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?