Our Net54baseball.com infraction system

[Leon]

Recently, in the last few days, we amended our rules a little bit to include a formal infraction system. It is posted on the rules page. If you click on anyone's name you will see a heading that says "infractions" and that is where you will see if anyone has any. As of right now no one does. I had given one to the CardsForMS guy but he eventually got banned for doing really strange stuff on the BST. He had several warnings first also. At any rate here is what it says:

<TABLE class=tborder cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=tcat>"How does Net 54's Infraction System work?</TD></TR><TR><TD class=alt1>The infraction system is designed to reward poor behavior with appropriate retribution. The moderators prefer not to use this system and a verbal warning will usually be given before an infraction is. Infractions may be given for violating well-known forum rules such as the use of inappropriate language, spamming, personal attacks, discussing politics or religion on the board or generally speaking, posting or behaving inappropriately on the board.

When 1-2 infraction points have been reached, and are current, the member risks banishment for some length of time, depending on the offense(s). We feel this system is necessary to continue to keep order for our growing membership. The goal of the board’s management, with respect to discipline, will continue to be “0 involvements” in board matters, concerning banning, locking threads etc... We always prefer things work themselves out."

We (the moderators and maybe mostly me) feel that if we must hand out any punishment there at least needs to be something written about it.

We aren't going to do any retroactive infractions but I will publicly say that Bruce Dorskind is getting a verbal warning for recent actitivity.
Bruce- your behavior is just too over the top. You incite fights on the board with your posts about class warfare etc... We really don't want that on this board.

We hope we never have to give an infraction. As of right now (it could change) they will all last 1 yr and then will be automatically removed. Thanks to all for your participation on our board...best regards


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[Jim VB]

Rob D. and I are in trouble (going forward only, of course.)

[Exhibitman]

We should never mistake freedom of speech for freedom from responsibility for what one says. I hope that going forward we have a nicer forum that makes people less hesitant to be active posters.

[vintagewhitesox]

We should never mistake freedom of speech for freedom from responsibility for what one says. I hope that going forward we have a nicer forum that makes people less hesitant to be active posters.

+1

Good job guys.

[Ladder7]

Im just gonna have to go to Marshalls crib and off the mutha, to keep my 'A' in conduct. :)

[Jim VB]

Im just gonna have to go to Marshalls crib and off the mutha, to keep my 'A' in conduct. :)

Steve,

I believe your avatar alone is a punishable offense (but I really like it.)

[Leon]

Im just gonna have to go to Marshalls crib and off the mutha, to keep my 'A' in conduct. :)


I am counting on you to get the board "best behavior" award.

[barrysloate]

It would be nice to see the personal attacks end, and for the loose cannons to either learn some manners or go elsewhere.

[Anthony S.]

Good to see the moderators marshal all the resources at their disposal to maintain order.

[canjond]

Good to see the moderators marshal all the resources at their disposal to maintain order.

"reward poor behavior" ... shouldn't that be "punish ppor behavior" or "discipline poor behavior"? Barry - where are you on that one?

[barrysloate]

Jon- that's pretty funny because I told Leon this morning that I thought "reward" was a poor choice of words. But he's the moderator, so I was overruled.:(

[tbob]

We should never mistake freedom of speech for freedom from responsibility for what one says. I hope that going forward we have a nicer forum that makes people less hesitant to be active posters.



Amen. I am with you brother.

[Leon]

The first definition that pops up in google:



re·ward<SCRIPT>play_w2("R0211700")</SCRIPT><OBJECT style="MARGIN: 1px" codeBase=http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,0,0 height=21 width=13 classid=clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000>
























<embed src="http://img.tfd.com/m/sound.swf" FlashVars="sound_src=http://img.tfd.com/hm/mp3/R0211700.mp3" menu="false" width="13" height="21" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"></OBJECT> (rhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gif-wôrdhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gif) </P>n. 1. Something given or received in recompense for worthy behavior or in retribution for evil acts.

[Brian Van Horn]

Gee, I guess I'm right in the middle. I don't do anything to incite and I don't excel. Mediocrity is a sin according to one member's avatar, so that leaves me to strive for one goal. I would like to nominated for apathetic and indifference award. No hurry, because I'm also working on the procrastination award.

