Moderation system review

[Flemingovia]

Dear All,

we have had the same moderation warning system in TNP since Hersfold set it up in 2005:

If a member of the forum breaks forum rules, which include Invisionfree ToS and possibly other guidelines as the mods agree on them, they may be given an Official Warning depending on the severity of the breach and the number of times they have broken the rules since their last warning. Official Warnings are administered through the built-in Warning System, which allows moderators to increase warning levels in increments of 20%, and enforce moderation as required.

To ensure fair moderation across the board, these guidelines will be placed in effect for all moderation actions:

20% warning - 5 hour mod preview
40% - 1 day mod preview
60% - 5 hour post suspension, 3 day mod preview
80% - 3 day post suspension, 1 week mod preview
100% - 1 week post suspension, indefinite mod preview

And should, after 100%, the member's posts obviously are not improving, or if they're carrying on through PM's, they get kicked out the door via IP ban.

Definitions:

Mod Preview: A mod must review posts before they are publically viewable
Post Suspension: The member cannot post, but can still use other forum services and read topics.
IP Ban: Prevents a single computer or internet connection from accessing the forum. Other ban methods may be used if a single IP proves ineffective.

In the (hopefully unlikely) event of an extremely severe breach, it is possible that a more severe penalty may be enacted for that offence. However, deviations from this procedure will not be enacted without a general consent of all moderators.

It has served us well. It is clear and even-handed and irons out the mod bias you see in some other forums.

However, I think there are two main weaknesses to it at present:

1. There is no automatic sytem for reducing warning levels, only increasing them. This means that quite trivial warnings can remain on people's record for months or more, hastening their move towards the more serious higher level warnings.

2. Once someone is on 100% warning (permanent post moderation) it is almost impossible for them to get banned, since any warnable post would need to be approved.

There may be a case for a review of our warning sytem - something that has not happened in seven years.

Thoughts? Drafts?

 

[Chasmanthe]

I think we should keep the system as it is.

The fact that warning levels can never be reversed is something that the moderation team will take on board and ensure that they do not hand out anything undeservedly.

Additionally, it's unfair to make warnings reversible but not also consider unbanning people who have been banned.

If we want to use a system that is based on equality, justice and so on, then we should be using the legal system - the forum administration system should be used for reserved matters only, as it is not feasible to subject that system to the same level of accountability and therefore should be a last resort.

 

[Great Bights Mum]

Over 95% of our members never have any posts reported, much less receive a warning. We have only 9 active members who have at least one warning. All in all, it's a great group. I think the system we use helps folks know what to expect when they break the rules.

I am not in favor of expunging people's records. I think it could invite certain people to jerk us around, knowing they can just lay low for awhile and their warnings will evaporate. The fact that the warnings stay there gives them some real teeth.

I do agree that at the 100% level, someone would have to be pretty flagrant to be banned. Should it be easier to ban someone? I don't know, sort of depends on who we're talking about, doesn't it?

Also, I just noticed that the 100% carries an "indefinite mod preview." It doesn't say permanent. So, if the evidence shows someone on 100% has finally figured out how to behave, we can dispense with the preview.

 

[Hileville]

If we want to use a system that is based on equality, justice and so on, then we should be using the legal system - the forum administration system should be used for reserved matters only, as it is not feasible to subject that system to the same level of accountability and therefore should be a last resort.

I disagree with that. Since we are using ZetaBoards administration needs to abide by their policies as set up in the ToS and ToU. These violations are forum administration matters not legal system matters.

I agree with Flem that the system is flawed. When someone hits a 100% warn level they have already had enough chances and should be banned. Now I am not against a way for warnings to be reduced after x amount of time. Maybe have an evaluation of warnings every three or six months? During that time warnings can be evaluated and reduced based on behavior after the warning had been given.

 

[Chasmanthe]

If we want to use a system that is based on equality, justice and so on, then we should be using the legal system - the forum administration system should be used for reserved matters only, as it is not feasible to subject that system to the same level of accountability and therefore should be a last resort.

I disagree with that. Since we are using ZetaBoards administration needs to abide by their policies as set up in the ToS and ToU. These violations are forum administration matters not legal system matters.

