Everyone starts at 0%. This is the minimum. The maximum is 100%. Warn level, if above 0%, warn level decreases by 1% per day. Violations of rules carry exact punshiments, with increments for repeat offenses. Some offenses will carry their own "bans". An offense is a "repeat" offense if a previous offense of the same type is still on record. Offenses that fit into multiple categories will carry the more severe punishment but count as offenses of multiple types until they are removed from the record (ex, "Advertising" would also fit under "Spamming", thus a user that Advertises and then Spams will have his spam count as a second spamming offense.). Example: "Spamming" First offense - 5% increase. Remains as offense on record for 3 days. Second offense - 15% increase. Remains as an offense on record for 7 days. Third offense - 35% increase. Remains as an offense on record for 15 days. Once warn level is above 90%, the user will effective be "suspended" from all posting and submission functions. They will only be allowed to appeal to staff. Obviously, said users may be banned, as well. All other read-only functions will continue to be available to the user. [line] Yes, debate it here. Do make a vote in the [url=http://www.staredit.net/?p=voting]Polling Booth[/url] as well.

Everyone starts at 0%. This is the minimum. The maximum is 100%.

Warn level, if above 0%, warn level decreases by 1% per day.

Violations of rules carry exact punshiments, with increments for repeat offenses. Some offenses will carry their own "bans". An offense is a "repeat" offense if a previous offense of the same type is still on record. Offenses that fit into multiple categories will carry the more severe punishment but count as offenses of multiple types until they are removed from the record (ex, "Advertising" would also fit under "Spamming", thus a user that Advertises and then Spams will have his spam count as a second spamming offense.).

Example:
"Spamming"
First offense - 5% increase. Remains as offense on record for 3 days.
Second offense - 15% increase. Remains as an offense on record for 7 days.
Third offense - 35% increase. Remains as an offense on record for 15 days.

Once warn level is above 90%, the user will effective be "suspended" from all posting and submission functions. They will only be allowed to appeal to staff. Obviously, said users may be banned, as well. All other read-only functions will continue to be available to the user.

---

Yes, debate it here. Do make a vote in the Polling Booth as well.

I like it, but you better add a way for moderators to pick the punishment, in cases where one of your options doesn't cover it.

I like it, but you better add a way for moderators to pick the punishment, in cases where one of your options doesn't cover it.

The input will be simple and have three fields: Offense/Note, Increase, Time on Record

The input will be simple and have three fields:
Offense/Note, Increase, Time on Record

Okay, that sounds good.

Okay, that sounds good.

[color=#b5b5ff]If warn is going to decay 1% daily, then the warn increase amount should always equal the time on record, otherwise it becomes extremely complicated. Other than that it sounds like a fairly good system.[/color]

If warn is going to decay 1% daily, then the warn increase amount should always equal the time on record, otherwise it becomes extremely complicated. Other than that it sounds like a fairly good system.

I think that a decrease of 1% per day is too fast. I'd say 1% per [s]annum[/s] 2-3 days would be fair. Also, how about an automatic temporary suspension after reaching the 50% point?

I think that a decrease of 1% per day is too fast. I'd say 1% per annum 2-3 days would be fair.

Also, how about an automatic temporary suspension after reaching the 50% point?

[quote=name:DT_Battlekruser][color=#b5b5ff]If warn is going to decay 1% daily, then the warn increase amount should always equal the time on record, otherwise it becomes extremely complicated. Other than that it sounds like a fairly good system.[/color][/quote] I agree with that, it doesn't make very much sense for the offense to be "on record" for less time than the offender has the warn for. As long as they have warn for something, it should be considered "on record".

Quote from DT_Battlekruser

If warn is going to decay 1% daily, then the warn increase amount should always equal the time on record, otherwise it becomes extremely complicated. Other than that it sounds like a fairly good system.

I agree with that, it doesn't make very much sense for the offense to be "on record" for less time than the offender has the warn for. As long as they have warn for something, it should be considered "on record".

