Warning List

[QuantumBalance]

You don't censor me! Besides your a badass. Most of the people on here aren't badass.

[Muffinman]

I'm not aware of any change in policy.

Did you not read Dyalander's post? Or my PM where I said, "What change in policy?"

So can you show me where it's written in the rules that people will go on a "warning list" for offences and stay on that "warning list" for a period of time decided by the moderators - essentially on probation?

Do you disagree with members being given warnings for making inappropriate posts in accordance with the rules of the forums? If so, what is you alternative suggestion for improvement? If not, do you feel that it is inappropriate to keep track of those who have been given warnings? (If so, do you have an alternative suggestion for improvement?) Seriously, if you have suggestions then feel free to share them. Do you have a problem with any of the current rules that you would bring up? We can make a thread about that for everyone to discuss. If you have grievances, Jeremy O'Wheel, it would be best if you discussed them rationally rather than harbouring malice.

[BainbridgeShred]

lol blush

[BainbridgeShred]

But really Sam, why post a pornographic link? I mean, I didn't see it so I don't know how egregious it was, but on a site with "kids" on it, isn't that just kind of in poor taste?

As far as the mod/community input on rules goes; isn't it generally regarded that pornographic images aren't allowed on this site? If so, I don't know where there is any call of censorshipcensorship. If I want to see porn, theres plenty of places I can go without having it forced on me unexpectedly, and I don't know why I'd say it's good the mod's pulled it. It's one thing to have legitimate information/media censored, and it's one other thing to have unlegitimate information/media thrust on to my screen by clicking a link curiously.

Obviously, keeping track of peoples "offenses" is a silly way of wasting whoever's keeping tracks time, for perfectly apparent reasons that I don't even feel the need to go over.


In my opinion, the only reason I can think of that someone should be banned from a forum is for spamming. Repeat postings of something like porn or stuff could be considered spamming. Bannings would be immideate and permanent, no silly warning systems.

[QuantumBalance]

****forforest.com is a pornagraphic web site, but with a greater purpose. There a majority of the profits are spent preserving rainforest, and embracing art and sexuality. This world is filled with people who have trouble embracing the many aspects of humanity. So, it becomes more enlightened peoples' duty to help their brothers and siters to understand that the conceptual idea of internet pornography, is frequented by a significant fraction of the population, making it a very powerful engine for change. There is so much more to something if you just take the time to understand. These people are hippies, making an actual wave of change in the planet, not at all aided by people who would censor it. You are the same people who would make up false explanations of things for your children, or whose parents did that to you. Rather present the truth and explain everything.

If you are so base, so mundane, that you can censor an idea rather than confront and understand it, then I believe I will have trouble communicating with you on an equal level.

Lets just settle it on the court.. Lats go battle.

In fact what if we settled discussions by battling in hack.

....

[Jeremy]

Did you not read Dyalander's post? Or my PM where I said, "What change in policy?"

So can you show me where it's written in the rules that people will go on a "warning list" for offences and stay on that "warning list" for a period of time decided by the moderators - essentially on probation?

Do you disagree with members being given warnings for making inappropriate posts in accordance with the rules of the forums? If so, what is you alternative suggestion for improvement? If not, do you feel that it is inappropriate to keep track of those who have been given warnings? (If so, do you have an alternative suggestion for improvement?) Seriously, if you have suggestions then feel free to share them. Do you have a problem with any of the current rules that you would bring up? We can make a thread about that for everyone to discuss. If you have grievances, Jeremy O'Wheel, it would be best if you discussed them rationally rather than harbouring malice.

You haven't answered my question?

You say that the rules haven't changed, so can you show me where this rule of a "warning list" that people get put on for a set period of time exists. At no point have I said it's a bad idea, my problem is the fact that it appears the rules have changed without any kind of consultation or even telling anybody about it. It's about whether the rule changes are good or not, it's about being transparent and having integrity.

[full nelson]

What an insignificant complaint - It's not a rule change. It's a change of procedure to allow more efficient tracking of offenses to the same ol' rules. Maybe it's a waste of time, but that's their decision. Jeremy, are you notified every time prisons in Australia change their administrative procedures? I see what you're saying, but there's a point when demanding "righteous" behavior becomes badgering.

[King Monkey]

There is a list that exists that has the names of people warned for rule breaches since the list was created. This '1 month' duration was mistaken information as far as i know, there is no set duration for a warning. The list is merely a method for keeping track of the names and dates of peoples warnings, so that moderators can better keep track of who has been warned and compare it to any subsequent rule breaches, to determine whether further action is warranted.

[dyalander]

So are there rules about being on the "warning list?" Sam claims that he's essentially on a 1 month probation; did he make that up, or is there really some rule where if you're on the "warning list" you face some penalty for reoffending within a month? Can you show me where that's written in the forum rules?

There is no such rule - as I said in my post, if Sam was told that he was on a probationary period of some sort, that was a mistake. He has simply been placed on a list of breaches and risks having the repeated breach rule enforced.

Jeremy is right in wanting to make sure the rules reflect the actually way in which we operate, he is wrong in suggesting that we have changed how we operate but maybe we can make the rules clearer than they already are.