I agree with Flem that the system is flawed. When someone hits a 100% warn level they have already had enough chances and should be banned. Now I am not against a way for warnings to be reduced after x amount of time. Maybe have an evaluation of warnings every three or six months? During that time warnings can be evaluated and reduced based on behavior after the warning had been given.

OK. Well if all warnings are to do with ZetaBoards matters, then yes, what I said is redundant.

I disagree with the second part. Warnings for ToS and ToU violations need to stand, not be vulnerable to manipulation.

Also, Great Bights Mum said it better.

 

[Kiwi]

1. I do not think you should be able to get to 100% warning level. I always thought that 100% meant one was banned and that's the way it should operate. I was under the impression that post moderation was more of a temporary punishment after moderate bans and the idea that the moderation team should be responsible for reforming the behaviour of a forum user seems silly.

2. As for reducing warning levels. I do not think that they should lapse automatically. For active users who have had 6 to 12 months without incident, they should be able to seek moderation review or something similar and the moderation team could perhaps discuss it then. It would not be okay for a user to be inactive for 12 months, come back and request a reduction in moderation level because they have no proven their behaviour has improved.

3. The problem with changing the system now is that it is grossly unfair for certain forum users. I propose that if you do change the system, all users should have their warning level retracted by one increment. I'm less certain of this suggestion though than I am of the other two.

Anyway just my 2 cents.

 

[Sanctaria]

2. As for reducing warning levels. I do not think that they should lapse automatically. For active users who have had 6 to 12 months without incident, they should be able to seek moderation review or something similar and the moderation team could perhaps discuss it then. It would not be okay for a user to be inactive for 12 months, come back and request a reduction in moderation level because they have no proven their behaviour has improved.

I'd support something like this.

 

[Blue Wolf II]

And should, after 100%, the member's posts obviously are not improving, or if they're carrying on through PM's, they get kicked out the door via IP ban.

I guess we should scrap the part I put in bold, since we're obviously not following it, and instead replace it with PM restriction.

 

[Chasmanthe]

2. As for reducing warning levels. I do not think that they should lapse automatically. For active users who have had 6 to 12 months without incident, they should be able to seek moderation review or something similar and the moderation team could perhaps discuss it then. It would not be okay for a user to be inactive for 12 months, come back and request a reduction in moderation level because they have no proven their behaviour has improved.

I'd support something like this.

No, I don't think that those who have had improved behaviour should have warning levels reduced. They only need for their warning level to be reduced is so they can commit another violation and not get a higher punishment. That is hardly fair. If they are not going to commit any more violations their warning level doesn't come into the equation.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

The main change I would like to see is if a person on 100% warn level does make an inappropriate post, approved or not, we can take further action against them in that matter. Ultimately though I agree with Kiwi, in that I think a 100% warn level should be a ban. I mean, it takes 125% now to be banned? That seems a bit ridiculous to me.

 

[Kiwi]

The main change I would like to see is if a person on 100% warn level does make an inappropriate post, approved or not, we can take further action against them in that matter. Ultimately though I agree with Kiwi, in that I think a 100% warn level should be a ban. I mean, it takes 125% now to be banned? That seems a bit ridiculous to me.

Why use a percentage at all actually if you're going beyond it.

 

[Chasmanthe]

The main change I would like to see is if a person on 100% warn level does make an inappropriate post, approved or not, we can take further action against them in that matter. Ultimately though I agree with Kiwi, in that I think a 100% warn level should be a ban. I mean, it takes 125% now to be banned? That seems a bit ridiculous to me.

Why use a percentage at all actually if you're going beyond it.

I think what the rules entail is no percentage triggers an automatic ban, but 100% is the most warning you can have. Under the current rules, a member on 100% can still be banned if their posts are "not improving". That's not technically the same as increasing their warning level percentage over the top, I see no problem with the current rules.

 

[punk d]

I do believe in warning reductions, but as some have suggested believe warnings can be reduced after a certain period of time after a review by the moderation team.

I think removing warnings automatically, may be bad, but that removing warnings after a review AND an extended period of time seems to be within the spirit of our warning system.

I also would concur that I always believed that 100% warning meant banned. And I think that's what it should mean if it doesn't already.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

It is possible under the current system to have more violations that would cause a member to be banned, i.e. a 80 percent violator has two or more significant violations of the ToS at the same time, and that pushes them past 100 percent into the banned category.

