I feel that the current system with warnings is too rough.
Two warnings, no matter what you did, lead to a ban.
Let me propose something new: instead of warnings, mod give out infractionpoints.
Things like posting in a spamthread will get you 1 point, while things like advertising or making overly insulting threads/posts will give you more points.
5 points (or something like that) = 3 day ban, 10 points= 1 week ban, etc
I just think this would be good, so lesser infractions dont result in the same punishment as bigger infractions.
let me know what you think about it.
Nevertheless, I would wish the mods be less stringent with bans, they should be a last-measure thing, not handed out as much as they are.
While it certainly should be like that, thats hard, because they have to warn people somehow, and most mods are too lazy for manual warnings, it seems. I can understand that, so many forumgoers here
With that system I proposed, the mods can warn someone while giving him 1 point, and they can punish someone by giving him more than 1 point.
With the current state of the forums, we can't just be going soft on people. If people don't behave appropriately, then they will get warned. The rules are there to be followed, and naturally, if you break them you get warned/and banned appropriately.
With the current state of the forums, we can't just be going soft on people. If people don't behave appropriately, then they will get warned. The rules are there to be followed, and naturally, if you break them you get warned/and banned appropriately.
Its just that people get the same punishment for everything, is it posting in a spamthread, is it insulting someone, is it advertising, etc
Its just that some things here are handled wrong
yesterday i saw a guy with porn in his avatar: he didnt get a boardwarning, but he got a pm from an admin to remove it. listed as 'NEVER DO IT', yet he didnt get a warning.
then i saw a guy posting in a thread where someone put up a minecraft.exe for download, he got a boardwarning and banned for it. he didnt write anything hateful. listed as 'DONT', yet he got a warning.
Using that infractionpointsystem it would be easier for the mods.
(also, could your write that thing with posting in spamthreads in the rules? really. Spamming is listed, but not posting in a redundant thread.)
Its just that people get the same punishment for everything, is it posting in a spamthread, is it insulting someone, is it advertising, etc
(also, could your write that thing with posting in spamthreads in the rules? really.)
1. Yes it's just. If people don't follow the rules the first time, they get a warning. The second time, they get an "enforced break" from the forums. Third time, they get banned for a week. Fourth, and they are banned forever. It's clearly outlined in the rules about how warnings and bans are handled (Duration, severity, ect)
2. We do plan on adding that to our forum rules, however, there are people we need to consult about that who are currently not available, and it's not as simple as it sounds.
Its just that people get the same punishment for everything, is it posting in a spamthread, is it insulting someone, is it advertising, etc
(also, could your write that thing with posting in spamthreads in the rules? really.)
1. Yes it's just. If people don't follow the rules the first time, they get a warning. The second time, they get an "enforced break" from the forums. Third time, they get banned for a week. Fourth, and they are banned forever. It's clearly outlined in the rules about how warnings and bans are handled (Duration, severity, ect)
2. We do plan on adding that to our forum rules, however, there are people we need to consult about that who are currently not available, and it's not as simple as it sounds.
1. posting in a spamthread is nowhere listed as a rule. dont hand out bans and warnings for it.
2. posting in a spamthread is nowhere listed as a rule, dont hand out bans and warnings for it.
in cases where those things are not stated in the rules, warn the user manually, no board warning. he couldnt know.
if he does it again, board warning. its easy.
by the way, since pm and the other thread didnt help: viewtopic.php?f=1025&p=3257660#p3258117
why did that not get warned, yet most other people did get a warning? thats the kind of, excuse me, ******** im talking about.
its not because i got a warning there, if it wouldnt be me there i would still complain about him not getting a warning. this is not just. its an example for bad, biased moderation.
^ The Bans are guidelines. Action is taken as deemed appropriate. If the Mod who issued the Warning went easy on you, then count yourself lucky. A third Warning would still typcially mean a week-long Ban.
Quote from spiney »
I was three day banned on my first warning, so who knows how they work.
Also, the staff reserves the right to act according to the severity of the ban.
Post pornography all over the boards, and even if it's your first offense, you are going to get permanently banned.
Get warned twice for spamming non-offensively, the mod might go easy on you. As LWK said, consider yourself lucky. And keep in mind that the 3 day ban will most likely be skipped on your next warning, even though you never got the three day ban for your second warning.
Get warned twice for spamming non-offensively, the mod might go easy on you. As LWK said, consider yourself lucky.
It shouldnt work like that.
Everyone should get the same treatment. I postet twice in spamthreads, and i got a ban for that. I complained about it, got copypasted stuff and mods saying its their decision.
