- Halo53
- |
- Fabled Mythic Member
Yo Halo53, I'm real happy for you and I'ma let you finish, but Beyonce had one of the best bungie.net profiles of all time. OF ALL TIME!
Alright, I've just finally caught up on this whole thread... but I know by the time I post this I'll be a dozen posts behind
Warnings
On this issue of warnings, Skibur's right that they should not act a punishment. A warning is your parent, your teacher, or a police officer saying "Hey, cut that out before I punish you." When you proceed to continue said behavior, then you get punished because the teacher, parent, or officer now knows that you know you're doing something wrong, but you insist on doing it anyway.
The whole purpose of warning is to let someone know that what they're doing is wrong, and to educate them so they do not duplicate the mistake. A moderator taking an extra 30 seconds to type out an extra sentence or two might go a long way to helping setting a user in the right direction.
However, the issue about the effect it has on the title system is a little irrelevant. The warning does not ban the user, which is the only real punishment since as a member of this community its assumed you want to continue contributing to the community, so not being able to is a punishment itself. You can look at it this way, an elementary school teacher might have some sort of gold star sticker system where they reward children for good behavior. While a student may never have been punished by having their parents called, if they've been warned a couple times they are far less likely to get the gold star.
Intent
I think it is very important to take intent into account, and more often than not a person should be given the benefit of the doubt. While there certainly are rotten eggs on this site who purposely break rules, the majority of users here continue to come back because of either a love for Bungie or a love for the community itself. You're only here because you choose to be, no one forces you to log into this site.
I'll use myself as an example. The one time I was banned, it was for being off-topic. There was a lengthy thread that I made 2 or 3 posts in, and after clarifying with the moderator, I was told I was banned because none of my posts answered the question of the original OP, therefore were not on topic, and therefore deserved a 3 day ban.
Now if a Moderator interprets the rules like that, there is nothing I can do but accept the banning.
However, I've been a member of this site for many years. I had never at any level been given any kind of warning or ban before that. Not once have I ever derailed a thread, attacked a user, or done anything that would indicate that I was posting fully knowing that someone would perceive what I was doing was wrong, yet I was banned as well. The honest truth is I did not think I was violating the rules, and my off-topic posts were merely quips and minor jokes about the situation at hand. As skibur previously mentioned, moderators do this all the time but it is let off the hook because you know they mean no harm. I am not saying moderators should be super serious and every single post has to directly relate to the immediate topic on hand, but I am saying users should be given the benefit of the doubt because just like moderators, most people here are well-intentioned users here for entertainment just trying to get a laugh or add to a conversation for the sole purpose of contributing to the community.
Time and time again I see moderators saying to members "We're fans just like you, don't view us like Bungie Employees" and I agree with this sentiment. However, sometimes moderators need to "view us as fans just like you." Its not often and it's not everyone, but to say I should have known better... I honestly didnt. And the reason for that is I had seen similar behavior from others and even exhibited similar behavior before never getting anything such as a "knock that off" so why would I think what I was doing was wrong?
But at the end of the day it didn't bug me as much as it might other people, but that's because I don't necessarily post here everyday on the one hand, and on the other I've been here long enough that I know I'm coming back... and that brings me to my next point...
Bans do more good than bad
Skibur brought up this point too, and I think it is absolutely something worth discussing. Bans can also act as a deterrent that keep well-intended but poorly-educated individuals from becoming contributing members of the community because they were scared away before they realized why. The purpose of a ban really is simply this: It either acts as a way to physically remove a member from the community because the community is a worse-off place for having them there (a way to cut down on the amount of spam/flaming on the forum by taking it out at the source) or to punish a member of the community by letting them think about their actions, realize if they continue that pattern of behavior they will be permanently banned, and come back having learned something that they couldn't have learned via any other punishment/interaction.
Back to my case, as I'm trying to stick to the only one I have all the facts on.
Were the forums a better off place because I was gone? Or did the ban educate me in a way that couldn't have happened with a warning?
If it was believed that the forums were a better off place without me having access to them, I'm sure somebody would have let me know it by now. As for the 2nd point... no, not at all. If a moderator either would have sent me a PM or if I was simply let off with a warning that said "Hey, what you were doing in that thread is not on-topic, cut that out" ... well then I simply would have. What does the 3 day break from the forums tell me that couldn't have been communicated any other way?
Now I'm not saying give members with a cleaner track record complete free reign, or that there should be an instance where someone got off of a ban specifically because they've been around, but I'm simply saying if there is any doubt as to whether or not you should ban someone who knows what they're doing and doesn't have a pattern of behavior of intentionally trying to push the envelope, then they should get the benefit of that doubt. If you tell them "hey, I know you didn't mean anything by it but nevertheless, don't continue that pattern of behavior" and they persist, then by all means the banning is deserved,
Listen, I understand the moderators are not school teachers and they should not have to sit here and hand-hold every single member, but the bottom line is the 30 second difference between just pressing the ban button and typing a short explanation versus pressing the warn button and typing an extra couple of sentences might do more good than you'd think. When to do which is of course a case-by-case basis that ultimately requires the human judgment of the moderators which can lead to inconsistencies of course which is why sometimes giving members a heads up before jumping to action can lead to a little bit more consistency from both sides. Really when you have X number of moderators, SOMEONE has to be the most "strict" or "least lenient" of the bunch so these inconsistencies occur. I'm not saying each moderator should necessarily change their interpretation of the rules because of this, I'm just saying taking intent into consideration and realizing you can better the forums without using the ban button is something that should be recognized.
It seems like anytime there is some sort of confrontation/disagreement that the initial response is "troll?" and not that there is simply an impersonal difference in opinions.
Oh, and brevity is the soul of wit or something ;-)