Post
by Mr. Oragahn » Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:21 am
Yes, that's not really clear to me. lol
I mean JMS says he understands then his next paragraph is kinda big mess.
I think we need to drop that formal/informal warning story and go for a clear system, with clear terms.
A warning is a notice, following one or several rules violation(s): Behave and it ends there (but we won't forget). Continue to act wrongly and each pointed out violation is translated into one [something].
After X [somethings], you get a ban.
A post may contain several different rules violations. It doesn't require one warning per violation. There can be a general warning, easy, that summarizes all the wrong doings, as long as it's clearly pointed out (a,b,c, 1,2,3, etc.).
However, if each rule violation is repeated, then each repeated violation would turn into a [something].
Now that [something] could be... say, a Confirmed Violation Point, a CIP (although I'm not too hot on the idea of getting "points" for something intrinsically wrong you know).
After three, four or five CIPs (up to admin to decide thus far), bam! ban.
So the number of warnings doesn't really matter. What matters, then, is the number of rules violations one or several warnings pointed out. Each post-warning repeated violation would turn into such a point, added to the counter that finally leads to a ban.
When I mean repeated, is repeated as ignoring the warning. It doesn't mean that if one produces, say, ten insults in one post after being warned against that, it would result in ten points.
Here, warnings would also act as beacons, that help keeping track of a member's behaviour and keep The Eye on him.
There would also be some kind of warning lifespan. Like, warning to cool down because of abusive language, you couldn't really a two years old warning to immediately turn some insult into a CIP.
So JMS would have to define the "jurisdiction" or age of a warning. Perhaps a week. The date of the post used to warn someone would be the indicator there.