PDA

View Full Version : Why Aren't Reversed Infractions Removed



Lster
August 20th, 2008, 03:19 PM
Hi

I received a warning infraction that was later reversed by the moderator. I can quite understand why expired infractions might be kept indefinitely, but why are reversed infractions still visible?

Thanks,
Lster

LaRoza
August 20th, 2008, 03:20 PM
No one can see it, so it isn't visible.

Of course, if you wanted to keep it private, posting it in a public forum wasn't the best way to do it ;)

schauerlich
August 20th, 2008, 03:23 PM
I also have a (rather large) reversed infraction that's still there. I think it's so that if there are issues similar to the one that led to the infraction, the admin at hand knows your history, whether what happened was your fault or not.

Joeb454
August 20th, 2008, 03:31 PM
They can be removed completely, though it is at the admin's discretion

LaRoza
August 20th, 2008, 03:32 PM
They can be removed completely, though it is at the admin's discretion

And only if giving it was a mistake.

Lster
August 20th, 2008, 03:34 PM
I know it isn't publicly viewable but since it has been removed... doesn't that imply it was wrongfully administered? I think it should be removed entirely if it is going to be reversed. I would really like an administrators response if possible (but I'm glad of other speculation as well).

In my case it was a 0 point infraction anyway... So reversing it has achieved nothing!

Joeb454
August 20th, 2008, 03:35 PM
In my case it was a 0 point infraction anyway... So reversing it has achieved nothing!

We could put it back if you like? ;)

Lster
August 20th, 2008, 03:38 PM
They can be removed completely, though it is at the admin's discretion

Well I don't know whether that would be OK for my case but I have to disagree with these strange rules anyway. If there is any question left, surely the infraction should be converted to a warning or something else instead of having non-existent infractions that actually do kinda' count!

LaRoza
August 20th, 2008, 03:40 PM
I know it isn't publicly viewable but since it has been removed... doesn't that imply it was wrongfully administered? I think it should be removed entirely if it is going to be reversed. I would really like an administrators response if possible (but I'm glad of other speculation as well).


No. The use of intractions and warnings is to let people know they did something and to amend their ways.

LaRoza
August 20th, 2008, 03:41 PM
Well I don't know whether that would be OK for my case but I have to disagree with these strange rules anyway. If there is any question left, surely the infraction should be converted to a warning or something else instead of having non-existent infractions that actually do kinda' count!

You got a warning, not an infraction. A warning is worth 0 points.

Lster
August 20th, 2008, 03:44 PM
We could put it back if you like? ;)

Obviously I feel I shouldn't have received it so, no. But essentially you see my point... Hypothetically, if person A gets an infraction with no wrong doing what-so-ever, and then it is reversed... They have come off worse for nothing.

It seems like reversed actually means: "no we meant it, but not this time".

LaRoza
August 20th, 2008, 03:45 PM
It seems like reversed actually means: "no we meant it, but not this time".

It means it isn't an issue any more.

Lster
August 20th, 2008, 03:46 PM
No. The use of intractions and warnings is to let people know they did something and to amend their ways. Most mods will reverse it if the person explains what happened, apologises, or otherwise lets the mod know the message was received. Reversing it is not a sign it was a mistake or wrongfully given.

Oh. So I'll have to argue this to an administrator? To be honest, I think a clearer system or at least better information is needed so people like me can understand this.

mips
August 20th, 2008, 03:52 PM
In the greater scheme of things does it really matter? I have some as well.

aysiu
August 20th, 2008, 03:53 PM
I know it isn't publicly viewable but since it has been removed... doesn't that imply it was wrongfully administered? Not necessarily. But even if it were wrongfully given, it's nice for us to keep a record of it. What if you said "Hey, remember that infraction you gave me that you later reversed"? Well, we might not remember... and if the reversal were completely removed, we'd have absolutely no record of it.

When I go to a store, and they charge me double for an item, then they will give me a refund and a new receipt for the refund. They don't pretend the double-charge never happened. But I still don't get double-charged for the item ultimately. I'm happy as a customer, and we both have a record that the store made a mistake.

Same deal here. If it was actually wrongfully administered, then both you and we have a record of that wrongful administration.


In my case it was a 0 point infraction anyway... So reversing it has achieved nothing! A 0-point infraction is a warning.

Canis familiaris
August 20th, 2008, 03:57 PM
In my understanding, there can be two possibilities in case of reversal of infraction:
(1) Infraction is reversed even though there was some kind of fault of the user since it was out of general behaviour of the user after user explains it properly.
(2) Infraction is reversed after some misunderstanding or mistake.

