Yay More Announcements! \o/

[Jyosua]

First off there's only two new guidelines we're introducing here. The rest of it, is a systematic way of using warns we'll be doing from now on.

As for the new posting guidelines, they are as follows:

• No image macros outside FftF and the Introductions forums
  
• If you agree with something, try to only post if you have something new to add, rather than just posting "I agree"
  

As for the Image macros, I'm seeing way too many of them outside FftF. The other forums are supposed to be somewhat serious guys.

We'll also be introducing something later to help people who don't speak English fluently to at least post so we can understand what they're saying.

As for the warn system, we decided on the following:

• Verbal Warning
  • About one per 5-7 days. If you offend again within that time, expect a physical warn unless it was a very miniscule mistake.
    

  [*]Physical Warning

  • Warnings will be given carefully. They may be removed after 2 weeks of CONSTANT good behavior. If you were warned verbally within this time, 3 days is added to the 2 weeks for every verbal warn.
    

  [*]Suspensions

  • 2 Physical Warns in one day warrants a 12 hour suspension
    
  • 3 Physical Warns in one day warrants a 3 day suspension
    
  • 40% warn level warrants a 3 day suspension, even if they previously had a 3 day suspension due to 3 times in one day.
    
  • 80% warn level is a week suspension, again, regardless of minor suspensions due to multiple offenses
    

  [*]Banishment

  • 100% Warn Level is grounds for banishment, however only if the majority of the administrators, and half of the mods agree.
    
  • There are other grounds for banishment, but we'll leave things at this.
    

Note that some of these steps may be skipped if the offense is severe enough. Though we shall be trying to stick to these guidelines.

Now, I should also note, all of your warns have been cleared. There is still a record though, so don't think we won't notice if you've managed to have been warned 20 times without being banned.

Overall this is considerably more lenient than we have been in the beginning, but it becomes harsher as you offend more.

[Tino]

Agreed with the image macros and agreement parts. The warn system seems fairly flawed to me, though.

About one per 5-7 days. If you offend again within that time, expect a physical warn unless it was a very miniscule mistake.

Even miniscule mistakes are mistakes, and they should indeed be punished. But before I'll jump to any conclusions, what's your defenition of a "miniscule mistake"?

Warnings will be given carefully. They may be removed after 2 weeks of CONSTANT good behavior. If you were warned verbally within this time, 3 days is added to the 2 weeks for every verbal warn.

What exactly are you saying here? There are two cases I'm thinking of right now.

1. Someone gets warned. He behaves for 7 of the 14 days and receives another warning. Now he has to wait 10 days before 10% gets taken off of his warn level.

2. Someone gets warned. He bahaves for 7 of the 14 days and receives another warning. Now he has to wait 17 days before 10% gets taken off of his warn level.

If it's the former, then I disagree and you should change it to the second immediately.

2 Physical Warns in one day warrants a 12 hour suspension

3 Physical Warns in one day warrants a 3 day suspension

40% warn level warrants a 3 day suspension, even if they previously had a 3 day suspension due to 3 times in one day.

80% warn level is a week suspension, again, regardless of minor suspensions due to multiple offenses

Nobody is ever going to be online for 14 hours a day or something, unless that person has extreme mental problems. In other words, the second level will never be reached, and should thus be taken out, if you ask me.

20% = 1 day

40% = 3 days

80% = 14 days

Seriously, 7 days just is not enough for someone who has violated the rules so many times. In fact, it would probably be better to make a 70+ warn a good reason for banishment, since 70% seriously is a lot.

100% Warn Level is grounds for banishment, however only if the majority of the administrators, and half of the mods agree.

There are other grounds for banishment, but we'll leave things at this.

Please excuse the foul language, but what the fuck?

First of all, 100% is way, way too lenient. I understand that you want everything to be very laid back, but this is incredibly overexaggerated. And second, 4/7 people have to agree on it? What kind of bull is that? We're talking about someone who has violated the rules for at least ten times. I hope you realize that that's an awefully huge amount.

70+ is good for banishment. This is way, way too lenient. You guys really have to become a bit stricter. We're not the "small" forum we used to be.

[Judge Judy]

Tino lets just stick with what Jyousa said. If it doesn't turn out well, I assume the admins will consider what you said.

Plus I think Tino, your alittle bit harsh when it comes to warns :/

Edited November 21, 2008 by Luxord

[Zanarkin]

:o the rules are even more serious.

[Tino]

Tino lets just stick with what Jyousa said. If it doesn't turn out well, I assume the admins will consider what you said.

Plus I think Tino, your alittle bit harsh when it comes to warns :/

No, I'm not. With big, active forums come a lot of responsibilities, and being stricter than before is one of them. You are responsible for your forums and its members, and if you have members ramping around who have violated the rules over eight times, then something's terribly wrong. Something like that shouldn't be allowed. Personally, I think what I said is actually fairly lenient, since one day is next to nothing, and two weeks at 80% is nothing as well.

the rules are even more serious.

Rules need to be serious. They exist for a reason, and if they're just being ignored and not enforced, nothing good is going to come from them.

Edited November 21, 2008 by Tino

[Judge Judy]

No, I'm not. With big, active forums come a lot of responsibilities, and being stricter than before is one of them. You are responsible for your forums and its members, and if you have members ramping around who have violated the rules over eight times, then something's terribly wrong. Something like that shouldn't be allowed. Personally, I think what I said is actually fairly lenient, since one day is next to nothing, and two weeks at 80% is nothing as well.

All I am saying is let's just stick to what we have now. If members still mess about, then they can tighten up some of these rules and then the admins may consider what you have to say.

Edited November 21, 2008 by Luxord

[Tino]

All I am saying is let's just stick to what we have now. If members still mess about, then we can tighten up some of these rules and then the admins may consider what you have to say.

I get what you're saying, but it's like Jyosua said: the system they have come up with is even more lenient than before. That wouldn't be so bad if the forums we're actually getting less active, but activity is rising quickly and more members are joining faster than ever, so the warning system and regulations should indeed be stricter than before.

Edited November 21, 2008 by Tino

[Zanarkin]

Rules need to be serious. They exist for a reason, and if they're just being ignored and not enforced, nothing good is going to come from them.

Well i'm just saying this place got way more strict. When i got here this placed was more relaxed.

[Tino]

Well i'm just saying this place got way more strict. When i got here this placed was more relaxed.

Please read through my posts in this topic. I already explained why strictness has become more important.

[Zanarkin]

Please read through my posts in this topic. I already explained why strictness has become more important.

I see your point and you are probably right. Since the amount of ppl is increassing the rules strict level should increase too.

[Crystal Shards]

I think this will be a good system, provided it is properly executed and done so in a fair manner.

Edited November 21, 2008 by Crystal Shards

[Jyosua]

Agreed with the image macros and agreement parts. The warn system seems fairly flawed to me, though.

Even miniscule mistakes are mistakes, and they should indeed be punished. But before I'll jump to any conclusions, what's your defenition of a "miniscule mistake"?

The administration decides what a miniscule mistake is (Accidentally double posting when you're not known for it, etc.).

What exactly are you saying here? There are two cases I'm thinking of right now.

1. Someone gets warned. He behaves for 7 of the 14 days and receives another warning. Now he has to wait 10 days before 10% gets taken off of his warn level.

2. Someone gets warned. He bahaves for 7 of the 14 days and receives another warning. Now he has to wait 17 days before 10% gets taken off of his warn level.

If it's the former, then I disagree and you should change it to the second immediately.

It's the former, not the latter. We're not changing it - all of the staff agreed on this, and I revised it several times.

Nobody is ever going to be online for 14 hours a day or something, unless that person has extreme mental problems.

Fuck you. I'M on for 14+ hours online. I have only 8 or less hours to sleep, and when I'm at school/work I'm online, and when I get home I'm online.

Seriously, 7 days just is not enough for someone who has violated the rules so many times. In fact, it would probably be better to make a 70+ warn a good reason for banishment, since 70% seriously is a lot.

Please excuse the foul language, but what the fuck?

First of all, 100% is way, way too lenient. I understand that you want everything to be very laid back, but this is incredibly overexaggerated. And second, 4/7 people have to agree on it? What kind of bull is that? We're talking about someone who has violated the rules for at least ten times. I hope you realize that that's an awefully huge amount.

70+ is good for banishment. This is way, way too lenient. You guys really have to become a bit stricter. We're not the "small" forum we used to be.

Excuse me, but we have people who have violated the rule more than 10 times, still here. This scale is based on time; How long it takes them to achieve that. And as noted near the bottom, we can skip steps if we feel it necessary.

I made the warn scale ten when I created the forum, with full intent on people being banned when they reached 100. Why? Because we have young people here. They're nowhere near the maturity level of some of us older members, and thus they're going to fuck up. I'm intent on people learning from their mistakes; some take longer than others. And people have reached that second step before. I forgot their name... it was like BlackSun or something.

[TheEnd]

The internet is serious business, indeed.

If this set of rules proves innefective, I'm sure the staff will be able to devise a better one. You should calm down instead of BRACING FOR THE WORSE.

[Not Changed by VASM :(]

This place is getting so strict....

Quick question though, are Macros still allowed in Intro topics?

[uguu]

This place is getting so strict....

Quick question though, are Macros still allowed in Intro topics?

lolololstrict. Funny.

I like this. I miss my 30% warn though. D: I'll accept a 3 day suspension if I get warned again. I just want my warn back.

[Judge Judy]

lolololstrict. Funny.

I like this. I miss my 30% warn though. D: I'll accept a 3 day suspension if I get warned again. I just want my warn back.

Careful what you wish for

[Tino]

The administration decides what a miniscule mistake is (Accidentally double posting when you're not known for it, etc.).

I can perfectly understand it then. That's indeed not worthy of an increased warn level.

It's the former, not the latter. We're not changing it - all of the staff agreed on this, and I revised it several times.

May I know how you came to this conclusion then? Because it doesn't make sense to me at all.

Fuck you. I'M on for 14+ hours online. I have only 8 or less hours to sleep, and when I'm at school/work I'm online, and when I get home I'm online.

I suppose I should've worded it differently.

Somebody is online for, let's say, two hours. He then gets suspended for 12 hours since he has received two warns. Then he comes back twelve hours later and gets warned in one hour again. That would require him to be online for 15 hours a day, while posting frequently, which I doubt you are, to be honest.

And that part about mental problems was not necessary, I must admit. My mistake, sorry. It wasn't my intention to offend anybody. It was inappropriate to say that.

Excuse me, but we have people who have violated the rule more than 10 times, still here. This scale is based on time; How long it takes them to achieve that. And as noted near the bottom, we can skip steps if we feel it necessary.

Yes, I realize that. And that's also what I've taken into account when I actually typed that up.

Indeed, if somebody has received 100% total warn in 10 years (10% per year), then it's no problem, and that's why 10% gets knocked off every two weeks (although I would recommend a month, but whatever). The main argument was that a 70+ warning level should be the level to earn that member a banishment.

10%

20%

30%

20%

30%

40%

30%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

50%

60%

70%

80%

This might seem confusing, but what I'm trying to say is that no matter how you look at it, 70% or 80% is always that level. So no matter how long somebody needs to reach that level, an appropriate punishment should follow at 70 or 80. And 70 or 80 won't be reached if the member behaves enough.

And that immediately brings me back to this point.

It's the former, not the latter. We're not changing it - all of the staff agreed on this, and I revised it several times.

Technically, the point that was made before it, but I'm too lazy to scroll up >_<

When someone gets warned for the third time, for example, that person will have a 30% warn. Two weeks later, 10% will be taken off of it due to good behavior, lowering it to 20%. During this period of two weeks (after 10 days, for example), this same member violates another rule, and thus he'll be back at 30%. instead of 14 days, he now has to wait 7 days to get a decrease in warn level. That's twice as fast. I hope you see that that's not supposed to happen. When another warning is received, that full 14 days are taken into account again, if you ask me. That seems a lot more appropriate.

I made the warn scale ten when I created the forum, with full intent on people being banned when they reached 100. Why? Because we have young people here. They're nowhere near the maturity level of some of us older members, and thus they're going to fuck up. I'm intent on people learning from their mistakes; some take longer than others. And people have reached that second step before. I forgot their name... it was like BlackSun or something.

Maturity of members has no relevance it whatsoever. And besides, almost all the members have proven that they actually can be mature, and I believe you have confirmed this yourself as well.

I see where you're coming from when you say that people can learn from their mistakes, and when they don't violate any rules in this period of two weeks, they have proven that they can indeed learn from their mistakes. It'd be a pity if they would fall back in that same pattern again, though, and that's another reason why a somewhat stricter system would definitely not hurt at all.

I like this. I miss my 30% warn though. D: I'll accept a 3 day suspension if I get warned again. I just want my warn back.

This is what I've been talking about before as well. People are simply bragging about their warn levels!

Edited November 21, 2008 by Tino

[Jyosua]

10 people ask for not-so-strict guidelines and one asks for us to wield the mighty banhammer without fail. Who do you think I'm going to concern myself with more?

By the way, we don't count the time you're suspended towards the time you were good.

[Superbus]

This place is getting so strict....

Quick question though, are Macros still allowed in Intro topics?

I can administrate for a week and show you the definition of strict. :)

[Tino]

10 people ask for not-so-strict guidelines and one asks for us to wield the mighty banhammer without fail. Who do you think I'm going to concern myself with more?

This is not a matter of what people want, but what's the most efficient and what's the best for the forum.

[Judge Judy]

This is not a matter of what people want, but what's the most efficient and what's the best for the forum.

Yeah but if the forums get tooo strict members will get fedup and guess what, they won't bother to come to the forums again.

[TheEnd]

This is not a matter of what people want, but what's the most efficient and what's the best for the forum.

Being strict doesn't always mean being the most efficient/the best for the forum. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.

PROTIP: FESS was strict, and it's closing down tonight.

Edited November 22, 2008 by TheEnd

[Phoenix Wright]

Yeah but if the forums get tooo strict members will get fedup and guess what, they won't bother to come to the forums again.

I was gonna say that, but I thought it would be insulting, so I didn't. I'll elaborate.

-----

Isn't it bad to be too strict? People who are too strict are generally not liked. In this case, it is a thing, a forum; if the forum is too strict, people won't come here. If it gets too strict, people won't come here to have fun either.

FESS was strict, but never too strict.

[Admiral "Bull" Halsey]

That's a little to far on the rules here...but alright, I may as well agree to this...

[Fireman]

This new system seems good enough, in my 'o so humble opinion, although I have to admit 12 hours for a 20% warn is much too leniant seeing as how not everyone is on for such a long amount of time on SF.

Fuck you. I'M on for 14+ hours online. I have only 8 or less hours to sleep, and when I'm at school/work I'm online, and when I get home I'm online.

Speaking of warns...

Wouldn't 'Fuck you.' technically count as a flame?

Edited November 22, 2008 by Fireman