[barrysloate]

It really says a reward is a retribution for evil acts? No such definition in Webster's. Well, let's give Leon the benefit of the doubt on this one...:o

[brianp-beme]

I say we give Leon the reward of the doubt...and may this reward be shiny and unobtrusive.

Brian (I should be rewarded for my obtuseness)

[GoldenAge50s]

Gee, I guess I'm right in the middle. I don't do anything to incite and I don't excel. Mediocrity is a sin according to one member's avatar, so that leaves me to strive for one goal. I would like to nominated for apathetic and indifference award. No hurry, because I'm also working on the procrastination award.

GREAT post, Brian!

LMAO @ that last line!

[nolemmings]

I assume you mean "informal" rather than "verbal" warning as preceding an infraction, or do you actually intend on phoning us? :)

[Leon]

I assume you mean "informal" rather than "verbal" warning as preceding an infraction, or do you actually intend on phoning us? :)

Thanks for catching that Todd...of course we/I won't be calling. When I said "verbal" it was absolutely meant to be "informal". My mistake. We will get that changed.
thanks much

[buymycards]

Leon,
This is a good idea. Now if you will please apply the rule to all of the threads that turn into Seinfeld threads I would appreciate it. :p

The Monty Python references are fine.

Rick

I'm a lumberjack and I'm OK

[Ladder7]

Monty Python, hrmmmph. Eurotrash.

[Brian Van Horn]

OK. Now I'm going for the indifferent curiosity award. Which Monty Python reference are we referring to here? ;)

[nolemmings]

Thanks for catching that Todd...of course we/I won't be calling. When I said "verbal" it was absolutely meant to be "informal". My mistake. We will get that changed.
thanks much

Just bustin' your chops Leon. You can call and reprimand/warn me anytime, although you may have to stand in line :)

[Reginald Marsh]

Rambo wrote "Im just gonna have to go to Marshalls crib and off the mutha, to keep my 'A' in conduct" ....

Somehow i hear the whistling from the theme song of The good The bad and the ugly.;)

[Brian Van Horn]

I am now getting a mental picture of Monty Python from Monty Python and the Holy Grail taking on Clint Eastwood. Well, it's time for bed.

[toppcat]

More cowbell!

[Reginald Marsh]

Don't fear the reaper.

[ethicsprof]

Great work, Leon.
You represent the best of the Thomas Hobbesian mindset.

best,

barry

[baseballart]

Net54 is nasty, brutish and short?

[White Borders]

I've noticed that people often use the term "verbal" when they mean "oral". Verbal refers to the use of words, whether written or spoken. Oral is more specific in that it refers to spoken words. So, Leon's use of "verbal" was correct, it just did not specify whether it was to be written or spoken.

And now for something completely different:

Monty Python and the Holy Grail - The Killer Bunny (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcxKIJTb3Hg)

[nolemmings]

while the word verbal might literally mean by the use of words, the term is superfluous when used as it was by Leon. Of course a warning here would be through the use of words, unless he intended that he was sending the offender symbols, gestures, smoke signals, a one-act mime play, etc. Thus, Mirriam-Webster definition #3 for verbal, i.e. "3 : spoken rather than written", applies and was not truly intended by the speaker, making it incorrect, IMHO.

Respectfully,
The Knights Who Say Ni

[Cat]

Whatever.

Checking back tomorrow to verify on my demerit score.

[kcohen]

OK. Now I'm going for the indifferent curiosity award. Which Monty Python reference are we referring to here? ;)

Did someone refer to Venezuelan Beaver Cheese?

[Matt]

while the word verbal might literally mean by the use of words, the term is superfluous when used as it was by Leon. Of course a warning here would be through the use of words, unless he intended that he was sending the offender symbols, gestures, smoke signals, a one-act mime play, etc. Thus, Mirriam-Webster definition #3 for verbal, i.e. "3 : spoken rather than written", applies and was not truly intended by the speaker, making it incorrect, IMHO.

Respectfully,
The Knights Who Say Ni


I'm fairly certain Leon had a spanking in mind so verbal was not superfluous.

