• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Enhanced Expiration Dates for Major Violations [W:51]

Status
Not open for further replies.

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,429
Reaction score
35,271
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The DP moderation team understands politics can be a heated, and very personal, topic. That is why our infraction system is built in a way that provides leeway for flare-ups, allowing emotions to occasionally run high without jeopardizing a user’s membership. For the majority of our membership this system works, balancing the necessary deterrence of problematic posting with being understanding of the realities of political debate.

However, over time we’ve witnessed members who attempt to “game” the system, specifically when it comes to more significant violations. These are not instances of a sudden flare-up, but a consistent and repeated pattern of problems. The deterrent of the current system is ineffective against such members; they simply bide their time elsewhere until points expire only to return to begin the same manner of troublesome posting.

These chronic violators of major infractions have been a growing problem, and one we now seek to address. The goal of this change is to have a minimal impact on the user base, instead focusing only on the main offenders. An analysis of infractions over the past 6 months found these new procedures would have effected less than 1% of our active membership during that time. Despite this, the amount of time spent dealing with these instances was disproportionately large, leading to our decision to take action.

As such, the following change will occur as it relates to the expiration period for “major” infractions, which are also be defined below:

Major Infraction
- Rule 6a (Insubordination)
- Rule 15 & addendum (Vegas Rule)
- Rule 18 (Hate Speech)
- Rule 20 (Slurs)

Change in Expiration
1. All major infractions will have a 60-day baseline expiration date.
2. The third, and any subsequent, major infraction of the same type in a 2-year span will have a 2-year expiration date.
3. The fifth, and any subsequent, major infraction of the same type in a 10-year span will be permanent.

This new rule will only affect infractions issue from this day forward, but will take old infractions into account. So for instance, if you already have 3 slur infractions in a 2-year period, the third infraction’s expiration date would not be retroactively increased. However, if you were to receive a 4th slur infraction within that 2-year period, that infraction’s expiration would be set to “2 years”.

This information has been updated in the "Moderator Actions Page" in the rules forum.
 
I support this.

I'm all for getting rid of the worst of the worst, and this sounds like a reasonable policy. Good job in getting together and getting this done!

And in light of "getting things done", perhaps the mod team needs to run for Congress? :2razz:
 
The DP moderation team understands politics can be a heated, and very personal, topic. That is why our infraction system is built in a way that provides leeway for flare-ups, allowing emotions to occasionally run high without jeopardizing a user’s membership. For the majority of our membership this system works, balancing the necessary deterrence of problematic posting with being understanding of the realities of political debate.

However, over time we’ve witnessed members who attempt to “game” the system, specifically when it comes to more significant violations. These are not instances of a sudden flare-up, but a consistent and repeated pattern of problems. The deterrent of the current system is ineffective against such members; they simply bide their time elsewhere until points expire only to return to begin the same manner of troublesome posting.

These chronic violators of major infractions have been a growing problem, and one we now seek to address. The goal of this change is to have a minimal impact on the user base, instead focusing only on the main offenders. An analysis of infractions over the past 6 months found these new procedures would have effected less than 1% of our active membership during that time. Despite this, the amount of time spent dealing with these instances was disproportionately large, leading to our decision to take action.

As such, the following change will occur as it relates to the expiration period for “major” infractions, which are also be defined below:

Major Infraction
- Rule 6a (Insubordination)
- Rule 15 & addendum (Vegas Rule)
- Rule 18 (Hate Speech)
- Rule 20 (Slurs)

Change in Expiration
1. All major infractions will have a 60-day baseline expiration date.
2. The third, and any subsequent, major infraction of the same type in a 2-year span will have a 2-year expiration date.
3. The fifth, and any subsequent, major infraction of the same type in a 10-year span will be permanent.

This new rule will only affect infractions issue from this day forward, but will take old infractions into account. So for instance, if you already have 3 slur infractions in a 2-year period, the third infraction’s expiration date would not be retroactively increased. However, if you were to receive a 4th slur infraction within that 2-year period, that infraction’s expiration would be set to “2 years”.

