Warnings and bannings, the process of Options

[sadolakced acid]

we probbaly need a bylaw about warnings and bannings, and the protocol for it.

we'd want to leave flexibility in the text tho.

[*incoherent*]

warnings: 2 or more wrong doings in one day. dont let the whole im sorry i didnt know work...theyre just saying that.

banning: if someone is being bad enough to ban, it should at least be for a week and no less. if they are doing something so "harmful" as to go straight to banning, you shouldnt take it lightly.

[*mzkandi*]

^ I think you mean suspension, not banning.

[*incoherent*]

^
same thing

i got a little carried away. well banning should have a detailed reasoning behind it and if possible, see if another mod agrees. suspension should be as stated in my first post under banning.

[*mzkandi*]

banning = your a-s-s aint to coming cb anymore
suspension = excessive harm to cB community or others. Pretty much depends on what has been done in order to determine how long someone is suspended.

[*incoherent*]

yeah, i stated that in my last post.

[*mzkandi*]

Well make it more clear

[*incoherent*]

alright, were fighting about something stupid. someone else will come along and voice their opinions. if mine isnt clear, it wont be excepted.

[*mzkandi*]

Who's fighting? I'm just letting you know.

But anyways......for the record mods are lenient when it comes to banning or suspending someone. Thats stated in the moderatoring guidelines.

[*incoherent*]

alright its over. ive stated my point. it just seems like youre trying to start something by sayings its not clear, yadda, yadda, yadda. okay, so its not clear. im leaving it. it makes perfect sense to me. here, ill put it all in one post and edit it all togehter.

well banning should have a detailed reasoning behind it and if possible, see if another mod agrees.

SUSPENSION!!!!!: if someone is being bad enough to SUSPEND!!!!!!, it should at least be for a week and no less. if they are doing something so "harmful" as to go straight to SUSPENSION!!!!, you shouldnt take it lightly.

warnings: 2 or more wrong doings in one day. dont let the whole im sorry i didnt know work...theyre just saying that.

there ya go.

[*mzkandi*]

Thanks for clearing that up.

[*incoherent*]

youre welcome

[sadolakced acid]

i'm not sure i like the mods being lenient, becuase that's subjective.

what would be nice if the rules were lenient, and applied the same to everyone.

[racoons > you]

^

indeed

also, i've said this before, mods, PLEASE BE CLEAR WHEN GIViNG VERBAL WARNINGS.

by this i mean state specificly who the warning applies to. if ther eis a sort of group spamming goin gon, but some people ar ea tth efringe and dont relally deserve the warning, say 'X Y and Z, you have been given a verbal warning for spamming' as opposed to 'This is your verbal warning for spamming'. dont leave room for ambiguity. firstly, its unfair to the members, and secondly, if provides you with a hole lot of crap if people complain that they weren't aware of the warnig, blah blah blah

Also, as there is the thread backstage for verbally warned members, if all staff post the date when they gave the verbal warning, as well as just the name, and then set a sort of expiration date for the warning (a week or whatever), then it will prevent the possibility of someone being lef ton the list for a verbal warning they got two moths ago, and then being officially warned without merit

[*mona lisa*]

Also, as there is the thread backstage for verbally warned members, if all staff post the date when they gave the verbal warning, as well as just the name, and then set a sort of expiration date for the warning (a week or whatever), then it will prevent the possibility of someone being lef ton the list for a verbal warning they got two moths ago, and then being officially warned without merit

We can't have an expiration date for a warning. Heck, members' names who were warned at the time the thread was made are still there. The so called expiration date varies. If the person continues to spam, member bash whatever, why should we take their warning off? Because even though they're not following rules, a certain amount of time has passed? I think not...

Oh, and in case you didn't see, click the 0% under your name. ;) I remember you were wondering how it went down.

[*brownsugar08*]

About the 2 or more things wrong in a day thing..

C'mon. You have to be lenient with newbies.

I doubt EVERYONE..as soon as they joined to cB popped in and read the community guidelines word for word. They'll make a few double topics, and spam topics in the beginning..but they'll get better.

Besides, Micron said in the moderator guidelines..he'd rather the mods be more lenient than overly strict.

