board77

APPROVED TEXT:

¶9 Offenses That Merit a Penalty

The following penalties are available to juries:
• Disabling PM privileges
• Temporary Suspension of posting rights in a specific forum
• Permanent Suspension of posting rights in a specific forum
• Temporary Confinement to the Bike Racks (a suspension of board-wide posting rights)
• Temporary Ban
• Immediate or Indefinite Ban (per Article 3, poster must appeal for reversal no sooner than one month after the ban is executed, and Administrators may wait an additional two months before convening a hearing)

There are no permanent, irreversible bans on Board77. But when a hearing is held to petition the reversal of a ban, the jury is permitted to uphold the ban and specify a duration.

General Guidelines for imposing penalties:
• The jury generally has discretion to impose the penalty it considers appropriate as long as the maximum penalties specified below are not exceeded.
• If this is a first offense and the jury feels that the time already restricted to the Bike Racks or the Jury Room is sufficient, or if they feel confident that because of the circumstances in which the error took place it is very unlikely to be repeated, they are not obligated to impose a penalty.
• If the offense is restricted to a single forum (e.g. There and Back Again or Thinking of England) the penalty may also be restricted to that forum (e.g. temporary or permanent suspension of posting rights).
• The penalty ought to relate as closely as possible to the offense; for example, if abusive use of PM’s is the offense, then PM privileges may be disenabled.
• Penalties may be greater for second, third or multiple offenses than they are for first offenses.
• If juries are in doubt as to an appropriate penalty, they should review penalties imposed for similar problems in the past and try to be consistent.

Offenses for which the maximum penalty for a first offense is an immediate ban:

• Spamming the board with ads
• Spamming the board with pornography
• Hacking the board
• Refusing to abide by the Decision of the Jury in a Hearing [maximum penalty is mandated by Article 4.]
• Threats of real life violence or other criminal acts against members
[maximum penalty is mandated by Article 4.]
• Deliberately introducing a virus to members of the board

Offenses for which the maximum penalty for a first offense is temporary restriction to the BikeRacks:

• In the Jury Room, any interference with a Hearing. [At the termination of the Hearing in which the poster interfered, a Hearing for that poster is held to determine any penalty]

Offenses for which the maximum penalty is a temporary ban if this is not the first offense and the problem appears to be persistent:

• Persistent posting of objectionable content:
•• abusive language toward another poster
•• attacks of a personal nature
•• defamatory remarks targetting nationality, ethnicity, native language, religion, gender, sexual orientation or age
•• advertisement of products for personal gain

• Persistent posting of offensive pictures:
•• pictures a reasonable person would find pornographic
•• pictures a reasonable person would find gratuitously violent or distasteful, that is, designed to shock and/or dismay other posters

• Using the board to solicit the participation of members in illegal activities:

• Repeatedly exposing the members to viruses through negligence.

• In the Bike Racks, repeated interference with other members’ thread

• Use of PM or Email to:
•• harrass another member
•• make defamatory remarks targetting nationality, ethnicity, native language, religion, gender, sexual orientation or age

Offenses for which the maximum penalty is permanent suspension of access to a particular forum:

• In the There and Back Again forum, repeatedly posting in a manner that prevents another character(s) from participating or greatly circumscribes their activity

• In the Thinking of England Forum, posting in a manner that ridicules, demeans or threatens other posters
[approved May 28, 2005]

I do like the idea of establishing a maximum penalty for offenses (this would give the juries a guideline to work within). It also seems like it would be preferrable to group the offenses, and have a maximum penalty for each group (just for simplicity's sake).

It wouldn't have occurred to me to have a different level of penalties for second offenses. Perhaps some general sort of guideline could be given for second offenses (rather than specifying that in each case, or for each group).

This is another area where I see a big risk of proliferating ever-more-precise distinctions and rules. I would argue for two categories of offenses: those for which one can be banned from the boards, and those for which a lesser penalty must be given. Our two types of hearings already draw this distinction.

We could consider making a rule that the penalty for a second offense (or maybe a third) needs to be more severe than the initial penalty—somebody banned from a single forum might need to spend some time in the Bike Racks; someone who's already been sent to the Bike Racks without effect might need a temporary ban; etc.

Byond that, I think common sense dictates most possible penalties. Persistent offensive posting of picture or words calls for limiting posting rights to the Bike Racks (solves the problem and punishes the poster). Abuse of PMs means loss of PM capability (solves the problem and punishes the poster). Misbehaving in a special forum gets you banned from that forum. I think juries should look for the most lenient punishment that solves the problem and punishes the poster.

In other words, I'd like to see a set of principles rather than specific prescriptions.

I like the draft, and I agree with Prim.

Repeat offenses should definitely meet with increasingly high penalties.

Sorry, don't have more definite ideas right now.

I just wanted to let Jn know I've read this, but don't feel I have anything to offer unfortunately.

So can PM options be turned on/off for each poster? It's not a board wide thing?

Yes, Eru—it's an individual switch. Handy, huh?

Quote:

In other words, I'd like to see a set of principles rather than specific prescriptions.

I have no problem with this, so long as the set of principles is sufficiently precise to give a jury clear guidance as to how to approach a particular violation.

I agree, Voronwe—they'd have to be clear and carefully written. But I think they'd be more adaptable to later changes in the list of offenses and penalties than a matrix of specific punishments would be; they'd allow for considering mitigating or aggravating circumstances; and they'd show trust in jurors' judgment.