[quote=name:Mini Moose 2707]Everyone starts at 0%. This is the minimum. The maximum is 100%. Warn level, if above 0%, warn level decreases by 1% per day. Violations of rules carry exact punshiments, with increments for repeat offenses. Some offenses will carry their own "bans". An offense is a "repeat" offense if a previous offense of the same type is still on record. Offenses that fit into multiple categories will carry the more severe punishment but count as offenses of multiple types until they are removed from the record (ex, "Advertising" would also fit under "Spamming", thus a user that Advertises and then Spams will have his spam count as a second spamming offense.). Example: "Spamming" First offense - 5% increase. Remains as offense on record for 3 days. Second offense - 15% increase. Remains as an offense on record for 7 days. Third offense - 35% increase. Remains as an offense on record for 15 days. Once warn level is above 90%, the user will effective be "suspended" from all posting and submission functions. They will only be allowed to appeal to staff. Obviously, said users may be banned, as well. All other read-only functions will continue to be available to the user. [line] Yes, debate it here. Do make a vote in the [url=http://www.staredit.net/?p=voting]Polling Booth[/url] as well.[/quote] I don't understand why offenses need to be kept on record for a limited amount of time. The 1% decay rate is too high. How many different types of categories will there be? Advertising, spamming, flaming, trolling, anything/what else? And 90% is a LOT. Make it 75% for that. And past 50% should be like an automatic 3-day ban. I offer my opinions because these seems inevitable, but I'm not really in favor of warn levels. The logs are pretty decent, and I think it'd be better just to improve the logs. Save the 'reason' the moderator took their action instead of just the action, and it'd be good. It would also be nice for each individual user to be able to read the reason the moderator took action against them without having to get in a fight to ask the moderator why afterwards. And this may be completely pointless but I would like it if it could be done easily enough: A new moderation ability: warn function. Sometimes a post as borderline as to whether action should be taken against it, along with the fact the user may not have been reprimanded before, and I often find that warning people via pm or in the topic works well. But it would be better if there was just a warn button next to edit/delete, it asks for a reason which a moderater gives, but there's no fine and the post isn't altered. The user receives a warn message about their post and it shows up in the logs.

Quote from Mini Moose 2707

Everyone starts at 0%. This is the minimum. The maximum is 100%.

Warn level, if above 0%, warn level decreases by 1% per day.

Violations of rules carry exact punshiments, with increments for repeat offenses. Some offenses will carry their own "bans". An offense is a "repeat" offense if a previous offense of the same type is still on record. Offenses that fit into multiple categories will carry the more severe punishment but count as offenses of multiple types until they are removed from the record (ex, "Advertising" would also fit under "Spamming", thus a user that Advertises and then Spams will have his spam count as a second spamming offense.).

Example:
"Spamming"
First offense - 5% increase. Remains as offense on record for 3 days.
Second offense - 15% increase. Remains as an offense on record for 7 days.
Third offense - 35% increase. Remains as an offense on record for 15 days.

Once warn level is above 90%, the user will effective be "suspended" from all posting and submission functions. They will only be allowed to appeal to staff. Obviously, said users may be banned, as well. All other read-only functions will continue to be available to the user.

---

Yes, debate it here. Do make a vote in the Polling Booth as well.

I don't understand why offenses need to be kept on record for a limited amount of time. The 1% decay rate is too high. How many different types of categories will there be? Advertising, spamming, flaming, trolling, anything/what else?

And 90% is a LOT. Make it 75% for that. And past 50% should be like an automatic 3-day ban.

I offer my opinions because these seems inevitable, but I'm not really in favor of warn levels. The logs are pretty decent, and I think it'd be better just to improve the logs. Save the 'reason' the moderator took their action instead of just the action, and it'd be good. It would also be nice for each individual user to be able to read the reason the moderator took action against them without having to get in a fight to ask the moderator why afterwards.

And this may be completely pointless but I would like it if it could be done easily enough: A new moderation ability: warn function. Sometimes a post as borderline as to whether action should be taken against it, along with the fact the user may not have been reprimanded before, and I often find that warning people via pm or in the topic works well. But it would be better if there was just a warn button next to edit/delete, it asks for a reason which a moderater gives, but there's no fine and the post isn't altered. The user receives a warn message about their post and it shows up in the logs.

I think the reason the old warn log system kept people in check was because it was less forgiving. Do something wrong and it stays there, forever. Something to keep in mind, I think, although I'm sure an implementation of a system that warned people more frequently but was more forgiving would work too. Also, along with Dapperdan, I don't quite understand the reason to remove offenses from record.

I think the reason the old warn log system kept people in check was because it was less forgiving. Do something wrong and it stays there, forever. Something to keep in mind, I think, although I'm sure an implementation of a system that warned people more frequently but was more forgiving would work too.

Also, along with Dapperdan, I don't quite understand the reason to remove offenses from record.

[color=#b5b5ff]I guess I can understand the reasoning behind removing offenses from 'official' record - they should be kept somewhere permanently, but it should definitely be a much more long-term thing. Like 1% per week, with 5%, 15%, 35% on offenses and 5, 15, and 35 weeks to decay. Hell, I would just support a complete restoration of v4 policy, but that would be too reactionary.[/color]

I guess I can understand the reasoning behind removing offenses from 'official' record - they should be kept somewhere permanently, but it should definitely be a much more long-term thing. Like 1% per week, with 5%, 15%, 35% on offenses and 5, 15, and 35 weeks to decay.