This information has been updated in the "Moderator Actions Page" in the rules forum.

I have pointed this out before but I feel it's important to point it out again rule 20 (slurs) is unevenly enforced.

So having and extra penalty for a rule that isn't being applied evenly across the board will cause more issues that it solves IMO. I'm sure I broke a rule just for pointing that out but I guess I can afford the points for now.
 
How do we check if we have any "major" infractions? Will they be listed under "reason" as (insubordination, vegas, hate speech, slurs)? When two people escalate and start insulting each other are both (hypothetically speaking) a "major" infraction or are these minor ones?

I have pointed this out before but I feel it's important to point it out again rule 20 (slurs) is unevenly enforced.
So having and extra penalty for a rule that isn't being applied evenly across the board will cause more issues that it solves IMO. I'm sure I broke a rule just for pointing that out but I guess I can afford the points for now.

Yeah I agree. It's a little crazy that "slurs" are major infractions as almost anything can be considered a slur depending on how the mod in question subjectively decides to interpret it. I worry that this gives mods more power to crush the people they don't like with "major" infractions and let the ones they do like slide with just a "minor" one.
 
Last edited:
I have pointed this out before but I feel it's important to point it out again rule 20 (slurs) is unevenly enforced.

Moderator's Warning:
Given the nature of this thread, giving a little leeway here; but recognize that 6a still exists and attacks against the mod teams unbiased enforcement of the rules violate that. Trying to leave this open for comments in case there's legitimate questions to be answered, but stuff like this will cause that to end quickly.


How do we check if we have any "major" infractions?

Go to your user profile. Click on the tab that says "infractions"; this will give you a list of them, the date they were issued, and the reason. You'd be looking for instances of infractions (red, not yellow tagged) where the reason is listed as "Rule 20 violation (slurs)", "Rule 18 violation (hate speech)", "Rule 6a violation", or mentions "vegas". We will likely be updating the software to have vegas be a default selection so it'll have a uniform name, similar to 20, 18, and 6a.

When two people escalate and start insulting each other are both (hypothetically speaking) a "major" infraction or are these minor ones?

Two people escalating and insulting each other is typically a Baiting/Flaming/Trolling violation; those violations don't factor into this ruleset.

It's a little crazy that "slurs" are major infractions as almost anything can be considered a slur depending on how the mod in question subjectively decides to interpret it.

This is exactly the type of worry that I expected when we were first putting this together, which is why I did research an analysis of it. As I said in the OP, the amount of instances where we issue these kind of infractions are so rare that they'd account for less than 1% of the user base. In the 6 month time span I researched, there were only 11 instances where a slur infraction was given out. You're talking about less than 2 a month over a population of hundreds of posters and thousands of posts per week. None of those that were infracted for a Rule 20 violation during that time had enough on their resume that they would've received the enhanced expiration under this ruleset.

Additionally, mods have just as much oversight now as they did before; meaning no mod can issue an infraction that can't be overturned. What's more, all of the things that are viewed as "major" violations are instances where there is no "minor" version of the rule, so your worry is just unfounded. These aren't infractions massively handed out prior to this, there's no reason to expect that they will be issued at any higher clip after.

This is all assuming your questions are being asked in a legitimate and above board manner. I will not dignify responding to it from the sense of it being a 6a infraction, accusing or suggesting that moderators will purposefully manipulate the rules in an effort to "crush" some people while biasedly letting others slide. I will note to you the same as the poster above, we're providing a bit of leeway here with the rules but 6a IS still in effect. Please don't screw this thread up for everyone else by verging into conspiratorial "the mods are biased" territory and causing it to be closed.
 
The DP moderation team understands politics can be a heated, and very personal, topic. That is why our infraction system is built in a way that provides leeway for flare-ups, allowing emotions to occasionally run high without jeopardizing a user’s membership. For the majority of our membership this system works, balancing the necessary deterrence of problematic posting with being understanding of the realities of political debate.

However, over time we’ve witnessed members who attempt to “game” the system, specifically when it comes to more significant violations. These are not instances of a sudden flare-up, but a consistent and repeated pattern of problems. The deterrent of the current system is ineffective against such members; they simply bide their time elsewhere until points expire only to return to begin the same manner of troublesome posting.

