Warnings and bannings, the process of Options

[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