Report, edit, etc...Posted by Cloud on 2006-02-14 at 19:22:33
i was wondering instead of get 20% each warn, can you reduce it to 10% each warn?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by slayer766 on 2006-02-14 at 20:21:00
Why? Do you get warned alot? And they will say no.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Cloud on 2006-02-15 at 17:00:17
ive been warned abunch of times, i just think that 5 warns and then an ban is too little..
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2006-02-15 at 19:26:25
IP supposedly has some nutcase idea about getting rid of warns.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Rantent on 2006-02-17 at 02:47:22
Its genius.
Banning on first offences would straiten many people out.
I have a feeling that if more warns were given, mods might feel obligated to warn people more often, rather than simply a verbal warning in some cases.
Banning on first offences would straiten many people out.
I have a feeling that if more warns were given, mods might feel obligated to warn people more often, rather than simply a verbal warning in some cases.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MillenniumArmy on 2006-02-19 at 22:08:34
If SENv5 is going to indeed, keep warn levels, I'd say make it so that we can raise a member's warn level by X. And X can be anywhere from 1-20%, depending on the seriousness of the merit.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by in_a_biskit on 2006-02-20 at 02:59:35
A 1% warn is ineffective and insulting, and shouldn't be allowed. A choice of a 10% or 20% warn would be more sensible.
The current warn system is ok, i think. It doesn't take 9 warns to learn a lesson.
The current warn system is ok, i think. It doesn't take 9 warns to learn a lesson.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Cloud on 2006-03-14 at 23:00:40
Before I say anything I'm not really sure if I was soposed to re-open this(if I wasn't sorry, I just wanna put some input.)
Well, I thinks thats going abit too far..
For the first part(which I have bolded) Wouldn't it be abit unfair to the people that were banned? Don't they deserve the chance to be "straitened out"?
For your second part. Yes that would be sensable, nothing wrong with it, adding warns more often might even straiten them out faster then just verbally warning them.
Thats kinda hard, the Admin would have to keep changing the "number of times being warned" over and over again.
QUOTE(DT_Battlekruser @ Feb 16 2006, 12:26 AM)
IP supposedly has some nutcase idea about getting rid of warns.
[right][snapback]428058[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]428058[/snapback][/right]
Well, I thinks thats going abit too far..
QUOTE(Rantent @ Feb 17 2006, 07:47 AM)
Its genius.
Banning on first offences would straiten many people out.
I have a feeling that if more warns were given, mods might feel obligated to warn people more often, rather than simply a verbal warning in some cases.
[right][snapback]429122[/snapback][/right]
Banning on first offences would straiten many people out.
I have a feeling that if more warns were given, mods might feel obligated to warn people more often, rather than simply a verbal warning in some cases.
[right][snapback]429122[/snapback][/right]
For the first part(which I have bolded) Wouldn't it be abit unfair to the people that were banned? Don't they deserve the chance to be "straitened out"?
For your second part. Yes that would be sensable, nothing wrong with it, adding warns more often might even straiten them out faster then just verbally warning them.
QUOTE(MillenniumArmy @ Feb 20 2006, 03:08 AM)
If SENv5 is going to indeed, keep warn levels, I'd say make it so that we can raise a member's warn level by X. And X can be anywhere from 1-20%, depending on the seriousness of the merit.
[right][snapback]430980[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]430980[/snapback][/right]
Thats kinda hard, the Admin would have to keep changing the "number of times being warned" over and over again.