These chronic violators of major infractions have been a growing problem, and one we now seek to address. The goal of this change is to have a minimal impact on the user base, instead focusing only on the main offenders. An analysis of infractions over the past 6 months found these new procedures would have effected less than 1% of our active membership during that time. Despite this, the amount of time spent dealing with these instances was disproportionately large, leading to our decision to take action.

As such, the following change will occur as it relates to the expiration period for “major” infractions, which are also be defined below:

Major Infraction
- Rule 6a (Insubordination)
- Rule 15 & addendum (Vegas Rule)
- Rule 18 (Hate Speech)
- Rule 20 (Slurs)

Change in Expiration
1. All major infractions will have a 60-day baseline expiration date.
2. The third, and any subsequent, major infraction of the same type in a 2-year span will have a 2-year expiration date.
3. The fifth, and any subsequent, major infraction of the same type in a 10-year span will be permanent.

This new rule will only affect infractions issue from this day forward, but will take old infractions into account. So for instance, if you already have 3 slur infractions in a 2-year period, the third infraction’s expiration date would not be retroactively increased. However, if you were to receive a 4th slur infraction within that 2-year period, that infraction’s expiration would be set to “2 years”.

This information has been updated in the "Moderator Actions Page" in the rules forum.

Very thoughtful approach, and I appreciate the time you took analyzing it.
 
How do we check if we have any "major" infractions? Will they be listed under "reason" as (insubordination, vegas, hate speech, slurs)? When two people escalate and start insulting each other are both (hypothetically speaking) a "major" infraction or are these minor ones?



Yeah I agree. It's a little crazy that "slurs" are major infractions as almost anything can be considered a slur depending on how the mod in question subjectively decides to interpret it. I worry that this gives mods more power to crush the people they don't like with "major" infractions and let the ones they do like slide with just a "minor" one.



Major infractions such as we're talking about are typically issued on consensus of several mods. If you feel a given infraction was not issued fairly you can always dispute it, in which case the whole moderation team will consider the issue and vote accordingly.
 
ERMAHGERD BIASED MERDS

I don’t see much problem with this on its face. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
 
How do we check if we have any "major" infractions? Will they be listed under "reason" as (insubordination, vegas, hate speech, slurs)? When two people escalate and start insulting each other are both (hypothetically speaking) a "major" infraction or are these minor ones?

I would assume the scenario you give with the typical "well, you're stupid!" type of insults would be either a DBAJ infraction or a flaming infraction (rules 3 and 4), which isn't listed on the "major infraction" list, so that wouldn't change?
 
The DP moderation team understands politics can be a heated, and very personal, topic. That is why our infraction system is built in a way that provides leeway for flare-ups, allowing emotions to occasionally run high without jeopardizing a user’s membership. For the majority of our membership this system works, balancing the necessary deterrence of problematic posting with being understanding of the realities of political debate.

However, over time we’ve witnessed members who attempt to “game” the system, specifically when it comes to more significant violations. These are not instances of a sudden flare-up, but a consistent and repeated pattern of problems. The deterrent of the current system is ineffective against such members; they simply bide their time elsewhere until points expire only to return to begin the same manner of troublesome posting.

These chronic violators of major infractions have been a growing problem, and one we now seek to address. The goal of this change is to have a minimal impact on the user base, instead focusing only on the main offenders. An analysis of infractions over the past 6 months found these new procedures would have effected less than 1% of our active membership during that time. Despite this, the amount of time spent dealing with these instances was disproportionately large, leading to our decision to take action.

As such, the following change will occur as it relates to the expiration period for “major” infractions, which are also be defined below:

Major Infraction
- Rule 6a (Insubordination)
- Rule 15 & addendum (Vegas Rule)
- Rule 18 (Hate Speech)
- Rule 20 (Slurs)

Change in Expiration
1. All major infractions will have a 60-day baseline expiration date.
2. The third, and any subsequent, major infraction of the same type in a 2-year span will have a 2-year expiration date.
3. The fifth, and any subsequent, major infraction of the same type in a 10-year span will be permanent.