If you're a generally positive and contributory member of the community with a slightly off-topic or spam post, I am more likely to be lenient.
If, however, you are a generally positive and contributory member of the community and you post something like
inb4 pirates cry because they downloaded and ran it
Or
HAPPY SERVER HAPPY HAPPY YAY SERVER HAPPY HAPPY YAY YAY YAY
Then you are willingly and knowingly posting nothing but a meme (in a spam topic, nonetheless) or pure spam. No matter how contributory of a member you are, you'll get a warning for that.
You've got to practice self-restraint and moderation. You seem like a very intelligent and capable person. You ought to have known that neither of those posts were contributing anything to the thread. The warnings were justified.
Its just that people get the same punishment for everything, is it posting in a spamthread, is it insulting someone, is it advertising, etc
(also, could your write that thing with posting in spamthreads in the rules? really.)
1. Yes it's just. If people don't follow the rules the first time, they get a warning. The second time, they get an "enforced break" from the forums. Third time, they get banned for a week. Fourth, and they are banned forever. It's clearly outlined in the rules about how warnings and bans are handled (Duration, severity, ect)
2. We do plan on adding that to our forum rules, however, there are people we need to consult about that who are currently not available, and it's not as simple as it sounds.
1. posting in a spamthread is nowhere listed as a rule. dont hand out bans and warnings for it.
2. posting in a spamthread is nowhere listed as a rule, dont hand out bans and warnings for it.
Posting in a spamthread is considered spam and handled as such. We are working on making the rules more clear about that.
If you're a generally positive and contributory member of the community with a slightly off-topic or spam post, I am more likely to be lenient.
If, however, you are a generally positive and contributory member of the community and you post something like
inb4 pirates cry because they downloaded and ran it
Or
HAPPY SERVER HAPPY HAPPY YAY SERVER HAPPY HAPPY YAY YAY YAY
Then you are willingly and knowingly posting nothing but a meme (in a spam topic, nonetheless) or pure spam. No matter how contributory of a member you are, you'll get a warning for that.
You've got to practice self-restraint and moderation. You seem like a very intelligent and capable person. You ought to have known that neither of those posts were contributing anything to the thread. The warnings were justified.
I know i replied to spam with spam on the second case, but look at the first case. I didnt contribute anything, yet it was no pure spampost. some did the same thing. EVERYONE got warned.
second case. I didnt contribute anything, it was a pure spampost. some posted things that werent pure spamposts, they didnt get warned.
viewtopic.php?f=1025&p=3257660#p3258117
this guy was contributing to the thread?
or the guy one post under him?
No. Why dont they get the same treatment as everyone else (ie: everyone in the thread gets warned, no exception) like i got with my first warning?
Edit: maybe im not clear enoug, but I see it like that:
It was the same situation twice.
Spamthread, spamposts, noncontributing posts and normal posts.
first warning:
no normal posts, some noncontributing posts and pure spam posts. EVERYONE, with me posting a noncontributing post, got warned. Okay.
second warning: a few normal posts, a few noncontributing posts and some pure spam posts. only the pure spam posts got warned. Why? Its the exact same scenario (just with me looking at it from a different corner) and yet it was handled differently.
Thanks for doing that, but that just proved again that the moderators dont think alike. Maybe something that should be discussed from moderators to moderators, it seems its not clear where to give warnings and where not.
There is a bit of leeway for discretion as to what exactly makes a contributory or noncontributory/spam posts. Each moderator must use his or her sense of discretion and objectivity in deciding what is and isn't a spam post. Of course, we'll make mistakes, at which point if you see something like what you just pointed out, report it or PM a moderator about it for a second opinion. I know that I have trouble sometimes when a post is borderline.
I personally think anything short of a permaban is a warning and the actual permaban the punishment. Think about it like that and the system of any forum makes sense.
Two warnings, no matter what you did, lead to a ban.
Let me propose something new: instead of warnings, mod give out infractionpoints.
Things like posting in a spamthread will get you 1 point, while things like advertising or making overly insulting threads/posts will give you more points.
5 points (or something like that) = 3 day ban, 10 points= 1 week ban, etc
I just think this would be good, so lesser infractions dont result in the same punishment as bigger infractions.
let me know what you think about it.
Though it could've been what I was saying was about ez. u.u
Nevertheless, I would wish the mods be less stringent with bans, they should be a last-measure thing, not handed out as much as they are.
