We want Forum Feedback!

[zara]

 

To a lesser extent, I also agree about the Warns. I've never gotten a Warn that I felt was unfair, but I've been here long enough to know that it's not always like that. For instance, if a thread is started (possibly by a newbie) and a few people reply, and then the thread is closed as Spam, are the people who replied warned, even though they didn't know it was spam?

With angelicdragonpuppy's warn, if there is a specific topic, and you add a reply that specifically references what the topic was made for, how on EARTH is that "chat" or warnable? It seems she was answering a post wondering if the thread was getting off-topic, and saying that no, that's actually what the thread is about. Did the person asking if the thread was off-topic get a warn, too, since his post obviously didn't "add anything to the discussion"?? I'd love to know that.

I also I agree with the warn thing, even though the only warn I ever got was not completely unfair it left me feeling very nervous because I wasn`t offending anyone and I was trying to say that I felt like their idea was like mine so I said I felt my idea was taken out of my head, and BAM! a warn. Being the newbie I am I felt upset and panicked. (no offense SPS, I think I deserved it.)

 

 

As with ADP`s warn when I read it I felt like it was fairly unfair as it was contributing to the thread as it was telling a person who felt the topic was off-topic that is was in fact, on topic.

 

[skauble]

But things in the requests forum can often change the game much more then things in the BSA suggestion section (how are biome content and lineage viewing NOT fairly big game changes? O___o). I'm looking at the BSA section and the normal requests section right now, and the top three items in each are, respectively:

BSAs

- Add one day to a hatchling's time

- Protect an egg from sickness for a day

- Ability to remove sickness

 

Whereas in normal suggestions:

- Add a half-hour unblocked cave period

- Move pygmies around in biomes

- Let UVs breed purples

 

I'd say that the normal suggestions would have more impact on the game then those BSA suggestions, or at the very least, about the same level of impact... although in general the suggestions area often has ideas of much, much more import than does the BSA section (seriously, the BSA area moves at a snail's pace most of the time, which suggests to me that nothing going on over there is particularly game-changing). As such, I still really don't get why it's ok in the normal suggestions thread but not in the BSA one.

The suggestions that are made in the Suggestion section definitely carry an impact. My point was more that the BSAs often affect the way that game play is structured. For instance, it used to be that it took X amount of days to grow a dragon and nothing could change that short of smashing the egg. There was no way to increase the chances that you'd get an egg from a breeding other than to stick to breeding ultra-commons. And the inability to influence gender meant that people usually had to gather a substantial amount of eggs over their intended goal to end up with all of the genders that they needed.

 

Those limitations are the basic framework of how the user can play the game if they have no BSAs. My point was that, unlike many of the general suggestions, BSAs allow users to manipulate that framework. So with BSAs we have to make sure to be careful that we don't do something that will alter things too much or negate many of the challenges and features that extend game play.

 

And that's important because BSA suggestions can have a much larger impact on a person's game than many of the general suggestions have. Would redistributing Pygmies in the biomes have an effect on the game and, therefore, me? Yes, if it eased up a bit of the blockage that would be helpful, but it probably wouldn't be a huge game changer for me. But if we allowed any of the oft suggested BSAs that would allow hatchling "incubation" to shave a day off of that growth period, that would have a major and immediate impact on the individual users game.

 

There's also the fact that the BSAs require a much more solid and logical in-game rational than many of the general suggestions do. Which isn't to say that normal suggestions don't require justification, but rather that there's a very strong emphasis placed on that to even be able to submit a BSA.

 

And, though I admit up front that I don't know if this has an impact, I wonder if BSAs make game patterns a little less predictable because they're user based. For instance, letting UVs breed Purples would be a site-wide change. And while the number of them bred would depend on individuals breeding them, the rates could just be set to have a certain percentage be purples, so the exact amount of breeding wouldn't matter. But because BSAs are randomly used by every player, as opposed to site-wide, that could mean that the impact of certain BSA suggestions could be both forceful and much less predictable.

 

But, again, this happens in the normal suggestions area all the time and it has never seemed to impede progress. It's very easy to skip over the general posts, and sometimes they're even useful in bumping up a neglected thread or showing off general mood.