In having moderator preview of posts, there is nothing preventing a moderator to "report" a queued post for ToS violations for a user who is currently at 100% warning level. That could also trigger a ban. Likewise an abuse of the PM system.

Fortunately these do not come up often, although in this past year there's been more than what I would have considered a normal rate.

As to the stages of warning, the use of percentages is based on how the warning system is built into the Zetaboards software. You could think of them as stage 1, stage 2, stage 3, stage 4, and stage 5, with banning as stage 6 and it would work the exact same way. It's just a convenience of labeling.

As to reduction of warning levels, the logs in the ACP seem to be purged after a year, even though the percentage warnings are not reset. That might be the time to review warning levels at or below 80 percent on a case by case basis. But I would prefer that the admin and global mods take a look at that as an experiment, and see if it is worth a permanent change after some experience with it. We really haven't structured it that way, so changes should be on a test basis first.

 

[Flemingovia]

OK. Here's an idea to kick around:

If a member of the forum breaks forum rules, which include Invisionfree ToS and possibly other guidelines as the mods agree on them, they may be given an Official Warning depending on the severity of the breach and the number of times they have broken the rules since their last warning. Official Warnings are administered through the built-in Warning System, which allows moderators to increase warning levels in increments of 20%, and enforce moderation as required.

To ensure fair moderation across the board, these guidelines will be placed in effect for all moderation actions:

20% warning - 5 hour mod preview
40% - 1 day mod preview
60% - 5 hour post suspension, 3 day mod preview
80% - 3 day post suspension, 1 week mod preview
100% - 1 week post suspension, indefinite mod preview Forum Ban. Moving someone to 100% warning level requires the majority approval of the moderation team.

And should, after 100%, the member's posts obviously are not improving, or if they're carrying on through PM's, they get kicked out the door via IP ban.

REDUCTION IN WARNING LEVEL

No less than three months after a warning has been issued, the offender may apply to the Moderation team to have their warning removed. Such decision will be made by the whole moderation team.

Definitions:

Mod Preview: A mod must review posts before they are publically viewable
Post Suspension: The member cannot post, but can still use other forum services and read topics.
IP Ban: Prevents a single computer or internet connection from accessing the forum. Other ban methods may be used if a single IP proves ineffective.

In the (hopefully unlikely) event of an extremely severe breach, it is possible that a more severe penalty may be enacted for that offence. However, deviations from this procedure will not be enacted without a general consent of all moderators

This edition removed the indefinite mod preview. this is partly to save our workload. I have no desire to still be approving Govindia's posts in another decade.

100% now means a forum ban. this is harsher than at present, and requires the approval of the moderation team.

there is no automatic review or removal of warnings - but a perp has the right to apply for a reduction after three months. That gives clear guidance, prevents immediate bleating, and puts the ball in the court of the perp rather than the moderators.

Thoughts?

 

[mcmasterdonia]

Seems fine to me.

 

[Great Bights Mum]

Aye.

Tho it occurs to me that Narnia and Gov are in a bad spot vis a vis this change. Suppose we implement it with a 20% across-the-board reduction in warning levels?

 

[mcmasterdonia]

I would assume that this is to apply for all future scenarios. Likewise posts that are not approved, the individual posting them could still be warned if they cross the line?

 

[Flemingovia]

Aye, it would be unfair to apply this retrospectively.

 

[Queen Astarial]

If they are not going to commit any more violations their warning level doesn't come into the equation.

It does under the current system, because 100% is indefinite mod preview. If someone shows that their behavior has truly improved, the admin and mod teams' workload would be reduced by dropping them one level.

REDUCTION IN WARNING LEVEL

No less than three months after a warning has been issued, the offender may apply to the Moderation team to have their warning removed. Such decision will be made by the whole moderation team.

"Reduced one level" might make more sense than removed entirely, when it comes to higher levels of warnings.

 

[punk d]

This seems like a fair system to me. I would also agree with the idea that if anyone is at 100%, they be reduced to 80% knowing full well what happens when they get to 100%. I don't believe any other level should be reduced, however.

 

[Chasmanthe]

If they are not going to commit any more violations their warning level doesn't come into the equation.

It does under the current system, because 100% is indefinite mod preview. If someone shows that their behavior has truly improved, the admin and mod teams' workload would be reduced by dropping them one level.

