Oh.


Sounds like a good idea to me. [The two weeks thing].

^

yes, but the point im trying to make is there ough tto be a fixed amount of time before they come off the list

how about the warning mod sets the time, with a minimum of two weeks.

in case something warrrents a longer than two weeks lifetime, they can put that in the verbal warning thread along with the warning.

^ I think that would be good.

i'll agree with that

agreed

awesome idea

5 ayes, 0 nays for justin's idea about specified individual expiration dates for verbal warnings, to be posted backstage for mods' reference

Wait, quick question: Warnings are PMed to the offender, right? Because whenever I go into certain topics, I see a mod saying, "So-and-so, this is your first verbal warning for such-and-such."

yeah. the system i believe is set up so that when warned, an email or p/m can be sent to the person stating why. or you can just click on the __% at the bottom under all of your info and itll say who has warned you and what not. if its at 0, no one has warned you.

well verbal warnings arent PMed to the person

i meant to add that. thank you.

i think verbal warnings should be PMed and posted, to remove confusion.

this way people know that these people were verbally warned, and the person knows it was them.

^ I agree. Verbal Warnings are best served with a PM.

i whole heartedly agree.

if a mod gives a verbal warning, it needs to be clear. a PM removes that ambiguity.

yeah deffinately
i alawys though verbal warnings should be PMed because people dont always look back on threads they post in

indeed. ok. lets formalize

all in favor of mods sending a pm when they give a verbal warning say aye

aye!

aye!

Aye.

bumped

aye

We're suppose to that anyways though.....

yeah, but this formalizes it, and gets it set in stone

just because we are including somethin gin the bylaws doesnt mean it has to change. there are areas where things are fine as they are. but we have to agree on that

oh, and
5 ayes
0 nays

I want to say nay, but I can't think of a decent reason why, excpet that whenever I PM people verbal warnings, as nice as I try to be, it usually results in them cursing me out, me losing my pacience, and suspending them. But, uh, decent reason, right...

surely part of 'being a good mod' is dealing with such eventualities?

anyway, are you actually voting nay, or not?

whoops...never voted.

aye.

oh. well then in that case nicki's vote is irrelevant, as we have 6 ayes

motion passed

added to by-laws list

hasnt everything thats been discussed in here been voted on and added?

This thread has mostly (if not only) been about warning..

Will moderators ever act on banning (not just suspending)? E.g. The spammer (cowlender, cowlender2) - suspending each individual account does not do anything since the violater will just create more accounts. Is there a policy on IP banning? Because as far as I know, the only "banned" accounts are "sammi rules you" and "barelyy_coherent" because they were hacked.

And you all know certain.. incidents with spammers.

I think that's because the admins IP banned them after they were warned. I can't IP ban. If I can't, I'm pretty sure regular mods can't either. Suspending them is all we can do at the moment.

im pretty sure this has been discussed, just in another form and added to the by-laws.

topic closed.