In the second case those infractions will truly be removed. If yours is the second case then posting in the resolution center giving your case would be your best bet.

I exactly dont know this stuff, so I am not very sure.

drubin
August 20th, 2008, 04:01 PM
A 0-point infraction is a warning.

I know this is little bit off topic, But where would I find the details of such information. Explanation of the current system these forums use?

Lster
August 20th, 2008, 04:10 PM
I know this is little bit off topic, But where would I find the details of such information. Explanation of the current system these forums use?

I don't think there is one. Hence my suggestion above!

@asyiu; I don't think the analogy works. It feels like I am still being accused of breaking the CoC. After all it is listed as an infraction not mistake. But perhaps it isn't supposed to be a mistake?

drubin
August 20th, 2008, 04:18 PM
@asyiu; I don't think the analogy works. It feels like I am still being accused of breaking the CoC. After all it is listed as an infraction not mistake. But perhaps it isn't supposed to be a mistake?

I think her analogy works perfectly. I am sure the moderators have additional notes on the topic that are not visible to the normal user. Giving more information.

LaRoza
August 20th, 2008, 04:18 PM
I know this is little bit off topic, But where would I find the details of such information. Explanation of the current system these forums use?

The PM sent ways "warning" on it in its title, and on the profile it is marked in yellow (red is for infractions).


I don't think there is one. Hence my suggestion above!

@asyiu; I don't think the analogy works. It feels like I am still being accused of breaking the CoC. After all it is listed as an infraction not mistake. But perhaps it isn't supposed to be a mistake?

By "mistake" I meant if it was given by accident or a big misunderstanding (I once gave an infraction to the wrong person entirely, and I asked an admin to remove it from the profile (even though I reversed it))

It was a 0 point warning that was set to expire in 7 days, and it was reversed. What more do you want? If you feel it should be removed entirely, you should have posted in the Resolution Centre for the admins to handle.

If you want to debate about it, next time perhaps Joeb454 won't reverse it to avoid long and pointless threads.

Lster
August 20th, 2008, 04:25 PM
By "mistake" I meant if it was given by accident or a big misunderstanding (I once gave an infraction to the wrong person entirely, and I asked an admin to remove it from the profile (even though I reversed it))

It was a 0 point warning that was set to expire in 7 days, and it was reversed. What more do you want? If you feel it should be removed entirely, you should have posted in the Resolution Centre for the admins to handle.

If you want to debate about it, next time perhaps Joeb454 won't reverse it to avoid long and pointless threads.

I personally feel insulted by it. And if you are suggesting that an infraction not be reversed to avoid argument you are surely against the CoC. It doesn't take much for an administrator to remove it.

And, yes, I've posted in the Resolution Center.

LaRoza
August 20th, 2008, 04:32 PM
I personally feel insulted by it. And if you are suggesting that an infraction not be reversed to avoid argument you are surely against the CoC. It doesn't take much for an administrator to remove it.

Joeb454 didn't have to reverse it, and from what I saw in the Resolution Centre, it was entirely up to him to reverse it or not. As it was a warning that was going to expire, a reversal isn't that big of a deal. However, someone made it a big deal...

Lster
August 20th, 2008, 04:40 PM
Joeb454 didn't have to reverse it, and from what I saw in the Resolution Centre, it was entirely up to him to reverse it or not. As it was a warning that was going to expire, a reversal isn't that big of a deal. However, someone made it a big deal...

No, it was not warranted. I didn't want all this bother either but I'm not going to back down. If someone said you were a murderer (but you aren't) but said "it's OK we'll let you off but record you as a murderer" you wouldn't be happy. I don't like being given something that was unwarranted and I feel it is my right to have this fixed. If you don't mind about things like this, that is your choice...

LaRoza
August 20th, 2008, 04:50 PM
No, it was not warranted. I didn't want all this bother either but I'm not going to back down. If someone said you were a murderer (but you aren't) but said "it's OK we'll let you off but record you as a murderer" you wouldn't be happy. I don't like being given something that was unwarranted and I feel it is my right to have this fixed. If you don't mind about things like this, that is your choice...

This has to be some sort of Godwin...

(Even acquittal are in the records, even arrests without charges, so your argument fell apart there.)

aysiu
August 20th, 2008, 04:52 PM
What has started off as theoretical seems to be verging on personal here. Lster, it's probably best if you continue this discussion in the Resolution Center.