Hell, I would just support a complete restoration of v4 policy, but that would be too reactionary.

Take out the 1%/Day decay, its useless. Also, make logs permanent. If you do something wrong it would be nice to have it go away, but then if i was a moderator, id like to know of a users past history when deciding how id like to warn them. If this is a repeated offense of the same type, id give them a harsher sentence than if it was their first time doing whatever it is. Honestly, the old warn system was done right. [b]If it aint broke, dont fix it.[/b] The only thing id reccomend adding is more options on the moderators end to effectively use the levels and punishments.

Take out the 1%/Day decay, its useless. Also, make logs permanent. If you do something wrong it would be nice to have it go away, but then if i was a moderator, id like to know of a users past history when deciding how id like to warn them. If this is a repeated offense of the same type, id give them a harsher sentence than if it was their first time doing whatever it is.

Honestly, the old warn system was done right. If it aint broke, dont fix it. The only thing id reccomend adding is more options on the moderators end to effectively use the levels and punishments.

I also like this idea. It will give a the user an the idea "Ok, I need to be careful and double, triple, read my posts and make sure they follow the rules or else I will get banned."

I also like this idea. It will give a the user an the idea "Ok, I need to be careful and double, triple, read my posts and make sure they follow the rules or else I will get banned."

Permanent Warn Logs. History helps in making decisions.

Permanent Warn Logs. History helps in making decisions.

[quote=name:Dapperdan]And this may be completely pointless but I would like it if it could be done easily enough: A new moderation ability: warn function.[/quote] ... Sorry, but... You know that's [i]kind of[/i] exactly what we're talking about, right? :ermm:

Quote from Dapperdan

And this may be completely pointless but I would like it if it could be done easily enough: A new moderation ability: warn function.

... Sorry, but... You know that's kind of exactly what we're talking about, right?

[color=#CE091D]I think that decaying Warn Levels are the best option... For someone like me, that makes mistakes once in a while (having Dapper as witness) I would always have X warn percent, and, well, that would be there FOREVER even if I sticked to the rules like... For a year. And I do not say this for me, but to everyone in general. Opposed to those members who do break the rules constantly, whose warn levels would rise continously, then the decay of such would not save them -BUT- record of faults can be like a file that holds written information of the rules we have broken for the administrators to have them in count, isntead of making eternal warn levels.[/color]

I think that decaying Warn Levels are the best option... For someone like me, that makes mistakes once in a while (having Dapper as witness) I would always have X warn percent, and, well, that would be there FOREVER even if I sticked to the rules like... For a year. And I do not say this for me, but to everyone in general. Opposed to those members who do break the rules constantly, whose warn levels would rise continously, then the decay of such would not save them -BUT- record of faults can be like a file that holds written information of the rules we have broken for the administrators to have them in count, isntead of making eternal warn levels.

People afraid of warns for whatever reason are going to say they should deteriorate. People who think they don't/won't apply for themselves or else think they're above them are going to want them to stay. There's only one way this decision could ultimately end up going in the long term. :rolleyes:

People afraid of warns for whatever reason are going to say they should deteriorate. People who think they don't/won't apply for themselves or else think they're above them are going to want them to stay.

There's only one way this decision could ultimately end up going in the long term.

[quote=name:FatalException][quote=name:Dapperdan]And this may be completely pointless but I would like it if it could be done easily enough: A new moderation ability: warn function.[/quote] ... Sorry, but... You know that's [i]kind of[/i] exactly what we're talking about, right? :ermm:[/quote] Did you read the rest of the post or not...? Uggg

Quote from FatalException

Quote from Dapperdan

And this may be completely pointless but I would like it if it could be done easily enough: A new moderation ability: warn function.

... Sorry, but... You know that's kind of exactly what we're talking about, right?

Did you read the rest of the post or not...? Uggg

I say maybe a 1% decay every 3 days WHEN ACTIVE, and the temporary log should be for judging the current punishment, but a permanent log should also be kept.

I say maybe a 1% decay every 3 days WHEN ACTIVE, and the temporary log should be for judging the current punishment, but a permanent log should also be kept.

[color=#CE091D]Falkoner's idea works just eprfect as well. Then, if the case I mentioned above happens, we may still recover out dignity.[/color]

Falkoner's idea works just eprfect as well. Then, if the case I mentioned above happens, we may still recover out dignity.

[quote=name:WoAHorde]Permanent Warn Logs. History helps in making decisions.[/quote] This.

Quote from WoAHorde[MM]

Permanent Warn Logs. History helps in making decisions.

This.