Do You Automatically Judge Other Users by Their Infraction Meter?

[crop52]

Who the heck looks at profiles anymore?

 

[Nouw]

I never bother going into people's profiles unless I want to befriend them or view their profile picture.

So no, I don't judge people based on a health bar.

 

[Gralian]

I remember HankMan, and I have to disagree. The rules are quite clear about low content posts, and if you spend most of your time just making posts that contain a pun that adds nothing to the conversation and nothing else in the post to make it worthwhile, you're going to get banned. Not to mention that you get SEVEN warnings before a ban is administered, so if after seven warnings to post something meaningful instead of just puns he still didn't get it, then he deserves to be removed. And let's look at the post he was banned for. He posted "Yes Really!". That's it. Clearly a low content post, and what do the rules say about low content posts? Not to make them. Seems like a very fair ban to me.

I understand he made low content posts, but the ban seemed so sudden. He seemed to have been around for a very long time and it also seemed like he all of a sudden received those warnings and was outta here. I have to question why he was allowed to stick around for as long as he did if he didn't have some sort of sway within the community and perhaps even the moderation staff to some degree. He was very recognisable, and once he gained in so much popularity he was given the boot. I just feel there is a correlation between popularity and infractions, since some sort of line must have been crossed when it went from "it's just 'his thing' so we'll ruffle his hair and look the other way" to "get that low content troll off the forums before he gets too much support".

Also, I looked up the post of the other guy you mentioned. It had nothing to do with whether or not an article belonged in the news section of this site; it wasn't even a comment on an article here. It wasn't even a comment about whether or not a subject was newsworthy at all. He was just being rude to a regular member who created a thread about that whole "faster than light particle" thing because he didn't care about what the thread was about.

I'll admit i didn't read the whole topic that MackHeath was banned in, all i did was see he was banned in another thread, clicked the link and saw what the mods considered to be ban-worthy. From what i could see he was simply expressing his disinterest in the faster than light thing. I didn't realise expressing your disinterest or indifference constituted mod wrath, but if he was being rude or antagonistic then i can understand why he got banned - it's just that he was generally a very well known member here, almost on the level of Furburt in terms of building a cult of personality. He also seemed to go from everyone just accepting his slightly brusque manner to being given the boot - again showing the correlation between popularity and infractions.

It's nice for when people start complaining that their own moderations were unfair or when complaining that someone else's ban was unfair, like you did here.

The point of my post wasn't "these well known members' bans were unfair", it was "popularity has a direct correlation with infractions". Essentially that the people with a lot of infractions don't actually tend to be trolls, nasty people or "first!" posters. They tend to be popular types who are told not to overstep their line by the mods, or so it would appear anyway.

We can look and see that the facts of the situation are being skewed, which pretty much everyone tries to do in situations like this (like you just did). It is rather nice to get a link to what they were banned for on every one of their old posts so we can easily see it and go "Yep, that post broke the rules quite clearly, the infraction was certainly justified."

Unfortunately this is not always the case. Sometimes the ban-post in question is absolutely harmless, but the person received the bad because of what the moderators deemed a "laundry list of offences" and, perhaps due to some private disagreement, were banned. I'm not saying that moderators should make public all the offences of the banned but they should at least leave a little note saying why that person received the ban if it is not always clear (something i have seen once or twice via a mod edit) otherwise it looks like that person had been given the heave-ho simply because of their affluence within the community, something which appears to sometimes disgruntle moderators.

Just food for thought, but do you remember when Demented Teddy was banned? I'm not saying she didn't deserve it, but the reaction of those who knew her was quite remarkable. They all copied her avatar in protest. That's the sort of thing i mean when i say that popularity and infractions really tend to go hand in hand and the punishment system tends to be more about maintaining the status quo and dealing with the cult of personality more than anything.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

...although the fact it's public is strange.

The reason that it is public is quite simple. It is deterrent. Even though the number is probably small, there are possibly people on this site that are very self-conscious and see that bar as something people might look down on them for. The could possibly make those people more observant of how they act, and learn to moderate themselves before the actually Mods have to act upon them.

