Thread: The Infraction system explained

Owing to some recent confusion this post is being made to explain the purposes of the infraction system and how it works.

Primarily the infraction system aims to improve the standards of behaviour on the forum and encourage people not to break the forum rules. It is always hoped that the system will allow us to nip problems in the bud before they reach the point where we have to ban someone as contrary to popular opinion the moderators do not like banning people. Secondly the system allows us to keep track of warnings so that we can easily see a members history. This is preferable to informal warnings as with this system all moderators can see what warnings the others have issued.

A breach of forum rules can result in an infraction. Each infraction is worth 1 point and will remain active for 1 month. If your reach 3 points (3 infractions in a month) you will receive an automatic 1 week ban.

For very minor offences a warning my be issued. Warnings are not worth any points.

It is important to note that infractions do not expire if you receive a ban. They expire as normal 1 month after being issued. Therefore when you return from a ban you may still have active infractions. The purpose of this is to ensure that those returning from a ban are on 'best behaviour'. You can view your infractions, both active and expired, and your warnings through your profile.

Thank you for explaining why I still have an infraction (and why others have them), best behaviour, well I dont think you have a chance with any of us.

When I were a an argumentative youngster an elderly man I worked with who I really liked said to me: "Choose your battles carefully". I remember this because I didn't understand it at the time but over the years I have come to understand it.

Some of the people on this forum, you can understand why they don't seem to get anywhere in politics. Before you start arguing with someone you have to ask questions like: What am I hoping to get out of this argument? How will the person respond? What power does this person have over me or others? Will this argument alienate people from me or will they respect me? If I lose will I withdraw, and do I lose out by withdrawing? Am I better off by staying quiet, or staying out of this argument altogether? This is the skill. It has to be learned largely be trial and error, although some people seem to have a much better instinct for it than others.

This skill, and the willingness to learn it, seems to be sorely lacking in some of the people who post here.

Originally Posted by Reprobate

When I were a an argumentative youngster an elderly man I worked with who I really liked said to me: "Choose your battles carefully". I remember this because I didn't understand it at the time but over the years I have come to understand it.

Some of the people on this forum, you can understand why they don't seem to get anywhere in politics. Before you start arguing with someone you have to ask questions like: What am I hoping to get out of this argument? How will the person respond? What power does this person have over me or others? Will this argument alienate people from me or will they respect me? If I lose will I withdraw, and do I lose out by withdrawing? Am I better off by staying quiet, or staying out of this argument altogether? This is the skill. It has to be learned largely be trial and error, although some people seem to have a much better instinct for it than others.

This skill, and the willingness to learn it, seems to be sorely lacking in some of the people who post here.

Personally, I prefer an 'all-guns-blazing' approach. And I don't care whether it earns respect or people hate me for it. I am who I am. I just wander around the forum speaking my mind.

I would say there is no dishonour in defeat, indeed no dishonour in fighting even though you are bound to lose if it is something you beleive in, whatever any other member of the human race feels. You should always try to fight within the rules of the game, but sometimes when the rules blatently discriminate you may have to break them.

The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police has criticised some of his officers for recording snowball throwing as "serious violent crime".

Peter Fahy said the officers concerned had failed to show any common sense.

Now that even the police have accepted that they have over-reacted and apologised for it, I wonder if the mods here will ever do the same?

Originally Posted by Richard Allen

We are perfectly willing to apologise on those occasions when we get things wrong.

Oh yes? Give me an example of where this has happened then.

I have never received any apologies for all the unfair infractions I have been subject to.

Originally Posted by Marilyn

Umm .. well, if the UK ever loses its fractious, bolshie, up-yours attitude .. then you are truly lost folks. A terrible loss indeed.
There is a need for this, and should it be silenced by the cotton-wool kumbaya brigade then .. OH ****, I am moving to Australia next where they haven't caved into this freakin nonsense. "On the Beach" .. the last stand.. LOL

Absolutely right.

People often talk about how Britain was the first to establish a modern democracy, or how we have always fought for freedom, or how fairness is part of the British character, etc, but the point is that the reason we have traditionally been fighters for freedom and fairness is because these are things we truly and passionately believe in ... or at least, we used to.

If we believe in these things then we have to stand up for our beliefs.