REDUCTION IN WARNING LEVEL

No less than three months after a warning has been issued, the offender may apply to the Moderation team to have their warning removed. Such decision will be made by the whole moderation team.

"Reduced one level" might make more sense than removed entirely, when it comes to higher levels of warnings.

Empress Astarial,

You are wrong.

The moderation preview is indefinite, not permanent. The moderation preview can be ended at any time the moderation team determines that the posts have sufficiently improved - the warning level remains in effect. Likewise they can at any time determine that the posts have not sufficiently improved, and implement a ban.

The reluctance of the moderation team to make either one of these determinations is not a fault of the rules.

Let's not put additional pressure on the moderation team by giving them the new responsibility of reviewing warning level reductions.

 

[Kiwi]

I agree mostly with what's been said here. I think the latter suggestion is similar to what I originally proposed.

I am in favour of the change.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

I think we need to clarify that review of warning levels for possible reductions does not apply to forum bans.

If the situation was ban enough to ban someone, it makes little sense to give then an "out" three months later. A ban is supposed to be permanent, regardless of cause; as a for instance we have a whole bunch of pornspammers and forum crashers who are permanently banned, and I'm not include to let them think we're leaving a crack in the back door for them to return.

In other words a permanenent ban is meant to be permanenent. That should not change.

 

[Flemingovia]

I think we need to clarify that review of warning levels for possible reductions does not apply to forum bans.

If the situation was ban enough to ban someone, it makes little sense to give then an "out" three months later. A ban is supposed to be permanent, regardless of cause; as a for instance we have a whole bunch of pornspammers and forum crashers who are permanently banned, and I'm not include to let them think we're leaving a crack in the back door for them to return.

In other words a permanenent ban is meant to be permanenent. That should not change.

A permanent forum ban means for ever? I absolutely and totally agree, and I will redraft to include that.

However, I do not recall you taking that line when the subject of Limitless events' permanent ban was questioned. I wonder why the change of heart?

 

[Kiwi]

No waii - permanent bans are for lyfe?

 

[mcmasterdonia]

 

[Flemingovia]

If a member of the forum breaks forum rules, which include Invisionfree ToS and possibly other guidelines as the mods agree on them, they may be given an Official Warning depending on the severity of the breach and the number of times they have broken the rules since their last warning. Official Warnings are administered through the built-in Warning System, which allows moderators to increase warning levels in increments of 20%, and enforce moderation as required.

To ensure fair moderation across the board, these guidelines will be placed in effect for all moderation actions:

20% warning - 5 hour mod preview
40% - 1 day mod preview
60% - 5 hour post suspension, 3 day mod preview
80% - 3 day post suspension, 1 week mod preview
100% - Permanent Forum Ban. Moving someone to 100% warning level requires the majority approval of the moderation team.


REDUCTION IN WARNING LEVEL

No less than three months after a warning has been issued, the offender may apply to the Moderation team to have their warning reduced bu one level. Such decision will be made by the whole moderation team.

If a player has reached a 100% warning level, and has been banned from the forum, this shall not be eligible for review or reduction. Their ban shall remain in place permanently.

Definitions:

Mod Preview: A mod must review posts before they are publically viewable
Post Suspension: The member cannot post, but can still use other forum services and read topics.
IP Ban: Prevents a single computer or internet connection from accessing the forum. Other ban methods may be used if a single IP proves ineffective.

In the (hopefully unlikely) event of an extremely severe breach, it is possible that a more severe penalty may be enacted for that offence. However, deviations from this procedure will not be enacted without a general consent of all moderators

 

[Chasmanthe]

I remain opposed to the review of warning level reductions. Firstly I believe this serves the needs of individual members who are uncomfortable with their own warning level, rather than serving Justice as an end in and of itself. Secondly it is inconsistent to allow people to have their warning level reduced, but not allow people to be unbanned. You may find members currently on a warning level, who might break the rules again in the future, whereas you might find banned members who have reformed and wouldn't break the rules if they were unbanned.

It's also inconsistent that the forum administration have overturned a "permanent" ban in the past. This suggests to me that our problems lie not in a bad set of rules, but in inconsistent enforcement of the rules. Allowing perpetrators to petition the moderation team for a reduction makes this worse, not better.

which include Invisionfree ToS and possibly other guidelines as the mods agree on them

Offences not covered by the Zetaboards ToS and ToU should ideally be taken care of by the Legal Code and the secular Court of the region, as part of the game. Without knowing what you intend to include here, I find it difficult to argue with.

