Changes to Moderation?

[---MAD---]

So how comes that hasn't been solved? Drum it into moderators and other super moderators that they need to look at a situation, not a post. They don't have to act immediately and remove a post and warn/infract ASAP. What I don't understand is why you can't let members moderate their behaviour... If someone calls someone a berk, ask the person it was aimed at if they took offense. If they didn't, leave it, or add a very small message somewhere to keep on topic, which isn't necessary either. At least communication between members and moderators will gradually build up, rather than ignore members and take the social low road...


Now it's automated, and can be abused more What happens if a member has an 'unfair warning?' Because I can see people getting ignored, yet again for their actions even when they ask politely...

Warnings will not lead to an auto caution. Also, the system was only just put into place.

[GommeInc]

Warnings will not lead to an auto caution. Also, the system was only just put into place.

So the system has been changed since last discussed? It was something along the lines of 5 warnings = caution when I last knew at least

[benjamin]

oh i got 6 infractions and im still ere

BRAP

*waits for my ban now* gutted lol

orrrrr i might still be here because i was cautioned and stuff while it was implace.

[---MAD---]

So the system has been changed since last discussed? It was something along the lines of 5 warnings = caution when I last knew at least

Yes you will be cautioned for 5 warnings but by an smod not automatically. It isn't possible to have an auto ban with warnings.

[The Professor]

I scanned through everything so I don't know if this has already been explained, but is this rule still in position when it comes to 'already existing' infractions? Do you have to have 5 active infractions to gain a ban, or when you've HAD 5 infractions?

They have to be active

If you have an infraction count, it'll look like x/x (x). The number in brackets is the amount of infraction points you have, which is one for every active infraction except bullying, which is 2 points. If it says 5 (or more) you get a ban

[today]

Ah so warnings have been changed already.

Only infraction counts. cautions are nothing imo.

[The Professor]

Ah so warnings have been changed already.

Only infraction counts. cautions are nothing imo.

Cautions are bad enough to make people complain about them, and if they complain about them they won't want to get them

That's the theory anyway

[today]

Cautions are bad enough to make people complain about them, and if they complain about them they won't want to get them

That's the theory anyway

Doesnt bother me tbh BRING IT ON BRUV.

Not that i have 5 warnings x]

[Catzsy]

With every new system there is bound to be teething problems I think and
as long members highlight this and and as long as any complaints/queries are politely and quickly dealt with then whilst not everybody will ever be happy with it the system should be seen to work. My reservations are that one size does not fit all and minds should be open to consider that it cannot be expected to replace human judgements and should be seen as a aid to the moderation department rather than the be all and end all of the duty itself. I am sure that this has been thought of anyway and safeguards in place. e.g. it is of the utmost importance now that checking infractions is given the utmost priority and so if a ban is automated one can be sure that 99.9% of the time it is justified.

[---MAD---]

I scanned through everything so I don't know if this has already been explained, but is this rule still in position when it comes to 'already existing' infractions? Do you have to have 5 active infractions to gain a ban, or when you've HAD 5 infractions?

The infractions have to be active. There would be no point in expiring infractions if they still got you banned .