Actually, I've skipped over a lot of discussions in the suggestion section when the page count begins to grow to the point that it seems like it would be a huge time sink to get involved in it (and that's even more the case when the forum is acting up). So, frankly, I'd rather see the inconsistency resolved by extending the rules to the Suggestion section than being removed from the BSAs.

 

I guess my real complaint here is that I still think warns are handed out too liberally. As I mentioned earlier, I think warns should only be handed out when people are being /really bad./ Making a post that's not quite the focus of the thread, but where you can still see the connection, or being sarcastic, or posting "1+" to show you really like an idea shouldn't get you slapped with a warn.

I'm not a moderator, so I can't say why they have the criteria they do. But I've been on forums where a single warning is a really big deal. Now I'm not saying that it's not important here, but I've always gotten the sense that it's used more because it's the fastest, simplest method of saying, not “OMG that thing you did was terrible and you're in a lot of trouble”, but rather something more along the lines of “we need you to stop doing that thing”.

 

Like I said, I'm not saying that they don't matter, and obviously accumulation of them isn't a good thing, but I kind of see them as the most efficient way to connect with a user about a given rule, in a forum that's extremely busy, in a thread where they might not come back to see a mod post, and a place that doesn't have endless PM space that would necessarily allow for PMing every person, even if the moderator chooses to go that route.

 

So I guess I just wonder if people aren't judging the warns here by what a warn might mean somewhere else. Because there doesn't seem to be a lot of punishment that follows them unless a lot of them build up in a short amount of time. In fact, you can even apply to be a mod with a current warn level. And while it was said that it will be taken into account, I've been plenty of places where that kind of thing would probably be disqualifying.

[Fuzzbucket]

One problem I see with adding a poll to every suggestion, is that there is often much debate and discussion and changes made before a concensus is reached. If the poll only reflects the topic as it was originally posted, it might not be accurate once the idea is fine tuned.

 

I think what would be better, is that after a certain amount of discussion or a more informed idea has been hashed out, that a NEW thread gets made with a poll attached to it. Rather than having an inaccurate poll from the beginning... and allowing for better understanding of what is actually being voted on.

Yes, and the OTHER problem with polls - and I think this probably applies more to BSAs, is that you vote; the discussion goes on and suddenly you realise that you have been convinced (or unconvinced) by the arguments and there is no way to change your vote. That too can skew voting.

 

As to warns, I rather agree with skauble. They feel to ME like a please stoppit rather than GO TO JAIL. (And I have had several; I am not being above it all here !) And as skauble says - here they are not the HUGE deal they are on other forums - unless your level shoots up. One forum I am on - three warns and you are out. And they DO NOT GO AWAY, so 3 warns in 20 years, in theory, could boot you out. AND - any member can report - and that counts for a warn. IMAGINE that here and count blessings (1 - 2 - 3 - 4- ------ 10000000000)

[TheGrox]

I think that's the problem with warns in general. They are given out for tiny little things, and given out too liberally.

 

Which is worse? Saying "I support this idea" to a suggestion or posting a massive spam/rant post/topic? Because they would most likely both have the same effect - you'd be slapped with a warn.

 

Wouldn't it be nicer for one of our mods to just PM you, saying "Could you please elaborate on your post in x topic, to say why you support the idea" ? I think that would be much nicer than the way it is now - if a mod PM's you about a warn, it's just a copy-and-pasted "Please read the pinned topics". I appreciate mods are busy, but sometimes the copy-and-pasted messages mods post and PM everywhere hardly fit the situation in hand.

Edited February 3, 2013 by TheGrox

[Fuzzbucket]

I think that's the problem with warns in general. They are given out for tiny little things, and given out too liberally.

 

Which is worse? Saying "I support this idea" to a suggestion or posting a massive spam/rant post/topic? Because they would most likely both have the same effect - you'd be slapped with a warn.

 

Wouldn't it be nicer for one of our mods to just PM you, saying "Could you please elaborate on your post in x topic, to say why you support the idea" ? I think that would be much nicer than the way it is now - if a mod PM's you about a warn, it's just a copy-and-pasted "Please read the pinned topics". I appreciate mods are busy, but sometimes the copy-and-pasted messages mods post and PM everywhere hardly fit the situation in hand.

Can you imagine how much time it would take for the mods to do that ? If I were a mod, I would resign rather than go to those lengths. Not to mention full PM boxes and the rest.

 

MY warns have all been perfectly well explained - not copy pasted, really - I just looked back and they all say what I did to earn them, as well as linking to the page that says why not to - and not a problem (well the first one scared me a bit, but since then...)

Edited February 3, 2013 by fuzzbucket

[olympe]

The other problem with warns is - since they're handed out rather liberally - that people get used to getting warned. And I've done some things where I thought that they might earn me a warn and still did them because to me, they were worth being warned. (Boy, was I surprised when all that happened was a couple of PMs explaining things and my post being deleted because I couldn't do so while asleep! Thanks again, PF13!)

 

 

[skauble]

I think that's the problem with warns in general. They are given out for tiny little things, and given out too liberally.

 

Which is worse? Saying "I support this idea" to a suggestion or posting a massive spam/rant post/topic? Because they would most likely both have the same effect - you'd be slapped with a warn.

 

Wouldn't it be nicer for one of our mods to just PM you, saying "Could you please elaborate on your post in x topic, to say why you support the idea" ? I think that would be much nicer than the way it is now - if a mod PM's you about a warn, it's just a copy-and-pasted "Please read the pinned topics". I appreciate mods are busy, but sometimes the copy-and-pasted messages mods post and PM everywhere hardly fit the situation in hand.

The thing is that if a mod has time to PM everyone, that's really nice of them, but I'm not sure that it's reasonable to expect in a forum like this for a number of reasons. First, not only is this a high traffic site, but it tends to attract a number of people who just decide to skip the whole rule reading part, and so there seems to be a lot of basic, routine mistakes that get made. Second, I doubt that the amount of warns given on any day is a constant. Certain posts get heated or are more prone to go off topic, and so there can be times when we're talking about a lot of PMs needing to be written. And that's the third thing, that I've had lots of PMs not go through because someone's box is full. So there's no guarantee that moderators can get in touch with them.

 

So is the problem that you don't feel that the warns contain enough info? Because if you click the warn meter and that needs to be clearer, that's certainly something that may need to be addressed.

 

But if the concern is that people would like to be PMed by a mod and told what happened, I'm not sure what the difference is, because that's what the warn system is meant to do, just more effectively - it lets them alert you that there's a problem, briefly explains what it is, and it does it in the simplest, quickest, and most direct method available.

 

I often get the sense, in the discussions about warns, that the problem with the warning system is that some times people just kind of refuse to view it as having it's own scale of severity in regard to this site and, instead, assign the warns a certain meaning based on what they might mean on other sites. As Fuzz pointed out, there are some forms where warnings are a really big thing. But here they really do seem to be the most efficient way of just nudging a user to let them know about a given rule and not to do that again.

 

Because, as far as I can tell, there's not a lot of punishment from the staff, such as restricting posting privileges or the like, unless a rules violation was either a. very sever, or b. a continuous problem. And so if the warn system is a fast, easy, and more direct for the mods to give that info and for users to be sure to receive it, and it has the definite benefit of allowing mods to quickly check a person's history when something happens, then the main problem I see is how some users interpret them.

 

The fact is that no matter how it gets done, when people break a rule they need to know about that. The warning system that the forum provides is a very streamlined way to get that message from mod to user and to keep track of it. So I'm not sure why we'd change that instead of just coming to terms with the idea that a warn is important to pay attention to, but it's not a terrible black mark on a user that they need to feel awful about. It's basically just staff's way of saying, "That thing is against the site's rules. Please don't do that again."

 

Edited because I can't spell.

Edited February 3, 2013 by skauble

[TheGrox]

But the thing is, most mods PM people to tell them why they got warned as well as writing an explanation on the warn itself. Even if the PM is just about reading the rules.

 

I know, it would be unreasonable to ask mods to PM people that much, but I have seen it done on other forums. People don't take a PM from a mod like they do a warn. A PM from a mod is like a ticking-off, telling you not to do it again - and that is how a warn here should be seen too, but I think a lot of people take warns to mean what they mean on other forums, where they are more severe.

 

Either way, I think warns are handed out too liberally.

Edited February 3, 2013 by TheGrox

[Khallayne]

If I could post this as a user I would. But I've always seen warns that don't have consequences more as logged verbal warnings. Especially since I moderated a site where... You had 4 chances, before your account was frozen. 4 chances for different aspects, but certain things made you skip levels as well.

 

I know that that is the way that I tend to use warns as well. If there isn't a consequence, then it's more of a way for us to log the incident, send a PM and talk to a user. This is how I generally do it. The warn log is an easy way for all of us to be on the same level... Not to mention the fact that I think 1 warn is better than 1 user getting 5 PMs from moderators explaining what they did wrong and the issues... Because after a point, that tends to come off as aggravating and patronizing. But that's my two cents.

 

I've been a moderator for 3 years... I may not be seeing it the same way as some of the members.

[Thuban]

Im still a huge fan of the way my old forums handled warns. You got verbal warns in your posts. Is something was off topic, a mod would edit a verbal warn into your post, as much for you, as for the other users AND mods. We often followed up in pm, to explain the problem to the users. After 2-3 verbal warns, the person would get a full warn.

 

example

"Random topic about german shepards.. blah blah dogs are cool"

 

Comment:

I want a pet kangaroo with wings!

 

-This comment may be seen as spam, please stick to the topic. Any post like this after this point will be warned for spam. -Thuban

 

 

Also: we would issue three verbal warns for the entire thread before closing the thread and cleaning it. It worked there, it tries to work here, but maybe a slight change to the way warns happen could/should be in order.

Edited February 3, 2013 by Thuban

[brairtrainer]

Im still a huge fan of the way my old forums handled warns. You got verbal warns in your posts. Is something was off topic, a mod would edit a verbal warn into your post, as much for you, as for the other users AND mods. We often followed up in pm, to explain the problem to the users. After 2-3 verbal warns, the person would get a full warn.

 

example

"Random topic about german shepards.. blah blah dogs are cool"

 

Comment:

I want a pet kangaroo with wings!

 

-This comment may be seen as spam, please stick to the topic. Any post like this after this point will be warned for spam. -Thuban

I would honestly approve of this method over the liberal warns given out now, kinda like what happens with eggspam

[Dawnfur]

Okay, I'm going to drag up some dead fish here, but I'm kind of upset about the New Prize Egg thread being closed.

 

It's like the same thing with plenty of threads, most of us are enjoying talking about the topic, having fun, and admiring the new dragons. But then there's a handful of people starting an argument, and the whole thread is punished for it.

 

I was really enjoying reading about the Shimmers, and the dicussions that were going on there.

 

And just because a dragon grows up doesn't mean we can't still talk about them. I find that kind of unfair too.

 

Now please don't flame me for this, it's just my opinion.

[Thuban]

Okay, I'm going to drag up some dead fish here, but I'm kind of upset about the New Prize Egg thread being closed.

 

It's like the same thing with plenty of threads, most of us are enjoying talking about the topic, having fun, and admiring the new dragons. But then there's a handful of people starting an argument, and the whole thread is punished for it.

 

I was really enjoying reading about the Shimmers, and the dicussions that were going on there.

 

And just because a dragon grows up doesn't mean we can't still talk about them. I find that kind of unfair too.

 

Now please don't flame me for this, it's just my opinion.

unfortuantely, the people that bring up the arguements tend to flavor the thread. If theres pages and pages of begging, whining and arguing, it tends to be easier to clean the thread and start over, then it is to get people back on track.

 

unless we are going to get stricter on what constitues warnable comments (like what i have just suggested) i imagine its hard to keep on top of keeping the threads maintained and "neutral". I know some people will feel that editing verbal warns into posts is calling a user out, i see it very differently. I see it as a tool to be able to let anyone involved in the thread know what is and isnt acceptable, making it easier to determine if a thread /should/ be closed or not.

[Kishing]

I was really enjoying reading about the Shimmers, and the dicussions that were going on there.

Yup, same. Personally I just think a new thread should be started with a narrower focus, like "What do you think would look best bred with the new prizes?" or "How did the prize winners choose their codes?" Then any OT could fairly incur a warning, whether an edited one, posted one, or an actual warn.

 

Edit: Also, Thuban, I agree on the edited verbal warns. I like 'em, personally (and I've gotten a couple) and I think they'd be easier/more effective on controversial threads like that one.