[sadolakced acid]

well i read the guidelines. (which does bring me to another- require all rules members should follow be posted, and none simply implied)

i don't see why everyone else can't. they check the little box saying they have.

[KissMe2408]

Well, the only time i would be really "flexible" with the rules and warnings is with the newcomers. most of the time they don't know where to post, and i'm sure a bunch don't actually READ the community guidelines lol. But if a newbie is getting outta hand then PM them first, give them a link to the guidelines and "FAQ's", tell them what they are doing wrong, give them the search button, etc....all that jazz...i mean we were all newbies once, after a few days on this site they get better...it's just the first few posts that can be hectic. i wouldn't warn them, but i would send a "verbal warning" (PM)

[*incoherent*]

is there anyway to make it so that the only thing a new member can see is the rules and then after posting in that section (like hide a word that they are supposed to find and post, but make the section so mods have to approve them so they cant just write what someone else what) and then after that they are able to see the forums. i know some sites you have to post so much to see a certain section...maybe that can be a way for people to actually read them?
also, dont make the word noticable.

[KissMe2408]

^true, people do make mistakes, i mean there are so many topics on this site....I mean there is a difference between making honest mistakes, and just recklessly spamming and being obnoxious.

[*disco infiltrator*]

Why must there be laws about warning?

Mods are hired because they are thought to have good judgement on things like that. It's for our judgement based on each situation. If someone has a problem with the judgement of a particular mod, they can PM Jusun, an admin, or a head staff.

Problem solved.

[*mzkandi*]

^ Exactly.

[racoons > you]

We can't have an expiration date for a warning. Heck, members' names who were warned at the time the thread was made are still there. The so called expiration date varies. If the person continues to spam, member bash whatever, why should we take their warning off? Because even though they're not following rules, a certain amount of time has passed? I think not...

Oh, and in case you didn't see, click the 0% under your name. ;) I remember you were wondering how it went down.

if the person continues to spam or whatever when they are already on the verbal warning list, then a mod should take the next strep and warn them. if after a week this action hasnt been necessary, then the member shoul dbe atken of the VERBAL warn list.

i wasnt talking about removing actual official warnings after a week, if there was an issue of clarity

Why must there be laws about warning?

Mods are hired because they are thought to have good judgement on things like that. It's for our judgement based on each situation. If someone has a problem with the judgement of a particular mod, they can PM Jusun, an admin, or a head staff.

Problem solved.

sammi, the point of the bylaws is to establish a protocol so that there is no ambiguity. it is all well and good for mods to use their judgement, but individual mods WILL have different degrees of severity.

if we have a protocol, it goes towards making this less of an issue

PLEASE dont waste everyones time with saying 'the mods can do it', as it basically just negative, and undermining the whole process. if you feel that this isnt worth while, step down from the committee and let a stff member who wants to get on with things have your place

* <--- put in because my friend thought it was cute*

[*tweeak*]

What we absolutely cannot have is a system where you get a warning/suspension for breaking a rule that was covered in the guildelines that you accept in order to join to begin with and then leave us the right to change them without notice or even informing anyone there's a new rule, because that's bullshit. People don't read them when joining anyway, so that's where the verbal warnings come in, but if they do accept them and then we change them and don't tell them, then they're not what people accepted and can't be used as an excuse. I've been through that- it's bullshit. I should have won my MBP battle, but they changed the rules so that they could suspend me even if I just tried to defend myself, and then they held me accountable for those changed rules they didn't tell me about and insisted that i had accepted the guidlelines and should have read them to begin with. Ok, well, Iit's hard to know something will be a problem before it becomes one, and it's even harder to object to something when they make it up just to spite you. That was not fair and while we should be for a loose interpretation of our "consitution," we cannot have such an unjust rule on "amendments."

Ok, well, I don't know what that had to do with anything. I swear i had a point to begin with...

[*incoherent*]

^
lol. nice nicki.

is there anyway to make it so that the only thing a new member can see is the rules and then after posting in that section (like hide a word that they are supposed to find and post, but make the section so mods have to approve them so they cant just write what someone else what) and then after that they are able to see the forums. i know some sites you have to post so much to see a certain section...maybe that can be a way for people to actually read them?
also, dont make the word noticable.

i guess obviously, nobody read that?