There is no procedure for warning people for any set period of time.

When a breach in rules is made we do what is required by the rules - move the post, edit or delete content etc. We also PM the user explaining why we have undertaken the action and warning them to be mare careful in the future. Sometimes it simply takes the form of a friendly explanation that there might be a more appropriate or effective way or place to post something. "Warning" does not really accurately describe all of the PM's were talking about here.

We then record our actions in the mod section so we can keep track of when things become "repeated offences" - as stated in the rules "repeated offences" may result in bans.

If we are to be able to enforce this rule it is only to be expected that we need to have some record of past breaches. There is no time limit on how long you'll be on the list, there is no probationary period, or anything else like that. Ideally everything we do would be recorded in that list, but we tend not to record all moved posts, but do so only if the same user keeps posting in the same way despite our moves and PMs, we've also been recording breaches relating to posting pornographic material, threats of violence, spamming, derogatory remarks. The mods will not simply bann you beacuse you have breached the rules more than once, as it says in the rules "repeated breaches may result..." We're not going to trawl back through the list to find some offence from years ago to constitute repeated breaches. Its simply so that with more than one mod - if different mods pick up different breaches in short space of time they can make an informed decision about any potential repeated breaches.

The existence of this record does not represent a change of policy, it is simply implied by the repeated offense rule. How else did you think we were going to enforce it? Remember all the offences - should we have put that we will remember all offences in the rules?

If you guys think its necessary, I will happily put that "mods may keep a record of breaches for future reference" in the rules if people think that will make things clearer. But personally I think the repeated breaches rule as it stands is fine and knowing the mechanics of how we enforce it does not make it any clearer.

[Jeremy]

Ok, so clearly this discussion came about because of an error either with the mod conveying the message to Sam or with the way Sam expressed the message he was told. I'm unsure how that makes me "wrong" or why it was so difficult to get a straight answer on the question. Anyway thanks for giving a straight answers Ian and Dyalan. It's a shame other moderators could not do the same thing, and instead attempt to deconstruct what seemed like straight forward posts.

[Switch Kicker]

So were the mods planning on telling us about this change of policy, or does the community get no say in how the forum is run?

God damnit.. I can't help but hate you.

The only thing clear is that the mods chose the mods, the mods make the rules, and the community will find out about these alleged rules on an 'as needed' basis.

The moderators and their rules have never been a reflection of the community.

That's not true at all. When I was a moderator we ran a survey of all the members and tried to follow their feedback. I also tried to make decisions based on what the expectations of the forum were, not my own expectations and I quit my position in charge because I felt that other people running the forum were making secret decisions about the running of the forum for their own benefits or imposing their own moral views onto the forum. There were long running debates and in the end I didn't want to have my name attached to such decisions. There certainly was a brief period where at least the rules were a reflection of the community.

I agree that the moderators have never been a reflection of the community. I don't think that on a forum like this they should have any authority to make decisions without the input of the forum as a whole. It shouldn't be a position of power, it should be a position of implementing the wishes of the forum, whatever those wishes are and regardless of the opinions of the moderator doing the implementing.

You know, there's a major difference between when you were a mod, and now. You're not a fucking mod anymore. And whether or not you try to, you ALWAYS sound condescending, to whoever you're talking to, nomatter what it is you're talking about.

I don't know if you know this, but local governments don't exactly "announce" new laws. You can find them in the paper, I'm sure, but they don't send out letters. At least, I've never gotten one.

And when you travel, you don't get a book with the laws of that goverment you're traveling to. I'm in Brighton Colorado right now, visiting my brother, and I got pulled over for not stopping at a stop sign for a full 3 seconds. That is not a law in Albert Lea, Minnesota. But apparently it is here. And when the police officer told me why he pulled me over, I didn't say, "Well no one told me that." or "I'm not from here, so how do you expect me to know that?" I handed him my ID, explained that I'm not from there, and that the law is slightly different from where I'm from. After discussion of military backgrounds, he let me off with laughable warning.

I can see you totally fucking up that situation, and leaving in the back of a squad car... you just think EVERYTHING is black and white, that there is ONLY right and wrong. It's sad really that that's how your brain thinks.

I've nothing else to say on that.

[Sporatical_Distractions]

Am I the only one that thinks the mods are doing a great job?

[Switch Kicker]

Am I the only one that thinks the mods are doing a great job?

I don't think there's anything wrong with the Modified staff.

I think they're doing just fine.

[Princess Rockelette]

I also think the Mods are perfectly fine.

And if porno, for which ever god damn reason it exists, is allowed on this forum, I will delete my account and never come back.

Worse comes to worse sir you can PM your porn links to people you know, kthxbai.

P.S.: If you really want to SPREAD WORDS OF LOVE AND PEACE to a big audience, reconsider your choice of a footbag forum and go on 4chan, you'll have billions of sexually-retarded people who would gladly take any lesson in the art of love or whatever the hippy crap you mentionned above. I shall not write furthermore in this thread, I said what I had to say about this matter.

[bdams19]

without reading the thread, yes.