While it certainly should be like that, thats hard, because they have to warn people somehow, and most mods are too lazy for manual warnings, it seems. I can understand that, so many forumgoers here
With that system I proposed, the mods can warn someone while giving him 1 point, and they can punish someone by giving him more than 1 point.
Second Warning - 3 Day Ban
Third Warning - Week Ban
Fourth - Permaban
It is already fine the way it is.
MineScience - viewtopic.php?f=25&t=166560
Dragonator - viewtopic.php?f=25&t=141803
Sand Skiffs - viewtopic.php?f=25&t=233346
Its just that people get the same punishment for everything, is it posting in a spamthread, is it insulting someone, is it advertising, etc
Its just that some things here are handled wrong
yesterday i saw a guy with porn in his avatar: he didnt get a boardwarning, but he got a pm from an admin to remove it. listed as 'NEVER DO IT', yet he didnt get a warning.
then i saw a guy posting in a thread where someone put up a minecraft.exe for download, he got a boardwarning and banned for it. he didnt write anything hateful. listed as 'DONT', yet he got a warning.
Using that infractionpointsystem it would be easier for the mods.
(also, could your write that thing with posting in spamthreads in the rules? really. Spamming is listed, but not posting in a redundant thread.)
1. Yes it's just. If people don't follow the rules the first time, they get a warning. The second time, they get an "enforced break" from the forums. Third time, they get banned for a week. Fourth, and they are banned forever. It's clearly outlined in the rules about how warnings and bans are handled (Duration, severity, ect)
2. We do plan on adding that to our forum rules, however, there are people we need to consult about that who are currently not available, and it's not as simple as it sounds.
1. posting in a spamthread is nowhere listed as a rule. dont hand out bans and warnings for it.
2. posting in a spamthread is nowhere listed as a rule, dont hand out bans and warnings for it.
in cases where those things are not stated in the rules, warn the user manually, no board warning. he couldnt know.
if he does it again, board warning. its easy.
by the way, since pm and the other thread didnt help:
viewtopic.php?f=1025&p=3257660#p3258117
why did that not get warned, yet most other people did get a warning? thats the kind of, excuse me, ******** im talking about.
its not because i got a warning there, if it wouldnt be me there i would still complain about him not getting a warning. this is not just. its an example for bad, biased moderation.
That was actually your second Warning.
Voyager of the Seas WIP ~~~~~ Big Book of Alchemy ~ Crafting Tech Tree
Post pornography all over the boards, and even if it's your first offense, you are going to get permanently banned.
Get warned twice for spamming non-offensively, the mod might go easy on you. As LWK said, consider yourself lucky. And keep in mind that the 3 day ban will most likely be skipped on your next warning, even though you never got the three day ban for your second warning.
It shouldnt work like that.
Everyone should get the same treatment. I postet twice in spamthreads, and i got a ban for that. I complained about it, got copypasted stuff and mods saying its their decision.
If, however, you are a generally positive and contributory member of the community and you post something like
Or
Then you are willingly and knowingly posting nothing but a meme (in a spam topic, nonetheless) or pure spam. No matter how contributory of a member you are, you'll get a warning for that.
You've got to practice self-restraint and moderation. You seem like a very intelligent and capable person. You ought to have known that neither of those posts were contributing anything to the thread. The warnings were justified.
Posting in a spamthread is considered spam and handled as such. We are working on making the rules more clear about that.
I know i replied to spam with spam on the second case, but look at the first case. I didnt contribute anything, yet it was no pure spampost. some did the same thing. EVERYONE got warned.
second case. I didnt contribute anything, it was a pure spampost. some posted things that werent pure spamposts, they didnt get warned.
viewtopic.php?f=1025&p=3257660#p3258117
this guy was contributing to the thread?
or the guy one post under him?
No. Why dont they get the same treatment as everyone else (ie: everyone in the thread gets warned, no exception) like i got with my first warning?
Edit: maybe im not clear enoug, but I see it like that:
It was the same situation twice.
Spamthread, spamposts, noncontributing posts and normal posts.
first warning:
no normal posts, some noncontributing posts and pure spam posts. EVERYONE, with me posting a noncontributing post, got warned. Okay.
second warning: a few normal posts, a few noncontributing posts and some pure spam posts. only the pure spam posts got warned. Why? Its the exact same scenario (just with me looking at it from a different corner) and yet it was handled differently.
Oh wait, I remember my first one, twas that masturbation thread I posted in.
I never understood how you could he warned just for posting, seems like this is the sole forum that does so.
don't click this link...