 

[Govindia]

Your idea of justice is very strange at best.

If someone has improved their behaviour and has have some form of a warning, it should logically and fairly be reduced, not kept at that level forever.

Likewise, there should be reason and logic in reviewing someone's indefinite moderation preview / PM restriction / any other punishments given if they have shown an improvement in their behaviour. That is the right thing to do.

As for me, given my situation, I honestly hope this isn't going to severely affect me negatively. I have done my best to improve, despite the fact that I feel the warnings given by Eluvatar and/or others were in excess (Eluvatar in one warning was partially to blame, but that is another story for another thread).

What Limitless Events did was far worse than any of my socially awkward behaviour was, and wasn't as warranted of a severe punishment as his was. I still disagreed with his unbanning as I felt his screwing around with IPs was not cool at all.

My

 

[punk d]

I'm not in favor of a permanent ban (7 years 22 days and counting of my permanent ban from TSP)

because I do believe that after several years if someone wished to make a return, I do believe it should be reviewable.

 

[Eluvatar]

This is what I would suggest:

If a member of the forum breaks forum rules, which include Invisionfree ToS and possibly other guidelines as the mods agree on them, they may be given an Official Warning depending on the severity of the breach and the number of times they have broken the rules since their last warning. Official Warnings are administered through the built-in Warning System, which allows moderators to increase warning levels in increments of 20%, and enforce moderation as required.

To ensure fair moderation across the board, these guidelines will be placed in effect for all moderation actions:

20% warning - 5 hour mod preview
40% - 1 day mod preview
60% - 5 hour post suspension, 3 day mod preview
80% - 3 day post suspension, 1 week mod preview
100% - 1 week post suspension, indefinite mod preview

And should, after 100%, the member's posts obviously are not improving, or if they're carrying on through PM's, they get kicked out the door via IP ban.

In addition, the moderators may collectively decide to implement a PM Restriction if a member sends two or more warnable PMs.

3 months after an indefinite mod preview restriction, PM restriction, or the last review of such, the moderators will review any indefinite mod preview or PM restriction. If the member has improved their behavior greatly, the restriction will be lifted. If the member has improved their behavior, but not enough for the moderators to remove the restriction, the restriction will be continued. If the member has not improved their behavior the moderators may decide to ask the administrators to IP Ban the member.

Pornographic or advertisement spam, the publication or imprudent distribution of personal information, or hacking may result in an immediate IP Ban.

A member may request for a reduction in their warning level 3 months after the last change in their warning level. The moderators may approve this request if they feel the member's behavior has improved.

A banned member may request the removal of their ban 3 years after it is imposed. No more than one request will be considered from a given banned member in a given year. The request may be approved if the moderators and administrators believe the banned member will not repeat the activities which led to their ban. Unbanned members may nevertheless face individually chosen restrictions.

Definitions:

Mod Preview: A mod must review posts before they are publically viewable visible
Post Suspension: The member cannot post, but can still use other forum services and read topics.
IP Ban: Prevents a single computer or internet connection from accessing the forum. Other ban methods may be used if a single IP proves ineffective.

In the (hopefully unlikely) event of an extremely severe breach, it is possible that a more severe penalty may be enacted for that offence. However, deviations from this procedure will not be enacted without a general consent of all moderators.

I would also suggest we publish this, I do not believe the current warning guidelines are published anywhere.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

3 months after an indefinite mod preview restriction, PM restriction, or the last review of such, the moderators will review any indefinite mod preview or PM restriction. If the member has improved their behavior greatly, the restriction will be lifted. If the member has improved their behavior, but not enough for the moderators to remove the restriction, the restriction will be continued. If the member has not improved their behavior the moderators may decide to ask the administrators to IP Ban the member.

Should we also require a constitutional amendment or referendum to ban them?

 

[Eluvatar]

I've made a slight change to what can lead to an immediate ban in my proposal, but I imagine that you just want 100% warning to be ban.

If that's the consensus then I will adjust my proposal to match flemingovia's text in that regard, but I think that a cooldown period before banning someone is ordinarily appropriate: more immediate bans should be caused by extraordinary misbehavior, I feel.