This new rule will only affect infractions issue from this day forward, but will take old infractions into account. So for instance, if you already have 3 slur infractions in a 2-year period, the third infraction’s expiration date would not be retroactively increased. However, if you were to receive a 4th slur infraction within that 2-year period, that infraction’s expiration would be set to “2 years”.

This information has been updated in the "Moderator Actions Page" in the rules forum.

Seems like they’re good changes. I’m impressed you did a six-month study to be certain you all got it right. I’m betting these major infractions happen seldom, but great that you notice how the system is being played.
 
Given the nature of this thread, giving a little leeway here; but recognize that 6a still exists and attacks against the mod teams unbiased enforcement of the rules violate that. Trying to leave this open for comments in case there's legitimate questions to be answered, but stuff like this will cause that to end quickly.Go to your user profile. Click on the tab that says "infractions"; this will give you a list of them, the date they were issued, and the reason. You'd be looking for instances of infractions (red, not yellow tagged) where the reason is listed as "Rule 20 violation (slurs)", "Rule 18 violation (hate speech)", "Rule 6a violation", or mentions "vegas". We will likely be updating the software to have vegas be a default selection so it'll have a uniform name, similar to 20, 18, and 6a.
Two people escalating and insulting each other is typically a Baiting/Flaming/Trolling violation; those violations don't factor into this ruleset.This is exactly the type of worry that I expected when we were first putting this together, which is why I did research an analysis of it. As I said in the OP, the amount of instances where we issue these kind of infractions are so rare that they'd account for less than 1% of the user base. In the 6 month time span I researched, there were only 11 instances where a slur infraction was given out. You're talking about less than 2 a month over a population of hundreds of posters and thousands of posts per week. None of those that were infracted for a Rule 20 violation during that time had enough on their resume that they would've received the enhanced expiration under this ruleset.
Additionally, mods have just as much oversight now as they did before; meaning no mod can issue an infraction that can't be overturned. What's more, all of the things that are viewed as "major" violations are instances where there is no "minor" version of the rule, so your worry is just unfounded. These aren't infractions massively handed out prior to this, there's no reason to expect that they will be issued at any higher clip after.
This is all assuming your questions are being asked in a legitimate and above board manner. I will not dignify responding to it from the sense of it being a 6a infraction, accusing or suggesting that moderators will purposefully manipulate the rules in an effort to "crush" some people while biasedly letting others slide. I will note to you the same as the poster above, we're providing a bit of leeway here with the rules but 6a IS still in effect. Please don't screw this thread up for everyone else by verging into conspiratorial "the mods are biased" territory and causing it to be closed.
Major infractions such as we're talking about are typically issued on consensus of several mods. If you feel a given infraction was not issued fairly you can always dispute it, in which case the whole moderation team will
consider the issue and vote accordingly.

Very clear and concise answers. Thank you and you've quelled my concerns.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Given the nature of this thread, giving a little leeway here; but recognize that 6a still exists and attacks against the mod teams unbiased enforcement of the rules violate that. Trying to leave this open for comments in case there's legitimate questions to be answered, but stuff like this will cause that to end quickly.




Go to your user profile. Click on the tab that says "infractions"; this will give you a list of them, the date they were issued, and the reason. You'd be looking for instances of infractions (red, not yellow tagged) where the reason is listed as "Rule 20 violation (slurs)", "Rule 18 violation (hate speech)", "Rule 6a violation", or mentions "vegas". We will likely be updating the software to have vegas be a default selection so it'll have a uniform name, similar to 20, 18, and 6a.



Two people escalating and insulting each other is typically a Baiting/Flaming/Trolling violation; those violations don't factor into this ruleset.



This is exactly the type of worry that I expected when we were first putting this together, which is why I did research an analysis of it. As I said in the OP, the amount of instances where we issue these kind of infractions are so rare that they'd account for less than 1% of the user base. In the 6 month time span I researched, there were only 11 instances where a slur infraction was given out. You're talking about less than 2 a month over a population of hundreds of posters and thousands of posts per week. None of those that were infracted for a Rule 20 violation during that time had enough on their resume that they would've received the enhanced expiration under this ruleset.

