Add an Explicit Reason to a Person's Record When They Are Place On Conduct Negative Status

Service: Narrative

When someone is placed on Conduct Negative, a specific reason for doing so should become a part of the person's record. Currently, the Conduct Negative notification box reads:

This member is being penalized for certain actions they have taken. While Conduct Negative, they are restricted from performing all of the following, until the penalty time elapses: a) suggesting, voting on, bidding on, or appealing Niches, b) being nominated for elections, c) posting content or comments.

When a comment is removed, their Activity feed reads:

Had comment removed due to an Acceptable Use Policy violation.
Sep 18, 2019 @ 8:44am
This is inadequate because there may be people who see the action but don't understand what precipitated the negative action. That could lead them to believe they are being persecuted for being a part of a certain group. An explicit statement explaining which part of the AUP they violated would be helpful to clear up any confusion. 
Also, instead of removing offending comments or posts entirely, why not archive them somewhere so that they are not a part of the public face of Narrative, but they are accessible as an archive so that if something comes up in the future, a dispute or a question, concerning the event, it can be cleared up with the proper evidence. This could be particularly helpful in Tribunal matters and Committee decisions later on when these elements are in place.
I believe an individual can get past their negative behavior and be reformed, but there are times when they persist in their behavior and their friends may not see or understand why that individual is being singled out. 
Original Post

Activity Stream

Good suggestion, @Garden Gnome Publications. I happen to have reported some AUP violation comments for more than one user who is currently conduct negative. I know exactly what they were penalized for, but others who didn't see the comments have no idea.

If anyone is curious, I won't name names, but comments I reported as AUP violations that were acted on made people Conduct Negative for the following reasons, pulled straight from the AUP:

  • No bullying/self-harm/threatening behavior or inciting of violence.
  • [redacted] because I have some pending reports to make.

For some clarification about the bullying comments, they were not the usual brand of disagreement with a harsh tone that we often see about contentious subjects. These were personal attacks with violent posturing that would have been even more concerning if the commenter and the person they were attacking lived on the same continent.

Bumping this up because I noticed someone was Conduct Negative who I wouldn't have expected to be Conduct Negative, and I don't know what their offense was other than worth a 5-day timeout. (And I wasn't the one to report anything, LOL!)

Thanks for helping us avoid "spelunking"! It's helpful to have suggestions in a neat little nugget like this for consideration. 

This type of enhancement might work as part of the AUP review queue system, since the reviewers will be choosing a specific violation from a list. (NO promises here, just a comment

David Dreezer posted:

Crosslinking these suggestions as they are relative to each other:

Also, bear in mind that in the spec is the Review Queue, which once built, would make all of these complaints, activities, votes, and subsequent removals completely public.

But in the meantime... this would be helpful to institute now. Especially before any elections begin. 🙂

Add Reply