You had spankings? Our parents didn't even love us enough to give us spankings; we had to lay on our stomachs with our bare bums exposed for days waiting for a beam to fall form the ceiling!

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1by0-nkKOTs&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1by0-nkKOTs&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Brian Van Horn]

Stop that! Stop that! This has become quite silly! So, in an effort to restore order to this thread, I, the Colonel, must impose some rules. We will have a free association Monty Python auction. To have this auction, we will have a panel of judges:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o76WQzVJ434

If for any reason the judges can not meet, we will have to resort to the Marques of Queensbury rules.

So far in this free association auction we have had one ill tempered rabbit, Venezuelan Beaver Cheese and Four Yorkshire Men. I will keep the bidding going with a lumberjack:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xToPCaNxaow

Do we have another bid?

[kkkkandp]

We can't let this thread expire without the Spam sketch...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anwy2MPT5RE

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

A paper bag?! Luxury!

[canjond]

It really says a reward is a retribution for evil acts? No such definition in Webster's. Well, let's give Leon the benefit of the doubt on this one...:o

I concur!

[Sean_C]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kQFKtI6gn9Y&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kQFKtI6gn9Y&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

I'm not sure which is more apt, the abuse part or the argument part.

[Exhibitman]

I like applesauce

[Brian Van Horn]

Aw, lovely. The free association auction is coming along splendidly. Now, I've noticed that the auction has taken on at points a food perspective with rabbit and spam. Well, if we have a meat course (rabbit), we have to balance it with a course of fish:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsfiD78Cy0s

[Matt]

Aw, lovely. The free association auction is coming along splendidly. Now, I've noticed that the auction has taken on at points a food perspective with rabbit and spam. Well, if we have a meat course (rabbit), we have to balance it with a course of fish:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsfiD78Cy0s

Dancing...Walking...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqhlQfXUk7w

[iggyman]

Duh! Now I get it! Of course.....thanks for the clarification guys. The wisdom on this board is truly amazing!


Leon is the "Black Knight"

At the moment, Bruce is the "Spam"

And seeing how well bidding went in last night's Silk Road Equity Auction. I guess that makes us all a "Dead Parrot"...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218

Lovely Day...

[PGACPA]

Hey Max,
I think "nasty, brutish and short" is Adam W's lawfirm :)
Bob

[Exhibitman]

"Wee Screwem & Howe"
"Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression & Acceptance"

[White Borders]

Aw, lovely. The free association auction is coming along splendidly. Now, I've noticed that the auction has taken on at points a food perspective with rabbit and spam. Well, if we have a meat course (rabbit), we have to balance it with a course of fish:

Aahh, this talk of food has left me feeling a bit peckish ... The Cheese Shoppe (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3KBuQHHKx0)

[Exhibitman]

Aahh, this talk of food has left me feeling a bit peckish ... The Cheese Shoppe (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3KBuQHHKx0)

I think that might be The Undertaker Sketch:

Undertaker: I think we've got an eater.
Man: What?!?
Fred: (peeking head round the door) Right, I'll get the oven on.(goes off)
Man: Er, excuse me, um.... are you suggesting eating my mother?
Undertaker: Er... yeah, not raw. Cooked.
Man: What?
Undertaker: Yes, roasted with a few french fries, broccoli, horseradish sauce...
Man: Well, I do feel a bit peckish.

[Brian Van Horn]

Excellent. I do believe, however, we have found the man who was in the cheese shop just before the last gentleman. Mr. Creosote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlK62rjQWLk

[Lordstan]

Brian,

Gee, I guess I'm right in the middle. I don't do anything to incite and I don't excel. Mediocrity is a sin according to one member's avatar, so that leaves me to strive for one goal. I would like to nominated for apathetic and indifference award. No hurry, because I'm also working on the procrastination award.

I don't think you can win the Apathetic and Indifferent Award. I'm pretty sure it's against the rules to STRIVE for an award for apathy. It appears you're disqualified. Of course, final decision comes from the selection committee.

Less clear is whether one can work toward a procrastination award. Maybe this can be decided later on...