[Heathasm]

i dont like the flexibility either. verbal warning probalby should come into play in some cases...but there are obvious thigns that people do that should require suspension...or warning..like when the spam parades happened. there is really no need to be flexible...just give out a verbal warning when the person knew know better or it was misdameanor.

is there anyway to make it so that the only thing a new member can see is the rules and then after posting in that section (like hide a word that they are supposed to find and post, but make the section so mods have to approve them so they cant just write what someone else what) and then after that they are able to see the forums. i know some sites you have to post so much to see a certain section...maybe that can be a way for people to actually read them?
also, dont make the word noticable.

there probably is....but that isn't a good idea.
too much work for mods (because cb gets ALOT of new members everyday)
it'd be difficult because people come to cb for codes and skins...im not sure there would be a way to make the site like that for new people if it didnt apply to people that weren't even signed up either

eh, im just not sure there is a way to force people to read the rules like that iether lol theyd find a way around it

[demolished]

PLEASE dont waste everyones time with saying 'the mods can do it', as it basically just negative, and undermining the whole process.

Totally! I hear that statement a lot “the mod can do it" but its part of their job. Oh well. Maybe make things a little lighter for them? Well, it’s their choice whether or not if they want to deal with certain issues.

(i think)They can agree on one thing to change the role of moderators.

(If this is stupid to you, dont yell at me, please )

[Spirited Away]

There shouldn't be any protocol to verbal warnings. I know a few of you are against the saying that "mods can do it", but if there are things that should be left to the judgement of the moderator, verbal warnings are it. If we're to have restrictions on making sound judgements on such a simple thing, then there is no point in having mods. Even if someone is new to cB and make a couple of mistakes in double posting or cross posting topics, verbal warnings would be a good way to ensure newcomers will read the guidelines and abide or face the consequences. Seriously, verbal warnings are meant to be flexible. They are flexible by definition because the member has done something wrong but doesn't get punished for it and walk away with a "tsk-tsk, no-no".

[*disco infiltrator*]

if the person continues to spam or whatever when they are already on the verbal warning list, then a mod should take the next strep and warn them. if after a week this action hasnt been necessary, then the member shoul dbe atken of the VERBAL warn list.

i wasnt talking about removing actual official warnings after a week, if there was an issue of clarity
sammi, the point of the bylaws is to establish a protocol so that there is no ambiguity. it is all well and good for mods to use their judgement, but individual mods WILL have different degrees of severity.

if we have a protocol, it goes towards making this less of an issue

PLEASE dont waste everyones time with saying 'the mods can do it', as it basically just negative, and undermining the whole process. if you feel that this isnt worth while, step down from the committee and let a stff member who wants to get on with things have your place

*   <--- put in because my friend thought it was cute*

I'm not wasting anyone's time. We don't have to have laws for every single little thing. People give reasons when they warn others, and the people know what the reasons are. If they have problems with it, the PM the moderator back with complaints. If the moderator does not fully explain his/her self, then the person PMs an admin or head.

I don't see the problem with the system we have now. The rules are clearly posted and people know when they break them. If not, they are told to read the rules, and usually aren't given a real warning when it's their first offense, due to lack of knowledge.

Why is there a problem? This isn't wasting anyone's time, I seriously want to know why there needs to be laws.

What is the point of mods if all they do is go around warning people according to a protocol? Policemen arrest people when they think it warrants arrest based on rules. It's about their judgement based on the set of rules given. It's the same type of thing here.

[sadolakced acid]

by-laws, not laws.

so, something like:

members shall be given a properly announced verbal warning, after which they shall be open to warnings. After a significant amount of warnings, mebers will be open to suspension. Special cases may warrent bannings.

and "properly announced" should be defined somewhere else.

(have something about like... mods must vote on bannings)

[*disco infiltrator*]

Yes, but we're discussing whether warnings should be given based on the mod's judgement or something else, right?

I agree the people should be PMed when they recieve a verbal warning so they know that when they get warned, they were previously warned.

[sadolakced acid]

well, i think the point of verbal warning should be at the mod's disgression, but for official warnings, there should be something set (not in by-laws) about how to go about that.