Additionally, mods have just as much oversight now as they did before; meaning no mod can issue an infraction that can't be overturned. What's more, all of the things that are viewed as "major" violations are instances where there is no "minor" version of the rule, so your worry is just unfounded. These aren't infractions massively handed out prior to this, there's no reason to expect that they will be issued at any higher clip after.

This is all assuming your questions are being asked in a legitimate and above board manner. I will not dignify responding to it from the sense of it being a 6a infraction, accusing or suggesting that moderators will purposefully manipulate the rules in an effort to "crush" some people while biasedly letting others slide. I will note to you the same as the poster above, we're providing a bit of leeway here with the rules but 6a IS still in effect. Please don't screw this thread up for everyone else by verging into conspiratorial "the mods are biased" territory and causing it to be closed.

I'm not suggesting that any individual mod is biased (I haven't seen any bias whatsoever) I'm talking about a systematic uneven application of the slur rule and the fact that I'm not even allowed to mention it only further underscores the problem
 
Major infractions such as we're talking about are typically issued on consensus of several mods. If you feel a given infraction was not issued fairly you can always dispute it, in which case the whole moderation team will consider the issue and vote accordingly.

That alone makes me feel a lot better.
 
I'm not suggesting that any individual mod is biased (I haven't seen any bias whatsoever) I'm talking about a systematic uneven application of the slur rule and the fact that I'm not even allowed to mention it only further underscores the problem

I think we have to keep a couple things in mind. First, we don't know when someone else gets infracted, so we don't know that they're being handled "unevenly." And second, mods can only infract posts they see. "If you see something, say something," as it were.
 
Thank you for including Vegas in that.
 
Major Infraction

- Rule 15 & addendum (Vegas Rule)

The above was edited to make Zyphlin look like a man of few words.

Really, Vegas is a major infraction? That seems odd to me.

Thank you for including Vegas in that.

Damn you for noting the same thing I did, albeit in a different way...
 
The DP moderation team understands politics can be a heated, and very personal, topic. That is why our infraction system is built in a way that provides leeway for flare-ups, allowing emotions to occasionally run high without jeopardizing a user’s membership. For the majority of our membership this system works, balancing the necessary deterrence of problematic posting with being understanding of the realities of political debate.

However, over time we’ve witnessed members who attempt to “game” the system, specifically when it comes to more significant violations. These are not instances of a sudden flare-up, but a consistent and repeated pattern of problems. The deterrent of the current system is ineffective against such members; they simply bide their time elsewhere until points expire only to return to begin the same manner of troublesome posting.

These chronic violators of major infractions have been a growing problem, and one we now seek to address. The goal of this change is to have a minimal impact on the user base, instead focusing only on the main offenders. An analysis of infractions over the past 6 months found these new procedures would have effected less than 1% of our active membership during that time. Despite this, the amount of time spent dealing with these instances was disproportionately large, leading to our decision to take action.

As such, the following change will occur as it relates to the expiration period for “major” infractions, which are also be defined below:

Major Infraction
- Rule 6a (Insubordination)
- Rule 15 & addendum (Vegas Rule)
- Rule 18 (Hate Speech)
- Rule 20 (Slurs)

Change in Expiration
1. All major infractions will have a 60-day baseline expiration date.
2. The third, and any subsequent, major infraction of the same type in a 2-year span will have a 2-year expiration date.
3. The fifth, and any subsequent, major infraction of the same type in a 10-year span will be permanent.

This new rule will only affect infractions issue from this day forward, but will take old infractions into account. So for instance, if you already have 3 slur infractions in a 2-year period, the third infraction’s expiration date would not be retroactively increased. However, if you were to receive a 4th slur infraction within that 2-year period, that infraction’s expiration would be set to “2 years”.

This information has been updated in the "Moderator Actions Page" in the rules forum.

