Warns

[Tino]

I've heard some people talk about their warns the past few weeks, and I've noticed that some people had ridiculously high warning levels. I realize that the staff is fairly lax when it comes to warns and suspensions, but since we're growing very quickly, I think action should be taken, in some way.

For example, if you reach 40% you'll receive a 1 week suspension, if you reach 50% you'll receive a one month suspension, and 60% or higher will result in a ban.

[Judge Judy]

I am glad someone brought this up.

I think we should have a system for these warns like the examples which Tino had said.

[Metal Rabbit]

This is how I did it:

You get a few warns, a mod will say to you that the next time you get a warn it'll be followed by suspension. Of course, it's only necesary if the previous warns were relatively close to eachother in time. You only get banned if you do something extraordinarily stupid, and it doesn't help when you have a long history of violations.

Removing warns:

When I saw people with warns, I checked the logs and removed any if they've been there for about a month. My special deal was if the person didn't argue back (most of them did though >.>) then it'd be removed in half the time.

[Judge Judy]

I think there must be an agreement between the mods and the admins for some sort of system...but I do like Adam's way of dealing with it.

[Masu]

I've heard some people talk about their warns the past few weeks, and I've noticed that some people had ridiculously high warning levels. I realize that the staff is fairly lax when it comes to warns and suspensions, but since we're growing very quickly, I think action should be taken, in some way.

For example, if you reach 40% you'll receive a 1 week suspension, if you reach 50% you'll receive a one month suspension, and 60% or higher will result in a ban.

That sounds way too harsh IMO. Sometimes we will say/ask for something that we dont know would be warn worthy. Lets go like this:

A new person joins, and doesnt know that you cant do 1 word posts such as "lol". and they're on for say an hour and cruise the FE boards and they just respond "lol" to funny posts or "This/I agree" to posts that they quote. A mod comes on and sees that they did it alot and they get warned. There's 10 warn. Lets say the next warn is because they blatantly disobeyed the rules and they got 10 more. Everyone has a bad day and most try to come here to relax, but lets say that a troll here is getting on their back and they explode from their frustration, and get 20 warn. Now they're suspended for a whole week. That seems too excessive to me.

I think it should be:

40%-3 days suspension

60%-1 week

80%- 1 month

100% BAN HAMMAR

[Judge Judy]

I am not sure what level of warn will determine what punishment you will get. They all sound...harsh.

[Tino]

This is how I did it:

You get a few warns, a mod will say to you that the next time you get a warn it'll be followed by suspension. Of course, it's only necesary if the previous warns were relatively close to eachother in time. You only get banned if you do something extraordinarily stupid, and it doesn't help when you have a long history of violations.

Removing warns:

When I saw people with warns, I checked the logs and removed any if they've been there for about a month. My special deal was if the person didn't argue back (most of them did though >.>) then it'd be removed in half the time.

This is something I have thought about as well. I also don't agree with every staff member handling violations of the rules differently. That will only cause confusion. My proposal is this.

If someone gets warned, they receive the addition to their warn level they deserve. After a month, 10% will be knocked off of this. However, if the member in question gets warned again in this period, he or she will have to wait another month before that 10% will actually be removed. Members have to contact a staff member once a month has passed since their last warn.

That sounds way too harsh IMO. Sometimes we will say/ask for something that we dont know would be warn worthy. Lets go like this:

A new person joins, and doesnt know that you cant do 1 word posts such as "lol". and they're on for say an hour and cruise the FE boards and they just respond "lol" to funny posts or "This/I agree" to posts that they quote. A mod comes on and sees that they did it alot and they get warned. There's 10 warn. Lets say the next warn is because they blatantly disobeyed the rules and they got 10 more. Everyone has a bad day and most try to come here to relax, but lets say that a troll here is getting on their back and they explode from their frustration, and get 20 warn. Now they're suspended for a whole week. That seems too excessive to me.

I think it should be:

40%-3 days suspension

60%-1 week

80%- 1 month

100% BAN HAMMAR

That's why rules exist. Rules aren't there to not be read by members. Saying you didn't know you could do something, apparantly because you didn't read the rules, does not warrant that you won't be warned, since your post was still in direct violation to the rules, whether you read them or not. The rules exist for a reason.

I'd say that my example isn't too harsh at all, since we're gaining many new members very quickly, and bigger communities need stricter rules. Again, rules exist for a reason.

[Metal Rabbit]

It's unrealistic to have 100% warn. You'd be banned long before that.

