Moderation Changes Cont.

[Slowpoke]

i think staff will be dealt with differently since you aren't dealt with by the (S)Mod team, you're dealt with by Nick- and Nvrspk4. I suggest you PM Elkaa about this.

What about cautions?
I dont want to be setting a bad example to the rest of the forum as a staff member being cautioned.
They need to wise up with whats a warning and whats not.
You know the double posting rule should be demolished because someone makes a mistake and they get punished for it.

I've just told you what to do.

As for double posting, what if people do it purposely? Then they will get away with it. When I was moderator, when I could see someone accidently double posted, I merged their posts.

[PaulMacC]

Yes but when I accidently posted I got a warning.
Mind you several of my warnings have come from this -.-

[Slowpoke]

Yes but when I accidently posted I got a warning.
Mind you several of my warnings have come from this -.-

Well then PM Nvrpsk4 about it. He'll be happy to look into it if you explain.

[PaulMacC]

I have but he said "It's only a warning"
BUT WARNINGS ACTUALLY MEAN SOMETHING NOW!
So thats why I am pissed.

[today]

If less Infractions are being given out, to me, it seems that there is even less need for automatic bans. I can now (FINALLY) see why they have been introduced but that doesn't change my opinion on the need for human input.

WOOO!!!

What about cautions?
I dont want to be setting a bad example to the rest of the forum as a staff member being cautioned.
They need to wise up with whats a warning and whats not.
You know the double posting rule should be demolished because someone makes a mistake and they get punished for it.

I dont belive your current warnings will effect the new system.

[Slowpoke]

I have but he said "It's only a warning"
BUT WARNINGS ACTUALLY MEAN SOMETHING NOW!
So thats why I am pissed.

SO PM HIM, EXPLAINING THAT THE DOUBLE POST(S) WERE AN ACCIDENT AND HE MAY REVERSE THEM.

[GommeInc]

But once again that only tells you what you already know, they was banned for breaking rules, yes they may say which rules. And probally supply information on what content was removed ect.

But it still doesnt give inside information on the moderation guide, forum, how we are to moderate, what needs editing, what we let slip, what to report, where to report, how to report.

Editing = Visible. If something is edited, it'll give some insight as to what your standards to editing are. If something isn't edited, then we know it may or may not in be in the guide.
Reports = As I said, stuff which members definitely don't see e.g. the infraction system CP. Moderators will see what moderators will see.

You're not quite grasping the concept of visibility. We see moderators, so we see how they moderate. But we don't see what they see each other because we're not moderators.

YOU CAN'T SEE THE METHOD THAT WE DO IT, AS I SAID IN THE OTHER THREAD.

I'm not replying here any more as you're all ignoring the people that are for the change (and I'm going to the dentist) so goodbye. :eusa_wall

Have fun at the Dentist

[Nixt]

WOOO!!!

I dont belive your current warnings will effect the new system.

One would assume they will because it's an automatic system which won't pay attention to the fact Warnings were received before a policy change. I could be wrong, someone with the know-how feel free to correct me. But if I am right, DAMN THOSE AUTOMATIC SYSTEMS. GO HUMAN INPUT!!

[Hazza]

Sounds like a good idea.

[GommeInc]

This is why I say new systems don't work -.- They're confusing, look at Garion with his infractions/warnings... But as Elkaa said, it comes in during April, so we'll wait and see then.