banned for xx days (the amount depending on how serious it was)

--

This way people who don't have high level offences don't receive the same ban as someone who does have high offences, and the ban type would be more suited to the situation instead of a 'once you hit xx infractions you out'

I know I probably haven't explained my ideas in a easy to understand manor, and it would help if people could comment and suggest improvements which would be easier and more viable.

I also understand that if someone breaks the rules, they break the rules and do deserve some action taken, but I think that the action taken should be more situational than guidelines which bans follow.

[Titch]

Firstly this isn't to be viewed as a negative thread, I'm just suggesting some possible changes to the current ban system.

--

The current System
The current ban system is that if you receive xx amount of infractions your cautioned/temp banned/banned.

I think that it should rely on a moderator to judge whether the person deserves a ban, say someone had 5 infractions they would be cautioned (number may be off but this is just an example) and the 5 infractions are from low offences such as double posting I don't think that they should be banned.

--

My Idea
I think that offences should have levels, you would have low level offences such as double posting, medium offences such as avoiding the filter and higher offences such as scamming... and so on.

depending on the level of infractions the user has should decided when the ban is and for how long.

Examples (please note this is just a rough guide, obviously more thought would have to go into this part)

if user a had 1 or 2 infractions for scamming then should receive a perm ban. (high level offences)

if user b had 5+ infractions from double posting they should receive a caution. (low level offences)

if user c was constantly negative to other users this would be classed a a medium offence so they would be temp banned for xx days (the amount depending on how serious it was)

--

This way people who don't have high level offences don't receive the same ban as someone who does have high offences, and the ban type would be more suited to the situation instead of a 'once you hit xx infractions you out'

I know I probably haven't explained my ideas in a easy to understand manor, and it would help if people could comment and suggest improvements which would be easier and more viable.

I also understand that if someone breaks the rules, they break the rules and do deserve some action taken, but I think that the action taken should be more situational than guidelines which bans follow.

i like this idear, i think it will help the less "Dappy" users like me who forgot about double posting some-times and get infractions for it :(

[The Professor]

Right, that sort of confused me a bit, but I'll reply to what I could understand.

The autoban system is only really there to speed up the process of getting people with a high number of infractions banned. Before, if a moderator spotted a user with x number of infractions, they'd have to report it to an smod who would then have to manually ban the user through the modcp. Now, that cumbersome process is cut out, but the principle remains the same.

Your idea about infraction levels is actually in place already... sort of. The bullying infraction adds 2 infraction points to your tally rather than one, so you only have to receive 3 bullying infractions (or 2 bullying infractions and another infraction) to be banned. I do however think it would be a good idea to expand this idea a bit using what you've posted, e.g. bullying infraction worth 3 points (very quick ban for multiple offences), insulting another forum member & similar worth 2 points, multiple posting & similar worth one point. That's pretty similar to the system you suggested and accomplishes the same goal. I hope that made sense :P

I don't think the type of ban is really an issue because imo if you break a "minor" rule 5 times you deserve to get banned because you obviously have a blatant disregard for the rules. I actually think a short temp ban (which is in place now) is fairly leniant, if it were up to me they'd be permed straight off. But I suppose thats why I'm not running the place :P

[Elkaa]

This is already in place to a certain extent. Warnings count as 0 points, so you won't get autobanned. The options to issue an infraction for multiple posting has been removed (so it's warning only) - As have many other infractions been changed.

The system has changed alot since you last saw it. :)

[jesus]

Also I don't see why people should be breaking any rules in the first place, you all agreed to abide by them upon signing up to the forum and there's no need to break them at all. Breaking multiple rules = infractions = banned - it makes sense.

[GommeInc]

Bans should only exist to stop a member who is annoying the community and causing disruptions. That only exists for a very, very small amount and I think the forum would work well if they were given a PM (note that it has PERSONAL in the name) to tell them why they are doing this, and to teach them not to, rather than to infract/warn them which to me is just a way that says "We don't value your membership, so you can do this again if you want, you'll just get banned..." I'm not sure who's silly idea it was in the first place to ban members, even if they receive multiple infractions, but it doesn't give management, moderators or super moderators a good name and I am sure in the past when a real Forum Manager existed, a member would be banned and if they made another account and were good on it, they would be given their old account back, because they had learnt their lesson, plus the Forum Manager would be looked at like a human being, a teenager, not someone pretending to be someone they're not...