Heck, I was a little self-conscious myself after the bar went up, because I had one green mark from a warning I had received around seven months before the bar went up. It was for posting in a thread after a Mod said to stop all discussion civil or otherwise on a certain argument, that was only half on topic. I hadn't know the Mod had said it because as I tend to write long posts, the Mod had said to stop when I was only halfway done writing my post, and I didn't know about it until after I posted. Apparently, I had been typing for a whole five minutes after the Mod made the warning post to everybody.

I would say I have been a bit more cautious since the bar went up. I do like that after a certain amount of time, the bar goes down some. Points off for good behavior.

 

[Xojins]

I don't really even look at anyone's meter. I just judge them by their posts; if what they say is stupid, I judge them as being stupid.

 

[Elijah Ball]

not on this site. its freakin stupid what ppl get warned/banned for.

 

[The Grim Ace]

Seeing how I rarely check a person's profile to even see their bar, it really doesn't factor. Whatever a person posts is what I care about and, for the most part, everything is fine on the Escapist and it even was before the infraction bar became a thing.

 

[Dethenger]

Nope. I don't even usually look at them, but whenever I see "User was banned for this post or the other," I see that they don't usually say something so inflammatory that they deserved to be banned for it, so I don't really think it's a good way to measure someone up.

You, OP, for example, seem like a nice enough guy, even though you're only one away from a perma-ban.

 

[Kotaro]

Nope. I don't even look at the meter. Ever.

 

[WolfThomas]

About 1 in 30 I think. There was a whole math formula for some statistics course about people with the same birthdays but I'm pretty sure it was around 1 in 30.

It depends on the number of people present. There's a 100% chance at 366 obviously, but interestingly there's 50% chance when you've 23 and 99% with 53 people in a room.

 

[Ruwrak]

I don't usually check profiles for the infraction meter. I look for birthdays, trying to find other Virgos here and whatnot. However, I can't help but observe the bar while I'm at it, but I never put much thought into it, unless it's red-lined. Then, while I don't judge, I do have to wonder why they are in that state.

Also, don't forget Plants Vs. Zombies!

Good observation. I'm a taurus myself so sorry.
But you probably already figured that out.. For some reason


[Quote system is beeing odd, but this is refering to the other part of the post, in particular to the Nazi Germany minus the genocide part.]


Hmm... Am I the only one that has no problems around here? Perhaps I've got half a brain to not troll on my favorite website x3 hahaa. I jest, I jest. Never thought that trolling solved anything anyway..

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

No, I rarely look at other people's forum health meters. Personally I think the whole forum health meter thing is retarded. Not the concept itself, but the fact that the meter never goes down. That coupled with the fact that this forum is run somewhat akin to Nazi Germany minus the genocide leaves me feeling like I'm walking on eggshells filled with broken glass every time I come here.

It goes down a pip after 6 months of no infractions and then set to 0 after 2 years without any. So it does go down but it just takes forever to.

Oh really? 'Cause when they first introduced the thing they said that it never goes down. I know 'cause I got into a debate with one of the admins about it. So when did this change?

I am fairly sure I remember reading about it somewhere and I'm also sure that I myself have gone down at least 1 pip. I could be wrong but I am fairly sure that I read one of the higher ups saying they do but in my opinion 6 months is a long time to regenerate a green pip but it did also say that once you go up a level you need the 2 year thing to reset it back to 0 as you can't regen levels. That is if I remember it right.

 

[hooksashands]

You can tell a lot more about a person from looking at their Recent Posts than the Infraction meter.

 

[Catchy Slogan]

No. I rarely ever even look at peoples profiles. I judge people by what they write.

Me? I judge people by how Catchy their Slogans are, yours is pretty catchy.

It's the Catchy-est!

 

[Westaway]

No, it's sort of out of the way. I got a warning for a low content post once before the metre was made, so I'm pretty much clean. But I post like once a week so whatever.