[*disco infiltrator*]

Well, really, there is. If the person continues to do what they were verbally warned for or CLEARLY violate the rules (with knowledge previously), then they are warned.

[sadolakced acid]

there are what, 14 rules or so as of now. so someone could rack up 14 verbal warnings if we used that as a rule.

i think that should be a baseline, but not written in the bylaws... maybe somewhere in the rules..

[*disco infiltrator*]

Racking up every single verbal warning possible is an example of CLEARLY violating rules.

[sadolakced acid]

or just not reading them.


some flexibility must be incorporated...

[*disco infiltrator*]

Which is why there are verbal warnings for first-time offenses, which could easily be due to not reading rules.

[sadolakced acid]

ok.

errr.

as far as the by-laws, i think we should just put something in that can be interpretated differntly as times change.

like...

members shall be forewarned that they have broken a rule. after this, they are open to official warnings... yada yada.

[*disco infiltrator*]

I agree that it should be officially posted, but I don't think that every single thing needs to be standardized.

[racoons > you]

well, if mod spost when they give a verbal warning to members backstage, and then pm the member, if after a week the person has broken the rules again, they are warned

[*disco infiltrator*]

Why after a week?

If they ever do it again, they get warned period unless the verbal warning was so long ago that we don't even remember if they recieved it.

[racoons > you]

*shrugs*

it doesnt have to be a week, i just threw in a timing.

[*disco infiltrator*]

Well then, without that week thing, that's exactly what goes on now...with me, at least.

[racoons > you]

well then, if you do it that way, it's wonderful, and all the mods should.

but, you said that an official warning is given after the verbal, as long as the verbal warning is remebered... but, if you dont note the date on which the verbal warning was given, then how can any mod excep tthe one who gave th eoriginal warning realize whether or not a verbal warning is appropriate?

and, if you do date it, and all members are to be treated equally, then all verbal warnings should be removed after the same amount of time.

that was the point i was trying to make, not that one week was the perfect amount of time.

[Heathasm]

If they ever do it again, they get warned period unless the verbal warning was so long ago that we don't even remember if they recieved it.

well..you shouldnt have to remember since there is a verbal warning log that is kept with the exact dates they were issued that you can refer to before deciding what kind of warning the person should get

[racoons > you]

^

exactly.

and if the exact dates are recorded, there should be a period after which they expire. one verbal warning should no thaunt a member forver

[Heathasm]

yeah...it shouldnt

maybe after two weeks

[racoons > you]

two weeks sounds good to me

[*brownsugar08*]

...but there's a thread backstage that has all the verbally warned users..and the dates that they were warned. So couldn't mods just check there?

[Heathasm]

...but there's a thread backstage that has all the verbally warned users..and the dates that they were warned. So couldn't mods just check there?

went over that already...just saying that once someone is verbally warned then after two weeks the warning should be removed

[*brownsugar08*]

Oh.


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

[racoons > you]

^

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

[sadolakced acid]

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.

[*mzkandi*]

^ I think that would be good.

[*disco infiltrator*]

[racoons > you]

i'll agree with that

[*incoherent*]

agreed

[KissMe2408]

awesome idea

[racoons > you]

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

[*not_your_average*]

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."

[*incoherent*]

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.

[Heathasm]

well verbal warnings arent PMed to the person

[*incoherent*]

well verbal warnings arent PMed to the person

i meant to add that. thank you.

[sadolakced acid]

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.

[KissMe2408]

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.

[racoons > you]

i whole heartedly agree.

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

[Heathasm]

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

[racoons > you]

indeed. ok. lets formalize

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

aye!

[Heathasm]

aye!

[*disco infiltrator*]

Aye.

[racoons > you]

bumped

[*mzkandi*]

aye

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

[racoons > you]

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

[*tweeak*]

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...

[racoons > you]

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

anyway, are you actually voting nay, or not?

[*incoherent*]

whoops...never voted.

aye.

[racoons > you]

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

motion passed

[*incoherent*]

added to by-laws list

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

[*Azarel*]

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.

[*mona lisa*]

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.

[*incoherent*]

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

topic closed.