Also I don't see why people should be breaking any rules in the first place, you all agreed to abide by them upon signing up to the forum and there's no need to break them at all. Breaking multiple rules = infractions = banned - it makes sense.
Well when your target audience have to abide by rules set to a university student level, I can't blame some people for breaking some of the rules in the first place. So stop trying to treat teenagers like adults...

[Excellent]

Personally I think little things like double posting cannot be helped due to the forum being laggy sometimes.. thus making the user in question click a few times. Bullying is bad and I don't agree with 2 infractions, I think there should be an automatic 7 day ban for ANYONE who bullies another member of the forum as it's not right.

[Elkaa]

Personally I think little things like double posting cannot be helped due to the forum being laggy sometimes.. thus making the user in question click a few times. Bullying is bad and I don't agree with 2 infractions, I think there should be an automatic 7 day ban for ANYONE who bullies another member of the forum as it's not right.

Double posts of that nature are ignored, and merged. :)

[Excellent]

Double posts of that nature are ignored, and merged. :)This is great news but say if someone was advertising their website with updates, would this be ignored aswell seeing as it's their updates thread?

[jesus]

Well when your target audience have to abide by rules set to a university student level, I can't blame some people for breaking some of the rules in the first place. So stop trying to treat teenagers like adults...Me personally? :S

[Elkaa]

This is great news but say if someone was advertising their website with updates, would this be ignored aswell seeing as it's their updates thread?

Updates after over 15 minutes are allowed, so long as they're not blatent bumps. :)

[Excellent]

Updates after over 15 minutes are allowed, so long as they're not blatent bumps. :)Ahh I never knew that. So you can post a new update every 15 minutes, before that it's classed as spam?

[Jamesy]

(note that it has PERSONAL in the name)


I was under the impression it was Private Message :eusa_whis

[Blinger1]

Me personally? :S


no the other guy who said something stupid about something = something else.. - it all makes sense.

[GommeInc]

It's called Personal Message on IPB so I've always called it that :P Private Message kinda words the same way, the way infractions work it looks alot like an Automated Message...

[Catzsy]

Also I don't see why people should be breaking any rules in the first place, you all agreed to abide by them upon signing up to the forum and there's no need to break them at all. Breaking multiple rules = infractions = banned - it makes sense.

Jamie, I think this is extremely funny coming from you. :P


Bans should only exist to stop a member who is annoying the community and causing disruptions. That only exists for a very, very small amount and I think the forum would work well if they were given a PM (note that it has PERSONAL in the name) to tell them why they are doing this, and to teach them not to, rather than to infract/warn them which to me is just a way that says "We don't value your membership, so you can do this again if you want, you'll just get banned..." I'm not sure who's silly idea it was in the first place to ban members, even if they receive multiple infractions, but it doesn't give management, moderators or super moderators a good name and I am sure in the past when a real Forum Manager existed, a member would be banned and if they made another account and were good on it, they would be given their old account back, because they had learnt their lesson, plus the Forum Manager would be looked at like a human being, a teenager, not someone pretending to be someone they're not...


Well when your target audience have to abide by rules set to a university student level, I can't blame some people for breaking some of the rules in the first place. So stop trying to treat teenagers like adults...

Totally agree the thing has just got completely out of hand. It has not been thought out in a logical or rational way and basically now the moderators are in charge of banning because they know that on a 5th 0r 10th infraction people are either temp or perm banned. Banning needs to be done by somebody very experienced in moderation and should not be done automatically without
perusing the account. I say this from a lot of experience myself - each account/person is individual and different penalties are needed. It would take the whole page to explain. I have nothing against any of the mods at all - in fact they are going to get the flack now I believe. We tell super moderators afterwards - nothing like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. I have put forward a few ideas but on totally deaf ears. I don't like the ethos behind moderation, anymore. There appears to be no emphasis on being polite or helpful anymore or giving a service within the moderation department which is why I have resigned. The rest of Habbox is in pretty good shape though!

[jesus]

Jamie, I think this is extremely funny coming from you. :PHaha, I can understand why. :D

But what I mean is rather than just breaking rules so you can get infracted then complain about that, it's a lot easier just... not doing!

