Report, edit, etc...Posted by PCFredZ on 2007-02-05 at 19:32:02
EcHo (80%->60%)
Erased a warn from January 2006
Dark_Marine_123 (80->40%)
Erased 2 warns from January 2006
Neiji (60%->0%)
Erased all 3 warns, the oldest one from way back in 2005. Looks like he didn't die after all and is still posting on the forums.
These are 3 members that I've seen and taking actions for, but there might be more in forums I don't moderate. Just posting a heads up to make sure this is fine for the Global Mods as well, since as far as recent records go these 3 have caused way less troubles than some other members, cough cough.
This probably doesn't need to go into the Record Vault though.
Erased a warn from January 2006
Dark_Marine_123 (80->40%)
Erased 2 warns from January 2006
Neiji (60%->0%)
Erased all 3 warns, the oldest one from way back in 2005. Looks like he didn't die after all and is still posting on the forums.
These are 3 members that I've seen and taking actions for, but there might be more in forums I don't moderate. Just posting a heads up to make sure this is fine for the Global Mods as well, since as far as recent records go these 3 have caused way less troubles than some other members, cough cough.
This probably doesn't need to go into the Record Vault though.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Mini Moose 2707 on 2007-02-05 at 19:42:02
No, please don't do this. :/
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Syphon on 2007-02-05 at 20:06:16
We're not allowed to decrease? I downed Deathawk and Felagund each 20% for their tremendous helpfulness and general well meaning towards the tech forum since it opened about a week ago, I thought they really deserved it. :/
I guess I won't do that anymore.
I guess I won't do that anymore.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Mini Moose 2707 on 2007-02-05 at 20:15:25
That might work. But no "decay" as in "removing because it's old". The age of the warns is factored in if and when they hit 100%.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2007-02-05 at 20:28:36
Ya srsly. My warn is like a million years old.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Doodan on 2007-02-05 at 21:02:53
Don't get too carried away. If this becomes public knowledge, than many of the delinquents that think they're owed a warn decrease will start whining (NerdyTerdy comes to mind as a likely candidate of that). If this goes on too much, then we're stuck in the sticky position of determining "What is good enough" for a warn decrease.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by PCFredZ on 2007-02-05 at 23:01:40
Hmm... we should get a formal policy on rewarding & removing warns alongside the existing one punishing & giving warns.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2007-02-05 at 23:22:20
Uhh... no.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by xmrxsiegecopx on 2007-02-06 at 00:34:12
How about adding the ability to mark warns permanent or temporary?
- Minor infarctions (10% warn) stay from 30 days to 89 days, depending on severity
- Normal infarctions (20% warn) stay from 90 days to a year, and potentially permanent depending on severity.
- Repeated and more severe infarctions are always permanent, no matter how much they beg and whine about it.
- Older members have a much higher chance of having permanent warns, while your average troublemaker is exempt from having temporary warns.
- When hitting 100%, permanent warns never go away. So if a member has 80% permanent warns and 20% temporary warns when hitting 100% the first time, he resets to 80%.
- Minor infarctions (10% warn) stay from 30 days to 89 days, depending on severity
- Normal infarctions (20% warn) stay from 90 days to a year, and potentially permanent depending on severity.
- Repeated and more severe infarctions are always permanent, no matter how much they beg and whine about it.
- Older members have a much higher chance of having permanent warns, while your average troublemaker is exempt from having temporary warns.
- When hitting 100%, permanent warns never go away. So if a member has 80% permanent warns and 20% temporary warns when hitting 100% the first time, he resets to 80%.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Doodan on 2007-02-06 at 00:44:41
I'm against a warn decay system because its just too much work to maintain unless automated. I'm sure there are higher priority coding projects right now, besides.
Also, if guidelines are set up to allow users to get their warn level lowered if they do certain things, then troublemakers will get warned and then immediately try to clean the slate only to be warned again. It's a system that's just begging to be abused, and if we set it up, then first we have to think it up, then deal with the stress from the abuse, then shut it down again.
All that trouble is solved by simply warning the troublemakers and being done with it.
