Warns

[Meteor]

They're clarifications of long standing rules, not new ones.

[Jyosua]

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

He's referring to the ATTN topic one, which as you said was going to be announced regardless of FESS, and my Xenophobia/Veteran rule, which is only temporary.

I did say SF wasn't going to change, but as Vincent pointed out, it's impossible to not change at all. If we didn't adapt to situations, chaos would engulf everything.

[Knife]

Nah bro, I understand. Just a REALLY big coincidence, that's all.

[Gatrie: Guns Blazing]

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.

holy shit. calm down. 60%???? really?????????

[Tino]

I am calm, and I'm dead serious when I say 60-70%, and believe me when I say that I know what I'm talking about.

[Judge Judy]

I am calm, and I'm dead serious when I say 60-70%, and believe me when I say that I know what I'm talking about.

Ban at 60-70%... that's silly. You should get a suspension but not ban.

80-90% should be a ban.

But in my personal opinion, a member should only get a ban if they do something really stupid.

[Crystal Shards]

Okay, I'm going to go on a limb and assume you guys go up by 10% each time.

So. This means that you're suggesting someone do something warn-worthy 8 or 9 times before being banned? This is especially outrageous when you consider that people are suggesting that you take away 10% every month or whatever for people who are behaving.

So, then, assuming that each warn goes up 10% and that 10% will be taken away each month (roughly) assuming good behavior, you're suggesting that someone break the rules at least twice a week before being banned.

Really?

Edited November 17, 2008 by Crystal Shards

[Mekkah]

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.

Gotta say this is really really harsh. The forum I moderate used to have 45-90 days bans for what would be about 6 warns here, maybe slightly more, slightly less (system is much different - we use infractions, which expire and have different point amounts). That was already too big - we count them in weeks now (1-3 weeks). The only way to get permbanned is if you reaaaally fuck up.

Edited November 17, 2008 by Mekkah

[Celice]

This is just stupid. A low warn amount is not bad. Unless you members are expecting to meet that easily.

Worried about getting banned? Don't act in a manner which deserves the warn.

[Knife]

Can we at least get a warning before being perma-banned like "If you fuck up one more time, you're gone."

[Lord Raven]

I personally wouldn't say that minor offenses are warn-worthy unless you do it a lot anyway (at which point, if they're double posting after a lot of requests to stop they're obviously doing it deliberately). :E If you flame or flamebait, that's a different issue; in fact I would warn sometime 20% for flaming and suspend them straight off the bat, instead of just a warn of 20%.

I'm reflecting YokaiKnight's sentiments; I think that rules and warn stuff should be taken as guidelines and not literally. Like, I dunno what I'm trying to say, but there's a thought in my mind that sounds right. Of course, with an influx of new members you have to be strict, but not literal I guess :S

[Phoenix Wright]

If 60-70% is a perma-ban, then why have 80+%?

Now that's stupid.

My warn Log: (Of course would never be used ;) )

10%-30%-Nothing happens, but you HAVE warns.

40%-60%-5-day suspension

70%-90%-1 month suspension

100%-Permanent ban, no question. If you are really screwing up that much, why come anyway?

[Crystal Shards]

Unless you're warning for every minor infraction or certain offenses have different weighted warnings, that's... not a good standard at all. I can't think of one successful forum that's like, "Lol it's cool, ignore our rules 9 or 10 times and THEN you'll get banned." Most places it's three or four, five at the most, and you're gone. If someone doesn't have the intelligence/courtesy/etc. to respect the rules, then um, do they really need to be here? If you're saying, "lol let people have 100%" then your answer is no. Remember: just because you have something doesn't mean you have to use all of it.

For example, at Mercury Ice, which has been open and successful for about five years now, it goes like this for the relatively minor stuff:

1. Verbal Warning

2. Warn

3. Warn

4. Warn and one week suspension

5. Warn and two week suspension

6. Warn and at least one month ban

So by your standards... That's what? 50% for at least one-month ban? It's also a general guideline, because some offenses quite frankly are more severe than others, but that's something that Josh and Vincent need to talk about.

Basically this isn't something that some random member can be like, "Hurr, do it this way." This is something the staff needs to ultimately decide on and stick to it, and judging by Josh's response, they're working on it already, they just haven't... done it. If I were you I'd stop trying to plug your system and just make sure the staff gets on it.

[Jyosua]

I already posted a system (which I revised once or twice now) for the other admins and mods to look at in the staff forum. Most of them are okay with it so far though. Vincent has yet to reply though. XD

[Phoenix Wright]

Unless you're warning for every minor infraction or certain offenses have different weighted warnings, that's... not a good standard at all. I can't think of one successful forum that's like, "Lol it's cool, ignore our rules 9 or 10 times and THEN you'll get banned." Most places it's three or four, five at the most, and you're gone. If someone doesn't have the intelligence/courtesy/etc. to respect the rules, then um, do they really need to be here? If you're saying, "lol let people have 100%" then your answer is no. Remember: just because you have something doesn't mean you have to use all of it.

For example, at Mercury Ice, which has been open and successful for about five years now, it goes like this for the relatively minor stuff:

1. Verbal Warning

2. Warn

3. Warn

4. Warn and one week suspension

5. Warn and two week suspension

6. Warn and at least one month ban

So by your standards... That's what? 50% for at least one-month ban? It's also a general guideline, because some offenses quite frankly are more severe than others, but that's something that Josh and Vincent need to talk about.

Basically this isn't something that some random member can be like, "Hurr, do it this way." This is something the staff needs to ultimately decide on and stick to it, and judging by Josh's response, they're working on it already, they just haven't... done it. If I were you I'd stop trying to plug your system and just make sure the staff gets on it.

REALLY???

Anyway, I never said we should use it. It was just my opinion. Why have something YOU DON'T NEED?

I like Tino's (Though it IS a little harsh, but that is what it takes these days) but there isn't a point to having 80%+ if it isn't being used. It is like saying you'll buy $60,000,000 worth of oil, and only using $50,000,000 of it.

RIDICULOUS example, but basically the same thing IMHO.

[Crystal Shards]

No, it's not the same thing, because you can still USE the oil or sell it. That 20-30% isn't something you can trade or use or really physically own. If you ignore it, it's basically like it's not there. That's not true with physical things. If the staff wanted to, they could use up to 70% or 80% to show temporary bans and use 90% and 100% to show permanent bans, if it's honestly THAT big of a deal for a lot of members. But if you don't use the 80+%, I doubt you're really going to be bothered that much by it in the long run, so there's really no point in complaining about a system that "doesn't use everything."

But again, I'm sure the staff will have something up eventually.

[Knife]

Your arguments are futile. Jyo has already proposed a guideline.

[Phoenix Wright]

Your arguments are futile. Jyo has already proposed a guideline.

Your right. Sorry everyone.

@Shards: You missed my point entirely. Jyo has a rule set up already BTW, like what Waha Kife said.

[Crystal Shards]

Your right. Sorry everyone.

@Shards: You missed my point entirely. Jyo has a rule set up already BTW, like what Waha Kife said.

No, I didn't miss it; I know what you were saying, I just don't agree. Perhaps you missed mine. And I read all posts before I post, so... The rule isn't set up; it's been proposed. But we'll just have to see what happens and accept what the staff say.

Edited November 18, 2008 by Crystal Shards

[Jyosua]

lock'd'd'd'd'd'd'd

yes, 'd'd'd'd