[GommeInc]

Totally agree the thing has just got completely out of hand. It has not been thought out in a logical or rational way and basically now the moderators are in charge of banning because they know that on a 5th 0r 10th infraction people are either temp or perm banned. Banning needs to be done by somebody very experienced in moderation and should not be done automatically without
perusing the account. I say this from a lot of experience myself - each account/person is individual and different penalties are needed. It would take the whole page to explain. I have nothing against any of the mods at all - in fact they are going to get the flack now I believe. We tell super moderators afterwards - nothing like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. I have put forward a few ideas but on totally deaf ears. I don't like the ethos behind moderation, anymore. There appears to be no emphasis on being polite or helpful anymore or giving a service within the moderation department which is why I have resigned. The rest of Habbox is in pretty good shape though!
Indeed, something has to be done and it can't be with the current management. They have no key intention in fixing these problems. I would like to know what their mission statement or their aims are, because at the moment whatever it is doesn't make any sense. It's a forum based for teenagers, yet the rules and regulations suggest it's a forum for a corporate company (which is failing miserably) or for university students, run by teachers. Either way, the staff are not older than all the members on the forum, yet they make it look as if they are and treat people the same as if they are, which they're not and they'll earn far more respect if they just acted like their age and make the community a teeanger community rather than an organised hell whole. The only things that do work are on the site.

Anyway, would add more, but off to train station :P

[risque]

Indeed, something has to be done and it can't be with the current management. They have no key intention in fixing these problems. I would like to know what their mission statement or their aims are, because at the moment whatever it is doesn't make any sense. It's a forum based for teenagers, yet the rules and regulations suggest it's a forum for a corporate company (which is failing miserably) or for university students, run by teachers. Either way, the staff are not older than all the members on the forum, yet they make it look as if they are and treat people the same as if they are, which they're not and they'll earn far more respect if they just acted like their age and make the community a teeanger community rather than an organised hell whole. The only things that do work are on the site.

I entirely agree with all said above.

[Xarea]

http://www.iaza.com/work/080506C/infrac7166098135-iaza.gif

And i've not had a single ban on this account ever in the three years i've had it.

[Catzsy]

Firstly this isn't to be viewed as a negative thread, I'm just suggesting some possible changes to the current ban system.

--

The current System
The current ban system is that if you receive xx amount of infractions your cautioned/temp banned/banned.

I think that it should rely on a moderator to judge whether the person deserves a ban, say someone had 5 infractions they would be cautioned (number may be off but this is just an example) and the 5 infractions are from low offences such as double posting I don't think that they should be banned.

--

My Idea
I think that offences should have levels, you would have low level offences such as double posting, medium offences such as avoiding the filter and higher offences such as scamming... and so on.

depending on the level of infractions the user has should decided when the ban is and for how long.




Examples (please note this is just a rough guide, obviously more thought would have to go into this part)

if user a had 1 or 2 infractions for scamming then should receive a perm ban. (high level offences)

if user b had 5+ infractions from double posting they should receive a caution. (low level offences)

if user c was constantly negative to other users this would be classed a a medium offence so they would be temp banned for xx days (the amount depending on how serious it was)

--

This way people who don't have high level offences don't receive the same ban as someone who does have high offences, and the ban type would be more suited to the situation instead of a 'once you hit xx infractions you out'

I know I probably haven't explained my ideas in a easy to understand manor, and it would help if people could comment and suggest improvements which would be easier and more viable.

I also understand that if someone breaks the rules, they break the rules and do deserve some action taken, but I think that the action taken should be more situational than guidelines which bans follow.

Sam, this is what it used to be like until recently. It was a tried an tested way that worked because it was done with care and attention to detail.
Its all to do with cause and effect in my opinion. The attitude of some of the management changed towards the members quite some time ago and became a bit more formal. People that have followed have perpetuated and hardened this attitude even further to an unacceptable level in my view causing many members to get frustrated and start complaining. Instead of sitting back and listening and saying 'Hey perhaps these people have a point' we need to discuss this it has just become total chaos and I am not saying this is the case but it seems that 'banning' and hunting the members returning on the autoban list has become a pleasure sport. Good job we do not have 'automatic Jailings' in the real world.

When somebody like you starts complaining I do think that there should be some sharp intakes of breath and think what exactly was Habbox was started for in the first place. I am speaking as an ex member of staff although my resignation has not been announced yet.