Are verbal warnings used?

[Clarke]

I ask because I have yet to receive any even for minor rule breaks, warning points are given instead. 

If they're not then they should be. 

[Grendel]

They're not given out. They've proven to be ineffective in the past and as such we deal warn points out. 

 

You don't get punished for your first "warn point" that acts as a verbal warning instead. Any warn added after the first has consequences however.

[Alex]

Remember it also takes 7 warning points before you're even banned from the forums, so we've got a very lenient system in place.

[Clarke]

Forums should have 3 verbal warnings and then 5 or more actual warnings and the verbal warnings expire themselves.

This forum is quite strict in comparison. 

[Grendel]

Forums should have 3 verbal warnings and then 5 or more actual warnings and the verbal warnings expire themselves.

This forum is quite strict in comparison. 

 

If you're upset about the way the forum is now. Look to PW's past and blame that along with the fact that community members abused the leniency of the moderation team. 

We're not changing the system. This works and continues to work. 

 

If you don't want a warn point, don't break the rules. 

[Grillick]

I don't see a problem with using the hard-coded warning system as a way of keeping track of warns accrued, and the rules of the forum are really quite reasonable.

 

Still, that first warning point (the one that carries no penalties) should expire automatically after 30 (or 60, or 90 - whatever you think is fair) days, assuming no further warns are issued before that. The warn appeals forum is glutted with appeals dedicated to what ought to be a simple ministerial task, performed automatically by a program or routinely by the staff, in either event without player input.

[Mr. Blonde]

Edit: My apologies to Grillick.  For some reason, I swore we were in the Game Reports forum.  Please continue.

[Grillick]

You have provided an explanation for the policy, but that explanation does not (in my view) adequately explain the burden being placed on individual users with a single warning point to affirmatively seek relief from that warning point.

 

Reviewing whether minor infractions warrant continued monitoring is something that should be the responsibility of moderation staff taking affirmative steps. Perhaps you keep a log of warnings, and once a week you review the warnings that are over 30 (or 60, or 90 - whatever seems reasonable) days old and make a judgment whether the poster warrants removal of that warning point. You could have a hard rule that if the poster has received 2 (or more) warning points before that review is conducted, they will always keep their points until they request removal.

 

But if you're going to use the hard-coded warning system as a shorthand for "verbal" warnings, it doesn't seem reasonable to place the burden on the playerbase to monitor those "verbal" warnings. Only when the warnings reach the level of justifying punishment should the onus shift to the player to justify removal.

 

I'm certainly not saying that the forum rules are unreasonable. I think they're very reasonable. But there is room for some additional laxity.

[Mr. Blonde]

I don't see why the burden shouldn't be on the player base.  The rules are everywhere.  Failure to follow them results in a warn.  If a person receives a warn, that person has the option to request that it's removed in 30 days time.  If they choose not to, or consider it too much of a burden, then they can hold onto it.

 

An automatic removal of a verbal warn is a signal to some players that they can repeat their behavior at least once per month.  That's not the message we want to send.  Not only is our warn system very forgiving, but we're also quite lax with the rules for the most part.  Many times, I have closed a topic after a grave dig without issuing a warning, asked people to get back on topic in a thread without issuing a warning, and so on.  These are courtesies I don't have to extend, but my interest is in maintaining a community that people enjoy without instilling fear every time they post.  However, that does not mean that we're going to further alter our system, which will only serve to encourage deviant behavior. 

 

The system will remain as it is.  It's worked well so far and there is no reason to change it, especially when changes would primarily cater to those who are repeat offenders.  I understand that the next point you may want to make is that new members may receive their first verbal warn unaware of the rules and shouldn't be stuck with it.  I suggest they read the rules, which are posted in the announcements, listed at the bottom of the board, and specific forum rules are pinned in forums that require them. This is standard fare for any forum community and the responsibility to read the rules does rest with the community.

[Hereno]

Remember it also takes 7 warning points before you're even banned from the forums, so we've got a very lenient system in place.

 

I got 2 warn points and a 24 hour forum ban for posting one useful and one subsequently snarky comment because I didn't bother to look at which forum I was in before I tried being a productive member of the community. The ban wouldn't even let me log out, and I couldn't check my notifications or even respond to a PM sent by you. Sometimes it is necessary to crack down on people, but the mods definitely crack down way too hard on minor forum infractions considering "Muhammad Jesus" never even got locked out of sending PMs when he exploited the game. And now SOCINT is having to fight a dude with 500 tanks bought with exploited money and you claim it's all legit, but I have 3 warn points and what the !@#$ have I even done wrong? And I would have 4 had I not gotten one reduced... Of course, I would be banned if it wasn't for Unkajo's intervention when you decided to give me 4 warn points back in the Beta because I disagreed with you in the Suggestion Box.

 

And yes, people do remember that !@#$, even if I've since noticed a large improvement in the way you guys handle things.

 

So do you see the pattern here? It is a pattern that fuels resentment. You guys need to get your priorities in order and let people hang themselves, rather than executing people over mistakes a la Saudi drug policy. Because guess what? Not all rule infractions are intentional. This game is not everybody's life, and sometimes we just don't have the rules memorized and aren't expecting to get kicked out of the community because we contributed positively to the forums. It really is enough to give someone a verbal warning, and THEN give them a point if they continue doing it and ignore you, when it's something stupid like a spam technicality or this or that.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Hereno

[Hereno]

If you're upset about the way the forum is now. Look to PW's past and blame that along with the fact that community members abused the leniency of the moderation team. 

We're not changing the system. This works and continues to work. 

 

If you don't want a warn point, don't break the rules.

And let me tell you: this attitude right here is literally that of every bad forum mod summed up in one post. I don't think you guys understand why people do things the way they do, and I think it's because you're all 16-19 year old boys who think high school is how the adult world runs. No, adults don't put up with being treated like dogs who need to be beaten into their place. They say "lol" and find something else to do in their spare time.

 

^^ and if reading any of that made you angry or made you think about whether or not I should be getting a forum point or how you can find a rule I broke to get me to shut up, you are missing the point and doing moderation wrong. Pointing out when shit is broken so it can be fixed is not trolling or bad behavior. It is the people like me who will sit and argue with you !@#$ers who keeps you from banning out everybody else who doesn't want to put up with nonsense.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Hereno

[Grillick]

An automatic removal of a verbal warn is a signal to some players that they can repeat their behavior at least once per month.  That's not the message we want to send.

See, this is part of the problem because the first sentence is simply not true.

 

The vast majority of rule infractions (from what I can see based on reading every single warn appeal that has been posted since I've been here) are inadvertent, not calculated. A policy like this doesn't protect against inadvertence, and only inconveniences the playerbase without providing any real benefit.

 

If you're concerned about an automatic reduction because you believe that not every rule infraction is equal, and some are more or less deserving of forgiveness than others, that simply highlights the absurdity of a policy where every infraction carries the same penalty, modified only by the frequency with which the person commits infractions.

 

If, on the other hand, you genuinely want to discourage bad behavior, then have a list of infractions (harassment, race-baiting, whatever you think it appropriate) that give 2 warning points, with the rest of the minor infractions carrying only a single one. Then a policy that automatically removes single warnings points without touching people with more than one warning would make sense.

 

I don't understand what's so wrong with each player having a once-a-month "gimme" for rules like posting in non-discussion forums, off-topic posting, or grave-digging, while maintaining a strict policy against other infractions like harassment.

[Grendel]

Topic closed. 

 

We're not changing the system at this moment of time to suit you.