 

[Great Bights Mum]

As a team, we do not hand out warnings like candy. If a member has received a warning, it has likely been after he has ignored verbal cautions and/or being taken aside for "a little chat." Either that or the offense has been glaringly inappropriate. As such, I'm not in favor of removing bans or reducing warnings. But if that is what the majority wants, then Elu's draft looks good for the most part. I think folks want 5 strikes and you're out, instead of the six. Also, "A member may request for a reduction in their warning level...." can do without the "for."

@McM - Let's keep moderation separate from the game.

 

[Flemingovia]

I generally like Elu's draft, except for three things:

1. I would keep a ban for 100%.

2. I do not like this bit:

3 months after an indefinite mod preview restriction, PM restriction, or the last review of such, the moderators will review any indefinite mod preview or PM restriction.

I want the onus to be on the perp to apply for a reduction of the indefinite preview rather than the onus being on the mods to conduct a review, whether it is asked for or not.

Put the monkey on the back of the perp, not on the back of the moderation team.

3. Permanent means for ever. If it does not, then do not call it a permanent ban. Call it "long term ban" or "Ban until you whine loudly enough and get your friends to keep lobbying on #tnp" or somesuch.

I have no problem with a three year ban, if we call it that.

 

[Eluvatar]

Here's what I'd suggest in terms of reducing the number of warnings needed for ban as seems desired:

If a member of the forum breaks forum rules, which include Invisionfree ToS and possibly other guidelines as the mods agree on them, they may be given an Official Warning depending on the severity of the breach and the number of times they have broken the rules since their last warning. Official Warnings are administered through the built-in Warning System, which allows moderators to increase warning levels in increments of 20%, and enforce moderation as required.

To ensure fair moderation across the board, these guidelines will be placed in effect for all moderation actions:

20% warning - 5 hour mod preview
20% - 1 day mod preview
40% - 5 hour post suspension, 3 day mod preview
60% - 3 day post suspension, 1 week mod preview
80% - 1 week post suspension, indefinite mod preview
100% - Automatic IP Ban

And should, after 100%, the member's posts obviously are not improving, or if they're carrying on through PM's, they get kicked out the door via IP ban.

In addition, the moderators may collectively decide to implement a PM Restriction if a member sends two or more warnable PMs.

Pornographic or advertisement spam, the publication or imprudent distribution of personal information, or hacking may result in an immediate IP Ban.

A member may request the removal of an indefinite mod preview restriction, PM restriction, three months after it was imposed or the last review of such. If the member has improved their behavior sufficiently, the restriction will be lifted.

A member may request for a reduction in their warning level 3 months after the last change in their warning level. The moderators may approve this request if they feel the member's behavior has improved.

A banned member may request the removal of their ban 3 years after it is imposed. No more than one request will be considered from a given banned member in a given year. The request may be approved if the moderators and administrators believe the banned member will not repeat the activities which led to their ban. Unbanned members may nevertheless face individually chosen restrictions.

Definitions:

Mod Preview: A mod must review posts before they are publically viewable visible
Post Suspension: The member cannot post, but can still use other forum services and read topics.
IP Ban: Prevents a single computer or internet connection from accessing the forum. Other ban methods may be used if a single IP proves ineffective.

In the (hopefully unlikely) event of an extremely severe breach, it is possible that a more severe penalty may be enacted for that offence. However, deviations from this procedure will not be enacted without a general consent of all moderators.

I would then reduce every current member's warning level by 20%.

 

[Govindia]

A banned member may request the removal of their ban 3 years after it is imposed. No more than one request will be considered from a given banned member in a given year. The request may be approved if the moderators and administrators believe the banned member will not repeat the activities which led to their ban. Unbanned members may nevertheless face individually chosen restrictions.

Whoa, three years? That's way too long and a bit unreasonable IMO.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

A banned member may request the removal of their ban 3 years after it is imposed. No more than one request will be considered from a given banned member in a given year. The request may be approved if the moderators and administrators believe the banned member will not repeat the activities which led to their ban. Unbanned members may nevertheless face individually chosen restrictions.

Whoa, three years? That's way too long and a bit unreasonable IMO.

Honestly, it's pretty liberal considering that we're changing it from "never ever ever."

 

[Govindia]

Three years is still a bit of a stretch, and is a very long time.