Now stop all these Python shenanigans or I shall taunt you a second time.(recite in heavy french accent)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8yjNbcKkNY&feature=channel

[Brian Van Horn]

Jolly good show! Iggyman has had an epiphany and I have been taunted. By the way, does anyone else think that the taunter at the castle would make a fine Maitre d'? Well, once taunted, I can only do one thing which is to look on the bright side of life:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlBiLNN1NhQ&NR=1

[FrankWakefield]

Leon...

No sarcasm or anything intended with this... I'm sincere.


Could you give yourself a warning or infraction and leave it on there for a few days? What I'm wanting is to be able to click on your name or do whatever it is we should do so that we see if someone has any warnings? After a few days you could take it off of yourself. I'd just like to see the mechanics of it. Please don't boot yourself; just an infraction.

When I read your first post in this I expected that if I clicked on someone's name then I'd see an "infraction" tab, and from there I could get to how many they have... But I don't see "infraction". So does that show up only if the person has one?

Thanks.

Frank.

[Leon]

Leon...

No sarcasm or anything intended with this... I'm sincere.


Could you give yourself a warning or infraction and leave it on there for a few days? What I'm wanting is to be able to click on your name or do whatever it is we should do so that we see if someone has any warnings? After a few days you could take it off of yourself. I'd just like to see the mechanics of it. Please don't boot yourself; just an infraction.

When I read your first post in this I expected that if I clicked on someone's name then I'd see an "infraction" tab, and from there I could get to how many they have... But I don't see "infraction". So does that show up only if the person has one?

Thanks.

Frank.

Hi Frank
I guess I made a mistake. Moderators (myself included) don't have an infraction system for ourselves. I guess that's the way it works. I don't really want to go about finding a way of giving one of us an infraction either as if it gets to that point (and it won't as my sidekicks are great guys in the best sense of the word) then we will take care of it other ways. I did just give you a test infraction that I made to expire in 3 days. Hope that helps. I want to make it clear that the infraction system won't be used too often but is there just in case....regards

[FrankWakefield]

OK,

I'd still like to see what it looks like when I click on someone's name.

Could you give me one infraction for a day or so, then remove it? That way I can at least click on my own name and see what it looks like, how to find it, etc. And anyone else curious about that could click on "FrankWakefield" and see how it will work.

Thanks.

[Leon]

OK,

I'd still like to see what it looks like when I click on someone's name.

Could you give me one infraction for a day or so, then remove it? That way I can at least click on my own name and see what it looks like, how to find it, etc. And anyone else curious about that could click on "FrankWakefield" and see how it will work.

Thanks.

Hi Frank,
Did you manage to read my post before you asked this question? Have you cliqued :) on your name?

[FrankWakefield]

Yes, sir (obviously with insufficient comprehension); no sir; but now I have!!

Great! I now see where to look. I like the tab, and the little red dot. I'm fine with leaving that on there for a while in case anyone else wants to see it.

Thanks.


Frank W.

[rc4157]

Ok, I can't see Frank's little red dot. When I click (or clique:D) on his name
this is what I see:

FrankWakefield
View Public Profile
Send a private message to FrankWakefield
Send email to FrankWakefield
Find all posts by FrankWakefield
Add FrankWakefield to Your Contacts

[Matt]

Ok, I can't see Frank's little red dot. When I click (or clique:D) on his name
this is what I see:

View Public Profile


That's the one you want.

[FrankWakefield]

Click on my name.

Then click on view public profile.

There will be 4 tabs across there, click on the "Infractions" one.

And with that you should see my "infraction", red dot to the right of it.

FW

[nolemmings]

I only see three tabs. I say you get another infraction for wasting my time. :)

[ChiefBenderForever]

I don't see it either.

[kkkkandp]

I thought I was having trouble with my browser, but apparently not.

I'm guessing the extra tab might be visible to only the offender. It really is kind of private information and if I was an offender, I wouldn't want the general public to see I had any demerits. It could be an incentive for people to bait me into getting myself kicked off.

[Matt]

How about now?

[FrankWakefield]

I see 4 tabs on me...

About Me, Statistics, Infractions, Contact Info.

[Jim VB]

How about now?