Could you be specific as to what constitutes a 'slur'? For instance, if I post that 'a dishonest media and the snowflakes' are intellectually dishonest and maliciously hateful'--not addressed to any specific person here--is that a slur?

With that question in mind, I heartily support any policy that encouraged intelligent philosophical discussion without constant personal sniping and derailment of threads.
 
Could you be specific as to what constitutes a 'slur'? For instance, if I post that 'a dishonest media and the snowflakes' are intellectually dishonest and maliciously hateful'--not addressed to any specific person here--is that a slur?

With that question in mind, I heartily support any policy that encouraged intelligent philosophical discussion without constant personal sniping and derailment of threads.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/forum-rules/28594-forum-rules.html

20. Slurs - Slurs delivered in an offensive manner via threads, posts, signatures, or PM's are forbidden at Debate Politics. The Moderator Team defines a slur as a known and highly "charged" term directed at one of the “protected groups” identified in Rule 18.

So your example would be nothing like what rule 20 is talking about.
 
I'm not suggesting that any individual mod is biased (I haven't seen any bias whatsoever) I'm talking about a systematic uneven application of the slur rule and the fact that I'm not even allowed to mention it only further underscores the problem

Take a knee. :D
 
Am I allowed (for research sake only) to link to list of slurs?

The list is rather humorous in many cases....

The slur rules are such that using a known slur in an offensive manner (ie, using the slur essentially as a slur / for the purpose of slurring) is punishable. Simply uttering the slur is not.

In a music thread saying "I absolutely loved Nigga's in Paris when it came out" is not a violation. However, someone going "I can't stand rap. That nigger music sucks" would be.

If you're linking to a list of slurs as part of some legitimate debate/discussion and not in a manner that appears to be for the purpose of delivering the slurs in an offensive/attacking manner, you'd probably be fine. However, understand that if it's being linked for reasons that aren't heavily tied to, or useful to, the debate/discussion being going on that, while it may not be a slur violation it could be trolling/baiting in nature.

Sorry for the somewhat more vague answer to your specific situation, but the situation itself is a bit uncertain as there's a lot of context that could go into the situation and judgements about it.
 
Awesome!!!
thats good info and a good plan.

Glad vegas is included that just came up recently
 
Really, Vegas is a major infraction? That seems odd to me.

From a points stand point, no. However, when looking at what would qualify as a "major" we basically focused on four things (not necessarily broken down exactly like this, but its a good summary of the discussion).

1. Does the infraction have a higher point total
2. Is the infraction something we want to seriously discourage from occurring
3. Do we see people making a habit of violating the rule repetitively
4. Is it a rule that we don't usually jump to an auto-ban on the second/third iteration of?

Generally, for it to make our list it needed a "yes" in either 1 or 2 and a "no" on the other.

That's why something like Graphic Images or Harassment isn't on the list. Those are things where people RARELY have multiple infractions for it, because it's typically one lower point infraction and if it happens again they're often gone. So while those violations tend to have a high point total, they don't fall into this category.

Vegas is a weird one because while it's not a huge point total (typically it can be up to 5), it's something we want to severely discourage from occurring. And, in doing research, while repeated violations weren't common, there were instances of it happening by a single person routinely to the point where we felt it was problematic.

So Vegas is odd in the sense that we don't want to be overly punative to isolated incidents (thus it having a much smaller point total than 6a or rule 20, and even at times smaller than a slur violation) BUT we want to make sure that someone isn't making a habit of bringing things upstairs and basically not caring about the points because they'd just let them keep expiring.
 
Could you be specific as to what constitutes a 'slur'?

Just like we don't have a big long running list of "flames", we're not going to make a big long running list of slurs.

What I can say is that for it to constitute a slur, per the rules, it must be a term who's meaning and focus is one that is directly tied to one of the protected groups listed in rule 20. "Snowflake" in no way fits that at all; it is not a term focused and based around a religion, a sexual orientation, a nationality, a disability, etc. It's an insult aimed at a personality type, a political lean, a mentality, etc; those are not protected classifications under rule 20 so it doesn't fit the slur infraction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom