Discussion - mod warnings

[Kuja]

It came up in the VI poll for Metrion Cascade and seemed worth a new thread before the other one actually got split up.

So, simply put, do members acting irascible deserve a warning (PMed or aloud) before going to a VI or ban poll? Or is it a moot point since the rules are up in the Announcements forum?

[RedImperator]

I've made my opinion perfectly clear on this subject. I have no objection to giving out warnings, but if nobody does warn an offender, that in no way ties our hands. For God damn sure I'm not about to help establish a precedent where some complete asshat ducks a title or a ban because a mod forgot to warn him.

[Edi]

Obviously it has to be decided on a case by case basis. For minor infractions, a warning or two is inappropriate. But for egregious multiple violations of the board rules (even if all are committed in a single thread), titling, loss of avatar and sig and outright banning should remain available options from the get-go. Nobody on the staff is very much inclined to accept a blanket requirement for mod warnings because of the nitpicking rules-lawyering that would result.

We got burned with DEATH's ban poll, and you can sure as fuck expect that people will get warned to avoid a repeat of that. Even if the warning comes in the same thread where the offending denizen is committing the rules violations. Hell, any mod admonishment to shape up could be construed as such, and if the offending behavior continues, up goes the titling poll.

Ban polls obviously require either really egregious behavior right off the bat or a couple of warnings before going up unless the poster commits insta-ban offenses (e.g. dare the staff to ban them) or annoys Mike too much.

Bottom line, even if the Senate votes for a blanket warning requirement (unlikely, as the mods would vote as a block against it, and Mike would probably veto it anyway), we can find ways to implement it so that business will be carried out just as usual. You'd probably even see a rather large jump in warnings for pretty minor offenses just to get the technicality out of the way for people who are pegged as troublemakers.

Edi

[The Yosemite Bear]

well not for the spammer/scammers who show up working for some adgroup or who try some other shit listed in the automatic expulsion rules. but otherwise I do believe that the group as a whole is a bit too quick to jump on someone.

[SirNitram]

Bear has a point. I will not change my mind on Metrion(A skimming of her post history reveals she's been doing this since she joined, and thus the pack-wolf mentality point isn't valid there), but a warning should be handy.

However, I don't beleive it should be required. Encouraged, yes.

[LadyTevar]

Not to be a me-tooer, but when the poster is clearly and flagrantly breaking the posted Rules of the Board, then no more warning is necessary. It's posted for all to see: Don't Do This or Else.

It's the rest of the stuff that's the hard call. In Metrion's case, there's a clear pattern of not just abuse, but a Wall of Ignorance that a warning probably will do little to stop. In other cases, the warning has made more than one poster realize what they're doing and become salvageable.

All in all... I say don't make it a rule, just a guideline for the Mods to apply as the circumstance warrants.

[RedImperator]

I don't think anyone's going to argue we shouldn't ever warn people who are fucking up. I'm opposed, however, to any rule or precedent where someone can get away with a major rules infraction just because he's never been warned about it. This is SDN. If you don't know you have to provide evidence when challenged, you're not allowed to use WOI tactics, and repeating a point is not the same as making an argument, you're on the wrong board.

As for the so-called wolf pack mentality, that's why we gave the Senate the power to deliberate on punishments for users, and why the Senate is so selective with its membership. I'd like to see some evidence that the Senate is some bloodthirsty posse out to stomp everyone in sight, especially since we just let darthdavid get away with a fake suicide without a ban.

[Coyote]

I think warnings are helpful and would help establish precedent towards more drastic action. While it is true the rules are posted it is also true that not everyone really is aware that they're making a violation in the middle of an exchange. Warnings will remind them that the rules are indeed being enforced.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Like I said those violating the "drop kick" list of rules should never get warnings (spammers, banned users showing up in new socks (Demios, Rauel Duke, Ali-sama)

likewise unchanging behavior over a long time both hurts and helps. because they often cite a bogus excuse that they weren't properly warned....

[Surlethe]

I don't see warnings as strictly necessary; they're nice to have as explicit reminders of the rules, but the forum culture itself tends to nicely illuminate dishonest arguments and behavior. If someone is flamed by a member in good standing or a staffmember for being dishonest, I don't think it's too much to expect him to reevaluate his position and concede if it actually is dishonest; I've done it twice or three times in my stay here.

[Stuart Mackey]

I think a post of the disiplinary rules might be in order:

Disciplinary actions

1. For a low-level offense, we typically take no direct action except to warn you to correct the problem and/or avoid doing it again in future. In some cases we might apply a derogatory title to your username.

2. If you ignore a warning (particularly if you ignore repeated warnings), we will usually start removing privileges such as PM privileges, the ability to edit your posts in edit-enabled forums, avatar privileges, sig privileges, etc.

3. In some cases of severe rule violations, we will ban you. We might also ban you if we launch a ban poll and a majority of users decide that you are worthless. And we might ban you if you react to some lesser disciplinary action (such as a warning, a title, or a privilege removal) with hostility, accusations of unfairness, etc. Bans may be either temporary or permanent, but most bans are permanent.

The relevant portions are Italiced/bolded.

[RedImperator]

The key phrase is "low level offense". All that is promising is we won't ban you on the spot for the likes of thread necromancy or an oversized sig picture. It in no way shape or form promises a warning for major infractions. Likewise, #2 explains that we'll step up the punishment for repeated low-level violations if you continuously disregard warnings. It says nothing about a warning for a major infraction coming before a ban.

I'll concede the rules call for a warning as the first punishment for a minor offense, and wouldn't allow us to, say, ban a person for having an oversized sig pic for months without being told to shrink it. But nobody in his right mind would want to do that anyway. There's nothing in that list that says a warning is required if you act like a total fuckhead, and if you don't get one, you don't get banned. In fact, #3 explicitly states major rule violations will result in a ban, with no mention of a warning beforehand; #3, in fact, says you can be banned without breaking any rules at all, if the board as a whole decides you're worthless, and there's no mention of being entitled to warning first for that, either!

[Darth Wong]

Everybody already received a fucking warning. It's called the Board Rules in the Announcements forum.

What we're debating about is whether they deserve a reminder of that warning. So let's not hear any bullshit about hapless users who never got a fair warning. The fact that such a reminder is usually handed out as a first disciplinary step does not mean our hands are tied.

[Keevan_Colton]

...paperwork. Ugh.

[Sea Skimmer]

Somtimes, Yes

[The Yosemite Bear]

speaking of paperwork I just spent the last 4 hours formatting a menu for work....

just when I think I'm out they pull me back in with more money....


dog I am very, very tired....

[Ghost Rider]

I think a post of the disiplinary rules might be in order:

Disciplinary actions

1. For a low-level offense, we typically take no direct action except to warn you to correct the problem and/or avoid doing it again in future. In some cases we might apply a derogatory title to your username.

2. If you ignore a warning (particularly if you ignore repeated warnings), we will usually start removing privileges such as PM privileges, the ability to edit your posts in edit-enabled forums, avatar privileges, sig privileges, etc.

3. In some cases of severe rule violations, we will ban you. We might also ban you if we launch a ban poll and a majority of users decide that you are worthless. And we might ban you if you react to some lesser disciplinary action (such as a warning, a title, or a privilege removal) with hostility, accusations of unfairness, etc. Bans may be either temporary or permanent, but most bans are permanent.

The relevant portions are Italiced/bolded.

We call them spammers.

As for the rest? They can fuck themselves because if they think that we have rules to get our hands tied? Fuck them. Those are there to give them fair warning of what will not be tolerated, not what the mods and admins have to to explicitly obey before doling out procedure.

[Mad]

I think a post of the disiplinary rules might be in order:

However, there's also Imperial Rule #2:

The administrative staff will decide what is an appropriate punishment when someone breaks the rules. Sometimes we may be in a lenient mood, but that does not tie our hands for the future.

Basically saying the staff isn't tied to any particular precident, which would include giving a warning first.

Also, one could easily put a different emphasis on the first disciplinary action:

1. For a low-level offense, we typically take no direct action except to warn you to correct the problem and/or avoid doing it again in future. In some cases we might apply a derogatory title to your username.

Note that the rule doesn't state that a warning will be given before applying the title. The rule could be interpreted as saying that the custom title is the warning. Under that interpretation, the question of whether or not to warn before warning is rather nonsensical.

Besides, a derogatory title isn't the end of the world (though obviously some are worse than others), nor does it even mean any sig or avatar privileges are revoked (those are covered in #2).

[The Yosemite Bear]

or more to the point we support the death penalty for commercial spammers here.

[Master of Ossus]

We shouldn't have to give people warnings--particularly egregious offenses can be and should be punishable on a first-offense. If a mod's in a good mood, though, a warning can be okay.

[Gil Hamilton]

I'd typically support giving warnings for non-serious infractions, but I don't think it is a good idea to tie people's hands by making a rule that a mod must give a warning. That opens the issue up to abuse and getting off on technicalities.