Moderation talk:Policy Discussion/Anti Troll Policy

Make it a week, two weeks allows for *alot* of trolling. Also change it to a majority of edits because technically one useful edit can prevent this rule from coming into effect as written. - 17:40, 20 October 2006 (PDT)
 * This is true. Good point(s). -- Mo Mo(d) 17:41, 20 October 2006 (PDT)
 * Oop. Actually, as written it's two weeks until the warning wears off. In other words, there's two weeks in which the user must not troll, flame, or behave badly lest they be banned. -- Mo Mo(d) 17:44, 20 October 2006 (PDT)
 * Ah, fair enough. That makes sense. Well I think it's perfect then. - 17:46, 20 October 2006 (PDT)

Is this retroactive? 18:11, 20 October 2006 (PDT)
 * Only in that a person's contributions are taken into account. If you're looking to circumvent the warning I issued, remember you're dealing with the site owner. It's not a card I wanted to play, but my hand was forced - whatever I post as owner of this site is official. It is solely due to continued abuse of the site that this is where we stand. I'm sure you understand this. -- Mo Mo(d) 18:19, 20 October 2006 (PDT)
 * I'm not trying to circumvent anything; just looking for a little clarification. 18:24, 20 October 2006 (PDT)
 * Okay, awesome. Sorry for jumping to the conclusion. -- Mo Mo(d) 18:49, 20 October 2006 (PDT)
 * I was wondering the same thing, actually... -- 18:07, 23 October 2006 (PDT)

I like it, but i think that there should be a short-term ban between the warning and permanent ban (i assume its that) so as to give a stronger message to them before removing them completely.--Mr yawn 09:59, 7 November 2006 (PST)
 * Have a careful re-read over it. It says "Bans follow the same incrementations as vandalism bannings", meaning that it's 24 hours, 48 hours, 1 week, 1 month then forever. Or at least thats how I've read it anyway. - 04:04, 8 November 2006 (PST)
 * Oops, nevermind. I still think bans need to be stronger then that though.--Mr yawn [[Image:Poster 3781.jpg|14px]] 04:58, 8 November 2006 (PST)
 * I think we should have like a week long notice, then the warning proceedure. Otherwise you could ban someone who didn't realize it. -- 14:04, 10 November 2006 (PST)
 * How do you mean? Currently as it's stated the user gets a two week warning then if they troll they have esculating bans. Reducing it to a week won't change people's attitudes. It's impossible to ban someone who doesn't know they shouldn't troll. - 23:26, 11 November 2006 (PST)
 * I mean, like if you have more than half trolling edits but you didn't notice it (for whatever reason), then they would be notified. Not getting an immediate warning, which is how this is currently written. -- 09:32, 12 November 2006 (PST)
 * Ah, ok then. So how would this notice work exactly? At the moment I see it the same as being warned, except unoffical. It's my understanding that the warnings given out by this are seperate to the ones that are issued from Vandal Banning so a warning won't turn out to be a perma-ban or something like that. Anyway I'm curious as to how you can get half or more of your contributions as trolling and not realize it. I cannot see the point in allowing a troll to continue trolling for an extra week, warn them and have them on good behaviour for two weeks when you could have just had those two weeks up front. - 16:50, 12 November 2006 (PST)
 * So, we both agree on the general idea, but the details are different? -- 14:18, 15 November 2006 (PST)
 * Yes, I think so. This is what we can seem to agree on (or at least from what I can tell, correct me if I'm wrong). A warning is needed before any bannings take place. The warning lasts for a period of time and the bannings can only occur during this period of time. Does that sound right? As I read it the policy is along the same lines. A warning is issued which lasts two weeks, then if the user trolls in these two weeks they are subjected to increasing bans which carry on from the previous times. The major difference that I can see is that you want an additional 1 week period where the user has a warning which they can make positive contributions to avoid the two week warning and the bannings. Is that right? - 01:35, 16 November 2006 (PST)
 * By an 'unoffical' warning I mean like you just leave a note, but I just added the one week thing because you might not be online for a while and accumulate bans. -- 12:01, 18 November 2006 (PST)

Move to Voting
I'm going to move this into voting soon. Post any suggestions for changes below and let's make this thing work. If it passes voting and all. -- Mo Mo(d) on pot 10:27, 21 November 2006 (PST)
 * Argue is defined as follows:

1. to present reasons for or against a thing: He argued in favor of capital punishment. 2. to contend in oral disagreement; dispute: The Senator argued with the President about the new tax bill. –verb (used with object) 3. to state the reasons for or against: The lawyers argued the case. 4. to maintain in reasoning: to argue that the news report must be wrong. 5. to persuade, drive, etc., by reasoning: to argue someone out of a plan. 6. to show; prove; imply; indicate: His clothes argue poverty.

[as described by http://dictionary.reference.com]

If we keep in mind these definitions, including arguing in the ATP presses the SW Wiki towards a dictatorship, rather than encouraging discussion towards a common goal. We might want to look for a more specific definition for trolling. Maybe something to the effect of "posting with the intent of agitating other wiki users in a non-constructive way" or something like that. Otherwise, a moderator who disagrees with another moderator for slapping a user with the ATP could get the ATP him/herself just for being contrary.-- MaRt ModHaVoC 11:56, 8 December 2006 (PST)
 * I think by arguing, it means constant bickering. -- 14:15, 8 December 2006 (PST)
 * I figured as much. But it should say what it means, and mean what it says.  That way it's not open to interpretation and loopholes.-- MaRt ModHaVoC 18:02, 9 December 2006 (PST)

Woah, this policy has been in discussion for a long time. Perhaps it's time to open to a vote? I don't know how many moderators are around but I'm pretty sure this policy was on discussion before I even left the first time. -- 04:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)