There is a location on the Admin panel where you can disable PMs and deny use of avatars, but no place that I can see that denies the use of signatures (including photos) and posting of photos within message text, unless we do it to the whole board.

Could we just say that a person who is consistantly posting unpleasant pix would be on a total-no-pix probation? A penalty that the person must impose on him/herself. That way we don't have to argue taste or porn. The person simply agrees not to post any pic for a set amount of time if s/he wants to remain a member. Or have you already discussed this and I missed it somehow.

OK I'll be quiet. I don't seem to be adding much these days.

Prim: I'm also thinking along the lines of principles

Certain things warrant a temp ban the first time they happen. Certain things warrant a temp ban only the second or third time they happen. So the temp ban becomes the max sentence, and where it kicks in for different categories of offense is what we would specify.

Then a general principle that the penalty fits the offense, eg. if the problem is confined to one forum, then posting rights are only suspended in that forum.

laureanna: Could we just say that a person who is consistantly posting unpleasant pix would be on a total-no-pix probation? A penalty that the person must impose on him/herself. That way we don't have to argue taste or porn. The person simply agrees not to post any pic for a set amount of time if s/he wants to remain a member. Or have you already discussed this and I missed it somehow.

If we can't restrict pics individually then we should probably place offensive pics in a category with something equivalent, like offensive language.

The jury is going to have to argue taste/porn in order to impose any kind of penalty at all, so I don't think changing the penalty will get us around that problem.

When you say "if s/he wants to remain a member," that implies to me that you have a temp ban in mind as the max penalty. Is that your thinking? - perhaps after two or three times, which would indicate that the poster has no intention of complying.

Jn

I don't know. There are bound to be people who will test the edge of propriety, repeatedly, and I don't know what the best way is to deal with them. I can handle raw language in small doses in a post, but large pictures, with too much information, popping up on my screen would really bother me.

For one thing, I'd no longer be able to post at work.

So maybe if it's a really rough pic it should go under the temp ban category first time around.

We can do that. It only depends on how you people feel about it.

Jn

Yes.

Maybe folks can tell what other things they think belong in the temp ban category first time around, and I'll add that in green following the offense so new visits to the thread will have a quick overview.

For my part, I would think that solicitation, hacking, spamming with ads and porn (all the things that warrant an immediate ban if you're here less than 7 days) should also carry a temp ban penalty, but you get a hearing and the duration of the ban is specified, so you don't have to request a reversal.

Jn

I going to stay out of this debate. You all know how I feel about this especially the pic thing.
It isn't worth it to me to alienate myself from people here over a pic.
I am aware of other people's sensitivities, and I hope that they would be aware of mine.
This whole topic raises my hackles to no end, so I have to remove myself from it.
Just please bear a few things in mind.
At some point, I think we will be able to have an option to disable pics in your profile, so posting at work instead of earning your money should not be a neverending issue.
The following pics are free for all to view at your local convenience store or shopping center.

Holby:

I am aware of other people's sensitivities, and I hope that they would be aware of mine ...

Well, there can always be lesser options in the poll, Holby, if these are offered as alternatives. And you can, of course, vote against anything. It just seems that the majority is of a different opinion - that we should place some limits however qualitative they may be.

Just btw, you've put cleavage in your pics before and no one has ever complained. Idylle has a naked lady in his pic right now and no one has complained. I don't think it's the character of the board that is going to change overnight and exclude you, but we might get some moron showing up with hard-core genitalia, and that's the person we want protection from.

At some point, I think we will be able to have an option to disable pics in your profile, so posting at work instead of earning your money should not be a neverending issue.

That would be great, for lots of reasons. When that happens, I presume that admins and juries would then discount this rationale as basis for a complaint.

Jn

I am aware of the inevitable moron and I think it proper to defend against them when and if they arrive. It is going to be the "borderline" cases that are going to cause a disruption. And that inevitably is going to come down to an opinion. There is no easy solution and no way to qualify this.
Like I said it isn't worth it.

Holby, I don't think any image you posted falls in the categories we're talking about. I don't think you would post such an image. I know you don't want to debate this—I just wanted to say that.

As Jn says, we want protection from morons. I'm pretty sure you do, too.

On one board I used to read occasionally it became the fashion to express annoyance by putting a hideous image in your post—autopsy photos, mangled corpses, name it. My concern about "shocking" images stems largely from that, because some of those almost made me physically sick, and they still haunt me. Images have a power words don't.

This was a board about the Academy Awards, by the way. Obviously I don't read it any more.

This is my final post regarding this topic.
The board is what it is now. We all pretty much know each other. It is conceivable that somewhere down the road, that new posters will come along. It is conceivable that those new posters will become admins. It is conceivable that the language in the charter will be open to interpretation.
Persistent posting of offensive pictures:temp ban
• pictures a reasonable person would find pornographic
• pictures a reasonable person would find gratuitously violent or distasteful, that is, designed to shock and/or dismay other posters

Those words that I have bolded could potentially lead to some strong armed self righteous admin, interpreting pics as they see fit. That is what worries me. Amongst other things.

And am I to infer that pics of Ozzie are out too?

Hobby,

We've got to get away from TORC paranoia. Two admins have to agree. Six jurors have to agree. Four former admins on an appeals panel have to agree. If twelve people think your sig pic sucks, then I'd say, it does indeed suck.

edit: i take that back ... twelve people would end up reviewing it, and nine of them would have to say it sucks.

And if the character of the board changes so much that pics now considered innocent become offensive, you'll have other reasons for not wanting to be here anymore.

Jn