Edited February 3, 2013 by Kishing

[Emeraldmay]

unfortuantely, the people that bring up the arguements tend to flavor the thread. If theres pages and pages of begging, whining and arguing, it tends to be easier to clean the thread and start over, then it is to get people back on track.

 

unless we are going to get stricter on what constitues warnable comments (like what i have just suggested) i imagine its hard to keep on top of keeping the threads maintained and "neutral". I know some people will feel that editing verbal warns into posts is calling a user out, i see it very differently. I see it as a tool to be able to let anyone involved in the thread know what is and isnt acceptable, making it easier to determine if a thread /should/ be closed or not.

Couldn't you have different levels of warns? E.g Level 1 for being offtopic, slight rudeness, minor censor evasion, Level 2 for Swearing, Spamming etc, Level 3 for Rants, etc, and so forth? Do we already have something like that? That would help distinguish from the minor offenses and the major ones.

[TheGrox]

Im still a huge fan of the way my old forums handled warns. You got verbal warns in your posts. Is something was off topic, a mod would edit a verbal warn into your post, as much for you, as for the other users AND mods. We often followed up in pm, to explain the problem to the users. After 2-3 verbal warns, the person would get a full warn.

 

example

"Random topic about german shepards.. blah blah dogs are cool"

 

Comment:

I want a pet kangaroo with wings!

 

-This comment may be seen as spam, please stick to the topic. Any post like this after this point will be warned for spam. -Thuban

 

 

Also: we would issue three verbal warns for the entire thread before closing the thread and cleaning it. It worked there, it tries to work here, but maybe a slight change to the way warns happen could/should be in order.

Oh my Thu, I'd forgotten how well that method of moderating worked. At an old forum I used to be a Global Mod at, we used that method and it worked very well indeed. I would much prefer that to the current warn system as it stands at the moment.

 

Yes, I'm more experienced than most of you probably expect me to be at moderating. I used to be a Global Mod on a little Spore-related forum, hence my name. It sort of stuck. X3

Edited February 3, 2013 by TheGrox

[Obscure_Trash]

I'm not a moderator, so I can't say why they have the criteria they do. But I've been on forums where a single warning is a really big deal. Now I'm not saying that it's not important here, but I've always gotten the sense that it's used more because it's the fastest, simplest method of saying, not “OMG that thing you did was terrible and you're in a lot of trouble”, but rather something more along the lines of “we need you to stop doing that thing”.

 

Like I said, I'm not saying that they don't matter, and obviously accumulation of them isn't a good thing, but I kind of see them as the most efficient way to connect with a user about a given rule, in a forum that's extremely busy, in a thread where they might not come back to see a mod post, and a place that doesn't have endless PM space that would necessarily allow for PMing every person, even if the moderator chooses to go that route.

 

So I guess I just wonder if people aren't judging the warns here by what a warn might mean somewhere else. Because there doesn't seem to be a lot of punishment that follows them unless a lot of them build up in a short amount of time. In fact, you can even apply to be a mod with a current warn level. And while it was said that it will be taken into account, I've been plenty of places where that kind of thing would probably be disqualifying.

 

This is it exactly. :3

 

Handing out an 'official' warn gives mods a quick and easy log to look at. If we edit posts more, we then have to spend time going through someone's post history to see if they have a history of it or whatnot. If they do it five times before the same mod finally catches them at it again - well, perhaps that would have been stopped earlier if we'd warned instead of editing.

 

I've also had quite a few users who don't like their posts saying 'edited by mod's name' and will go back in, re-edit their post to be fine in their own words and submit. If this was something that we'd usually hand out a warn for - well, now there's no record of it. (It is, of course, completely fine for users to do this, but it leaves mods without a record of what happened, which is really why we use the warn system.) So unless we upgrade to the feature that allows mods to give a reason for editing (seen it on another forum, I think that's an upgrade from this one?) that stays at the bottom of the post no matter who last edits it, I'm not sure that's a suggestion that can really work out.

 

Another reason for warns is, as mentioned - to let the user know. Honestly, if a thread grows ten pages overnight and a mod edited three of your posts and handed out two verbal warns to the thread - how likely are you to actually catch that? There are many users who come in and skip all new posts when a thread grows that quickly, even if they've posted in it before. So we could just PM you and PM all the other section and global mods a record of each post we edited and such - but wouldn't it be a lot easier to just warn like we're supposed to? Now you have a record of what happened and we have a record of what happened and we can all move forward from there.