Also, if guidelines are set up to allow users to get their warn level lowered if they do certain things, then troublemakers will get warned and then immediately try to clean the slate only to be warned again. It's a system that's just begging to be abused, and if we set it up, then first we have to think it up, then deal with the stress from the abuse, then shut it down again.
All that trouble is solved by simply warning the troublemakers and being done with it.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2007-02-06 at 00:59:15
It undermines the purpose of the warn system. If there was this whole decay thing, we wouldn't be so incremental in warning people.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Voyager7456(MM) on 2007-02-06 at 15:14:35
Maybe having a warn decay system would work, if 100% was a ban... people dislike seeing they have 20% warn, even if they know that they probably wouldn't get banned until they hit 100% two or three times...
Report, edit, etc...Posted by PCFredZ on 2007-02-06 at 18:10:24
For those against "Warn Decay", I totally understand the fundamental principle you're coming from: lowering a warn level purely due to time can definitely cause periodic spam when people feel "safe" to do so.
But as the warn level is a symbol of the severity of the infractions that the member has caused as well as the frequency that he causes them, shouldn't it be lowered when he has over time fixed these problems? If the member's done everything right, shouldn't he be distinguished from someone who frequently causes trouble?
But as the warn level is a symbol of the severity of the infractions that the member has caused as well as the frequency that he causes them, shouldn't it be lowered when he has over time fixed these problems? If the member's done everything right, shouldn't he be distinguished from someone who frequently causes trouble?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Mini Moose 2707 on 2007-02-06 at 19:06:10
You can't tell who the troublemakers are without looking at warn levels?
Actually, that job is reserved for the 100% warn level punishment.
QUOTE(PCFredZ @ Feb 6 2007, 07:10 PM)
But as the warn level is a symbol of the severity of the infractions that the member has caused as well as the frequency that he causes them
Actually, that job is reserved for the 100% warn level punishment.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Syphon on 2007-02-06 at 20:37:52
I was just using a scheme of about be 5 or so times the opposite of getting warned for flame or spam, and you could get 1 down.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by PCFredZ on 2007-02-06 at 21:20:25
QUOTE(Mini Moose 2707 @ Feb 6 2007, 06:06 PM)
You can't tell who the troublemakers are without looking at warn levels?
[right][snapback]623984[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]623984[/snapback][/right]
Well, Urmom(U) still has 80% (all warns from 2005) and he's definitely not a troublemaker. So I'd say that you really can't tell who the troublemakers are even by looking at the warn levels.
And how about Devilesk? He had some warns for spreading OSMap (understandably he did do more than that). Now that Maplantis is in the open, everyone linking to Maplantis is basically spreading OSMap.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2007-02-06 at 22:05:20
QUOTE
And how about Devilesk?
He was banned a while ago, years later than should have happened.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Pyro-Fire on 2007-02-07 at 00:16:00
why dont u just take out warns altogether?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Mini Moose 2707 on 2007-02-07 at 13:22:48
Because we need the logs. I can remember the troublemakers, but not everything everyone has done (and the things other moderators have busted them for).
Report, edit, etc...Posted by EzDay281 on 2007-02-07 at 17:07:28
I don't see why one would need to know who's been making trouble at a glance -- we're supposed to be checking their warn logs before warning them in case someone else already has anyways, and looking at their warn log will allow us to see if all their warns are old or new or minor or severe. Besides, if someone is doing something stupid or acting suspicious, their old warns might have something worth knowing.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by O)FaRTy1billion on 2007-02-07 at 21:58:12
QUOTE(Voyager7456(MM) @ Feb 6 2007, 01:14 PM)
Maybe having a warn decay system would work, if 100% was a ban... people dislike seeing they have 20% warn, even if they know that they probably wouldn't get banned until they hit 100% two or three times...
Most people who hit 100% don't care about their warn. Take donwano for example, he even has it posted in his sig and brags about it.Report, edit, etc...Posted by chuiu on 2007-02-07 at 22:00:42
In my mind that means we're ready to ban them from the site because its a mutual feeling.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by PCFredZ on 2007-02-07 at 22:55:34
I miss the old forum days when people actually came here for StarEdit instead of random spamming.