Still 3 tabs for me.

[canjond]

same... only 3

[Matt]

Well, upon reading the documentation, it seems there is no way inherent to the software to expose the infractions page. If you get one, you'll know and be able to see it, but it won't be public.

[FrankWakefield]

Hey Matt,

Thank you guys, at least I got to see it.


Now, if I get an Infraction for real, I'd get an email about that, too, right? Realistically I don't click on my name very often, I'd not know I was on probation....

FW

[Rob D.]

Maybe there's no tab because Frank is above reproach.

[nolemmings]

well Frank, I always said we should keep tabs on you. :p

[rc4157]

I'm just glad I wasn't the only person unable to view the infractions tab. I was beginning to question my internet navigating abilities.

Thanks to those who worked on this and also to Frank for being the "infractions guinea pig".

RC

[Matt]

I've gone ahead and given Frank another infraction. Can y'all see that one anywhere?

[rc4157]

Nope, Frank is still squeaky clean here in Ohio.

[FrankWakefield]

Alright!!!

I just got a Net54 email saying I got an infraction. Didn't get that first time around. I think this is a good thing, testing out the infraction system.

Anyone else see my Infraction tab?? I have 2 now, a yellow dot one and a red dot one. Come on, moderator dudes, bring all the noise you have!!!

[rc4157]

Be careful Frank, I think one more and you are banned.:eek:

RC

[Matt]

Frank - I removed the yellow one (a warning) and just added another red one. Perhaps this one is visible to others?

[rc4157]

Still just the 3 tabs for me.

[Matt]

Still just the 3 tabs for me.

OK - thanks for checking.

[FrankWakefield]

I see 3 infractions now, red, yellow, red... Here's what it says...


Post / Reason Date / Posted By Points / Expires

Our Net54baseball.com...
Reason: Test #3
09-01-2009 07:37 PM by Matt 1 / 09-02-2009 07:37 PM

Our Net54baseball.com...
Reason: another test
09-01-2009 07:29 PM by Matt 0 / Reversed

Profile Infraction
Reason: this is a test infraction
09-01-2009 08:36 AM by Leon 1 / 09-04-2009 08:36 AM

[Matt]

The yellow one (warning) says "Reversed" as I took it away. The red one (infraction) I just gave you should be visible to others according to the documentation. Not sure it will be in a tab or some other way, but it should be visible to others somehow...
regardless, it expires in 24 hours.

[rc4157]

I could be missing it I guess but I checked all 3 tabs and looked around and don't see any dots other than the green dot that signifies that Frank is online.

[Matt]

I could be missing it I guess but I checked all 3 tabs and looked around and don't see any dots other than the green dot that signifies that Frank is online.

I don't think it will show as a dot - more likely some text that says Frank has 2 infraction points. I'll try to find a screenshot so we're not groping around in the dark. Thanks for your help.

[kkkkandp]

Still nothing on his Public Profile, but in the lower right corner of Frank's 8:36 PM post there is a little red card (sort of like soccer). When you mouse over it, the system displays a "Received Infraction" message.

Oddly, the red card disappeared in Franks' next post.

[Matt]

Still nothing on his Public Profile, but in the lower right corner of Frank's 8:36 PM post there is a little red card (sort of like soccer). When you mouse over it, the system displays a "Received Infraction" message.

Oddly, the red card disappeared in Franks' next post.

Kevin - thanks for finding that. Basically, there are two kinds of infractions - general infractions and post-specific infractions. The documentation says that general infractions can't inherently be made public but infractions specific to a post can be made public. I guess what you found is what that looks like, which doesn't do us much good. Since it's specific for a particular post the user made, apparently it only shows in that post.

[calvindog]

Basically, there are two kinds of infractions - general infractions and post-specific infractions.

I love it! Sort of like regular probation and double secret probation!

[rc4157]

Thanks Kevin. Now I know what a soccer card looks like.

[kkkkandp]

Thanks to my soccer-playing son and daughter I am all too familiar with them! :D

[hcv123]

we should never mistake freedom of speech for freedom from responsibility for what one says. I hope that going forward we have a nicer forum that makes people less hesitant to be active posters.

well said!