 

Warns aren't the end of the world. They're not some awful consequence. They serve as a warning that you toed the line, we caught it, and that you should probably keep that in mind when posting again (in a topic like that). They don't mean that you're some evil or bad member or that mods hate you. It means, probably, a thread got out of hand, you were caught up in it (whether it was a fight or it just turned spammy), and now you know that next time when that happens, you should report the thread and walk away.

 

Couldn't you have different levels of warns? E.g Level 1 for being offtopic, slight rudeness, minor censor evasion, Level 2 for Swearing, Spamming etc, Level 3 for Rants, etc, and so forth? Do we already have something like that? That would help distinguish from the minor offenses and the major ones.

 

That's kind of the whole rules and warning system, isn't it? Users do not receive actual consequences until they get a few warns (unless you do something like threaten to harm somebody or you're a spambot). Mods also do try to take into account when a thread gets large and heated and moves quickly (I'll often stick multiple posts into one warn so a user doesn't end up a near 100% warn - unless they've already received a knock-it-off from me, then I'm more likely to hand out more than one warn).

 

ALSO, when warns are brought to public attention, I would just nudge members to think about whether or not they are getting the full story. ^^

 

~

 

I wasn't up when the Shimmer thread stuff was going on (haven't even looked at it, tbh), so I can't comment on that, but perhaps you should PM one of the mods involved and ask if you can start a new thread like proposed? :3

Edited February 4, 2013 by SockPuppet Strangler

[HeatherMarie]

The other problem with warns is - since they're handed out rather liberally - that people get used to getting warned. And I've done some things where I thought that they might earn me a warn and still did them because to me, they were worth being warned.

I feel the need to address this, because it's yet another thing wrong with how Warns are handled.

 

Example: You are housebreaking a puppy, and if it goes in the house, you gently smack it's nose with a newspaper. That's the "warn". But if you smack it's nose every single time it does anything the tiniest bit wrong, from growling to jumping on you to barking too loud, suddenly that newspaper smack means NOTHING, because the puppy is so used to it. It's not a "warn" anymore. And it's not taken seriously.

 

Personally, I VERY much agree with the talk about different levels of warns. A post that might be seen as slightly off-topic, while still more or less on-topic, is HUGELY different then a post full of rude comments and name-calling. It's a completely different scale, and yet around here it's treated as if they are the exact same thing. Both of those posts would get what? A warn. If you've been a member here long enough to know that warns get handed out for the *slightest* mis-step, maybe you *won't* be that careful about what you post, because heck, I'm gonna get warned sooner or later no matter what I do, it doesn't mean anything.

 

(And yes, there have been multiple times when I've posted in heated Suggestion threads, and I fully expected to earn a Warn for the tone of my post, no matter how politely I tried to present my argument. But I posted anyways, because *I* knew that I was doing my best to follow the rules, and if some mod thought I was being too rude anyways, so be it. The thought of getting warned looses a lot of weight when you see people left and right getting warned for the stupidest little things.)

Edited February 4, 2013 by Marie19R

[Ashes The Second]

But the thing is, most mods PM people to tell them why they got warned as well as writing an explanation on the warn itself. Even if the PM is just about reading the rules.

 

I know, it would be unreasonable to ask mods to PM people that much, but I have seen it done on other forums. People don't take a PM from a mod like they do a warn. A PM from a mod is like a ticking-off, telling you not to do it again - and that is how a warn here should be seen too, but I think a lot of people take warns to mean what they mean on other forums, where they are more severe.

 

Either way, I think warns are handed out too liberally.

This. I take warns as a personal attack, because, well ,that's what other mods have done -- no basis for the warning, and they don't seem to be a really 'little' thing if your post gets edited. The mods don't have to edit, a warn gets the message. I'll take the warn if it means I get my point across, though, quite frankly.

 

Warns aren't the end of the world. They're not some awful consequence. They serve as a warning that you toed the line, we caught it, and that you should probably keep that in mind when posting again (in a topic like that). They don't mean that you're some evil or bad member or that mods hate you. It means, probably, a thread got out of hand, you were caught up in it (whether it was a fight or it just turned spammy), and now you know that next time when that happens, you should report the thread and walk away.

 

Mmm, that's where you don't seem to get it. People /expect/ a warn for something like name calling, NOT something like 'I support'. It's not a toe-the-line type of thing, and if you got warned for something that small ,you have every right to tell the mod in question that you were not wrong, because you weren't. It does not matter what they think of it, it mean you're taking your job to a whole new level of punishment.

 

I also have a solution to verbal warnings -- send the pm and then report it. Other mods can see it, and you just add a little note saying 'so and so did this, blah blah blah'. Why is that so hard? It's the same thing as warning a person.

Edited February 4, 2013 by Ashes The Second

[TJ09]

I feel the need to address this, because it's yet another thing wrong with how Warns are handled.

 

Example: You are housebreaking a puppy, and if it goes in the house, you gently smack it's nose with a newspaper. That's the "warn". But if you smack it's nose every single time it does anything the tiniest bit wrong, from growling to jumping on you to barking too loud, suddenly that newspaper smack means NOTHING, because the puppy is so used to it. It's not a "warn" anymore. And it's not taken seriously.

 

Personally, I VERY much agree with the talk about different levels of warns. A post that might be seen as slightly off-topic, while still more or less on-topic, is HUGELY different then a post full of rude comments and name-calling. It's a completely different scale, and yet around here it's treated as if they are the exact same thing. Both of those posts would get what? A warn. If you've been a member here long enough to know that warns get handed out for the *slightest* mis-step, maybe you *won't* be that careful about what you post, because heck, I'm gonna get warned sooner or later no matter what I do, it doesn't mean anything.

 

(And yes, there have been multiple times when I've posted in heated Suggestion threads, and I fully expected to earn a Warn for the tone of my post, no matter how politely I tried to present my argument. But I posted anyways, because *I* knew that I was doing my best to follow the rules, and if some mod thought I was being too rude anyways, so be it. The thought of getting warned looses a lot of weight when you see people left and right getting warned for the stupidest little things.)

I don't see this as a problem, because there are consequences of getting too many warns. This prevents warns from becoming "useless," because there are more severe options if people stop caring about getting them.

[TJ09]

I also have a solution to verbal warnings -- send the pm and then report it. Other mods can see it, and you just add a little note saying 'so and so did this, blah blah blah'. Why is that so hard? It's the same thing as warning a person.

If it's the same as warning the person--which it's not, because it moves the warn history to an external location (reports are sent to e-mail) and removes the permanent record of warns--why not use the official system built into the board rather than coming up with some convoluted alternative?

 

This subject comes up time and time again, and that's actually a good thing. It means people don't like getting warned. That's supposed to happen. You're not meant to enjoy receiving a warn. It shouldn't be a pleasant experience. However, all of the people I see complaining have only had at most one or two warns. Everyone makes mistakes, if you slip up at most once every four weeks, then why are you even worrying?

[Lythiaren]

Popping in here to add to the warn discussion:

 

I PMed the mod who hit me with my last two warns to dispute one of them, and I was only told two things.

 

1) the post got more reports than any of my other posts in that thread. Kind of implies that someone's reporting like every post I make but whatever. I know some people have been basically doing that ever since the frill thing.

2) the post was [negative thing]. Since I wasn't seeing it, I asked for elaboration and I was only told "it was [x] and that was my analysis". Still not seeing it, I asked for further elaboration so I could actually, you know, avoid doing whatever it was. The next response was basically "because I said so" and then upon pressing further I stopped getting responses.

 

So the only conclusion I can logically draw from this is that the mod in question is hitting me with warns either based on volume of reports or for disagreeing strongly with her personal views. Neither are good methods for moderating a forum. I've been a mod on Runescape of all places, and I've personally dealt with much, much worse than I've dished out here. I've hit my own friends with the banhammer before but simply using strong wording has never been a reason to do so, and indeed during my tenure there I'd been advised by the higher-ups to steer clear of it.

 

We've rightly earned our reputation for black vitriol here. It's because warns are handed out so often that some of us joke on IM about it and keep our warns like a soldier keeps his kill count. As long as you don't do it quite often enough to climb all the way to the top you're good. Which means you basically have a free pass to misbehave once or twice a week.

 

In fact I wouldn't be surprised if I got another one for this very post for something like harassing the mod in question despite not naming names.

Edited February 4, 2013 by Lythiaren

[Ashes The Second]

If it's the same as warning the person--which it's not, because it moves the warn history to an external location (reports are sent to e-mail) and removes the permanent record of warns--why not use the official system built into the board rather than coming up with some convoluted alternative?

 

This subject comes up time and time again, and that's actually a good thing. It means people don't like getting warned. That's supposed to happen. You're not meant to enjoy receiving a warn. It shouldn't be a pleasant experience. However, all of the people I see complaining have only had at most one or two warns. Everyone makes mistakes, if you slip up at most once every four weeks, then why are you even worrying?

I'm sorry, but I don't think you've drawn the correct conclusion here -- it's still a way to get the persons attention while having an internal method of knowing who was warned. You can make a Warning Thread in your Staff Section and place it there -- more post counts for the mods and it works. Why offer no suggestion at all rather than providing one that works?

 

And being warned for something that cannot be deemed spam reasonably is the funniest thing I have seen in a long time, glad you've taken the time to amuse me, and to credit my post of all things when I can provide a fairly simple method of mods going about verbal warnings -- when you have not noticed the discussion based upon the warns themselves, TJ09. Beautiful job, beautiful.

 

Becuase that's totally how the head admin should behave when regarding a post a member makes.

 

Watch me get warned for bringing up a valid point, too.

 

So scary, you guys. After the first 20? Lolnope.

[angelicdragonpuppy]

I simply would prefer to see warns used for things that are seriously offensive. If people are getting warns for breaking very harmless rules (like the +1 posts thing), then perhaps the solution is to not hand out tons of warns to correct people, but to loosen up the rules a bit. ^^;

 

I agree with whoever said that handing out too many warns makes warns rather meaningless... I know that I've gotten very few warns for things where I looked back and was like "maybe I shouldn't have done that." They've all been things that I didn't and still don't register as being truly offensive, and as such my mindset about posting hasn't really changed... so my "behavior" hasn't been curbed in any way but I do feel a fair amount of bitterness about some of the mods and about a lot of the forum rules. If you slap me with a warn only for SEVERE things, then that warn would startle me a lot more and lead me to think "wow I really shouldn't do that again." But as-is... yah. Too many warns makes it hard to care while still leading to hard feelings ;;

 

[Obscure_Trash]

I'm seeing two arguments thrown about here:

1) We apply warns too liberally for things you feel you shouldn't get a warn for

2) We apply warns too liberally so it means nothing when you get one

 

I think I am missing something. Obviously, it DOES mean something to get a warn, because, as TJ said, this topic keeps coming up. If you're upset you got a warn (ie a mod told you to stop doing x thing) - isn't the system working? And, there really is no distinction in the rules of "major" and "minor". If I was going to only warn for major things, I'd really only step in when people threatened harm on other people. In comparison, everything else is minor. What you got a warn for may not seem like a big deal, but it's still in the rules and it still has to be upheld. Is your spam comment as "bad" as someone calling someone else a name? Not in comparison. Is it allowed on the forum? No. There isn't really be an in between - it's did you break the rules or did you not break the rules? Yes - you get a warn; no - you don't get a warn.

 

And no, a topic elsewhere will not work. Now I have to balance reports, read through the whole thread to see what I missed, and at the same time, constantly check on a topic in a whole different location to see who else is doing what. Instead of being able to take care of everything in one thread, I'm now spread out in different threads. Instead of just being able to check if anybody took care of the member right there in the thread, I have to go to another thread, read through all the posts there, and see what I missed. Quite frankly, that's a ridiculous request. What you're asking for us to do is the whole point of the official warn system.

 

However, any member who feels like their warn didn't get the point across to them is welcome to request consequences or is welcome to continue their behavior and receive consequences. That is what the warn system was meant for.

 

EDIT: Got ninja'd. Yes. If you guys haven't seen in here, I do try to hear out crit. If you can present something for why a rule doesn't make sense, please share. I can't really change rules, but v sounds like TJ's willing. :3

Edited February 4, 2013 by SockPuppet Strangler