[Tino]

It's unrealistic to have 100% warn. You'd be banned long before that.

Indeed. 60% seems much more appropriate, or perhaps 70%, but people should definitely receive suspensions before that, on 40% and 50%.

[Masu]

It's unrealistic to have 100% warn. You'd be banned long before that.

so80% can be ban.

[TLSothe]

Well, I dunno. Serenes has never been a strict place, and I don't want to it to turn into that.

Could we temporarily ban them at 70-80?

[Tino]

Temporarily is exactly the same as a suspension, which means that it won't make any difference at all. I'd say a ban at 60% or 70% is appropriate, and it'll be permanent, without any exceptions.

[TLSothe]

I meant increase the time silly.

Put them in the exiled group for a month or two at a time. I don't want SF to start with this permanent ban at 60-70%. I understand where you are coming from Tino, I do. However, not even FEU perma bans someone that easily.

[YokaiKnight]

I think these warn rules should be treated more like guidelines. If you set a specific point, you're going to end up with people being punished more or less harshly than is really necessary or deserved. I like the idea of some general guidelines (suspension around 30%, longer at 50%, something like that; these aren't real suggestions, just examples), but more emphasis on the specific infraction.

Basically, warns should be dealt with case-by-case.

[lolDeath]

I believe 100% warn should equal a ban of length to be determined after reviewing the rulebreaks. I really do think the staff here should be more strict though, I have already had to break up a pissing contest that it seems was completely ignored.

[YokaiKnight]

On a related note to the topic, is there any way you could say how often people get warned without really getting personal? How frequently they're used has a lot to do with how seriously they should be taken.

[Hanz]

Already way ahead of you on this one.

[Jyosua]

Yeah, we already discussed having a systematic way of doing things, but we haven't gotten around to agreeing on one yet. Mostly because I've been too busy to post one, and Vincent's always busy anyhow.

[Knife]

I've heard some people talk about their warns the past few weeks, and I've noticed that some people had ridiculously high warning levels. I realize that the staff is fairly lax when it comes to warns and suspensions, but since we're growing very quickly, I think action should be taken, in some way.

For example, if you reach 40% you'll receive a 1 week suspension, if you reach 50% you'll receive a one month suspension, and 60% or higher will result in a ban.

THANK GOD YOU DIDN'T SUGGEST THIS EARLIER.

[Tino]

Yeah, we already discussed having a systematic way of doing things, but we haven't gotten around to agreeing on one yet. Mostly because I've been too busy to post one, and Vincent's always busy anyhow.

With the forum population growing so quickly, you should definitely come to an agreement as soon as you can, since it's a fairly important matter.

THANK GOD YOU DIDN'T SUGGEST THIS EARLIER.

So you think it's a stupid idea. Care to explain why?

[Admiral "Bull" Halsey]

I never heard about this right until now. : O

When I had 40 warns I wasn't suspended at all. Hmmm...I guess I should straighten up my attitude for now on then.

Edited November 16, 2008 by 安室 奈美恵

[Knife]

With the forum population growing so quickly, you should definitely come to an agreement as soon as you can, since it's a fairly important matter.

So you think it's a stupid idea. Care to explain why?

I think it's a great idea, however, I thought we were promised things would stay the same. Within one week of FESS going under, we have like 2 new rules.

But yeah, I'm for this rule, as long it doesn't punish past offenders.

[Crystal Shards]

I think it's a great idea, however, I thought we were promised things would stay the same. Within one week of FESS going under, we have like 2 new rules.

I've heard some people talk about their warns the past few weeks, and I've noticed that some people had ridiculously high warning levels.

I don't think it really has anything to do with us, but it's cool that people around here are using us as scapegoats when something changes.

[Jyosua]

I think it's a great idea, however, I thought we were promised things would stay the same. Within one week of FESS going under, we have like 2 new rules.

But yeah, I'm for this rule, as long it doesn't punish past offenders.

This was being discussed before FESS going under was even a thought in the mind. Put simply, you guys are a bit out of control, and you've only proven this more by your actions when the FESSers joined (not to mention certain people trying to bait me into warning them).

[VincentASM]

I think it's a great idea, however, I thought we were promised things would stay the same. Within one week of FESS going under, we have like 2 new rules.

I'm not sure what you're referring to for one of the rules, but the ATTN rule would have been announced regardless of any event.

Also, we never said SF wasn't changing. We said it wasn't going to radically change. SF, like everything in the world, is always changing o__o

Edited November 17, 2008 by VincentASM