Jump to content

Should warning points wear off? (Say after 2 years?)


JayTuut
 Share

Should they?  

40 members have voted

  1. 1. Should warning points be removed?

    • Yes
      25
    • No
      15
  2. 2. After how long?

    • 6-8 months
      9
    • 1 year
      8
    • 1.5 year
      1
    • 2 years
      3
    • 2.5 year
      0
    • 3 years
      19


Recommended Posts

What's the point in having them wear off? They're mod+ permission-wise so they don't damage your community reputation.

I think they're fine remaining forever, encourages people to learn from their mistakes and follow the rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice try, Venom.  jk I have no problem with him as person honestly.

 

Ehhh, wouldn't that encourage rule breaking? While the minimum wear off period you suggested is quite long, people need to learn that their actions have consequences. And those consequences should not gradually disappear because of good behaviour. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Warning points aren't even a consequence, they do literally nothing on their own they just sit there as a number only visible to you and moderators. The reason they do not (and will never) wear off is so that mods can see a history of your behaviour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead of giving points jsut permaban and move on. Throwing these points around serves no purpose whatsoever; they're not deterring neither users from bad behaviour nor mods from banning at any time for any reason.

 

Also, I had to pick an irrelevant option in question two after picking "No" in the first one. Pls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Ixenzo said:

Instead of giving points jsut permaban and move on. Throwing these points around serves no purpose whatsoever; they're not deterring neither users from bad behaviour nor mods from banning at any time for any reason.

 

Also, I had to pick an irrelevant option in question two after picking "No" in the first one. Pls.

Like Teeny said, they are only there to see what weve done in the past. If we get like 5 warning points in a week they would probably ban us, but 5 over 4 years, they are probably just show temporary lapses in judgement. It's just a simple way for the mods to keep track of behavior, and you can also go back and see what you've done wrong

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ThePickleCat said:

Like Teeny said, they are only there to see what weve done in the past. If we get like 5 warning points in a week they would probably ban us, but 5 over 4 years, they are probably just short lapses in judgement.

 

They can ban at any time for any reason without any virtual points and you have no control over it. They don't need points to ban me. Conversely, not having points does not save me from getting banned outright. Therefore, points are useless, and OP's proposition does nothing.

 

There are two solutions: leave as is to avoid spending time and efforts on nothing of value, or remove the point system altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ixenzo said:

 

They can ban at any time for any reason without any virtual points and you have no control over it. They don't need points to ban me. Conversely, not having points does not save me from getting banned outright. Therefore, points are useless, and OP's proposition does nothing.

 

There are two solutions: leave as is to avoid spending time and efforts on nothing of value, or remove the point system altogether.

points do serve a purpose, unless you are suggesting that stuff like topic bumping and spamming should be instant no warning permabans. They allow mods to warn a user against a certain behavior and to see if the user continues to repeat said behavior, which would lead to lengthier bans

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kevin the Chicken God said:

points do serve a purpose, unless you are suggesting that stuff like topic bumping and spamming should be instant no warning permabans. They allow mods to warn a user against a certain behavior and to see if the user continues to repeat said behavior, which would lead to lengthier bans

 

What stops them from saying "don't do that"? Besides, if you spam, you should expect a ban. If my goal is to spam, I expect to be banned immediately, and a warning point will only jsut mean that I can spam more before finally getting banned.

 

If they didn't know that it's against the rules to bump or spam, they shoulda read them rules then, eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
1 hour ago, Ixenzo said:

 

They can ban at any time for any reason without any virtual points and you have no control over it. They don't need points to ban me. Conversely, not having points does not save me from getting banned outright. Therefore, points are useless, and OP's proposition does nothing.

 

There are two solutions: leave as is to avoid spending time and efforts on nothing of value, or remove the point system altogether.

 

They serve a purpose for moderators which I already explained in here. They keep a record of past behaviour. We're not perma banning people for committing a small infraction once, but we will if they do it 10 times... warning points allow us to see patterns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

 

 We're not perma banning people for committing a small infraction once, but we will if they do it 10 times... warning points allow us to see patterns.

 

Why not stop the pattern in its infancy? Who decides the length of the pattern necessary to hand out bans? Why that particular number of points and not more/fewer? What physical obstacle is there to prevent mods from permabanning outright and not honouring this unwritten code? As long as there is no programmed uncircumventable obstacle to banning accounts with no/insufficient amount of points, the entire point system is a farce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
Just now, Ixenzo said:

 

Why not stop the pattern in its infancy? Who decides the length of the pattern necessary to hand out bans? Why that particular number of points and not more/fewer? What physical obstacle is there to prevent mods from permabanning outright and not honouring this unwritten code? As long as there is no programmed uncircumventable obstacle to banning accounts with no/insufficient amount of points, the entire point system is a farce.

 

1 infraction isn't a pattern yet. Polar and I determined the algorithm the warning points/bans use, but mods are free to adjust it to their own discretion. Mods can and do perm ban outright if they feel it's justified.

 

The system is a formal warning for users and a record of past behaviour for other moderators. I have no idea why you're so offended by it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

 

but mods are free to adjust it to their own discretion

 

 

I have a big problem with that. This method lends itself to forming of "good" and  "bad" mods, kind and evil, fair and unfair, etc. Two people committing the same "crime" could get different punishments depending solely on the mod that handled their issue. There are rules, and there are clear and unambiguous punishments for breaking them. In a proper system, that is. This ensures a fair trial, an essential part of court. Yet here mods here are free to do whatever they want. Which leads to my main problem here.

 

Trust issue. I simply cannot trust mods, I cannot expect them to follow the written rules if those rules are open for their interpretation.

 

Who moderates the moderators? What are their punishments? Are they equal to us, peasants, or are they just a little bit more equal? How do you handle situations when a mod done a bad thing? Is it behind the scenes or open to the public? Etc., etc.

 

I do not know. Tell me, would ya?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
10 minutes ago, Ixenzo said:

 

I have a big problem with that. This method lends itself to forming of "good" and  "bad" mods, kind and evil, fair and unfair, etc. Two people committing the same "crime" could get different punishments depending solely on the mod that handled their issue. There are rules, and there are clear and unambiguous punishments for breaking them. In a proper system, that is. This ensures a fair trial, an essential part of court. Yet here mods here are free to do whatever they want. Which leads to my main problem here.

 

Trust issue. I simply cannot trust mods, I cannot expect them to follow the written rules if those rules are open for their interpretation.

 

Who moderates the moderators? What are their punishments? Are they equal to us, peasants, or are they just a little bit more equal? How do you handle situations when a mod done a bad thing? Is it behind the scenes or open to the public? Etc., etc.

 

I do not know. Tell me, would ya?

 

There's only one forum mod and he handles the vast majority of reports so this isn't really a problem. Mods aren't "free to do whatever they want" we have rules and they enforce those rules.

 

As for who moderates the moderators - I do. Admins. Me and woifi. I haven't had any huge issues so far with them doing any bad things, but we would likely deal with it in private.

 

If ya don't like how the site works, don't use it. Nobody's forcing you to be here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ixenzo said:

 

I have a big problem with that. This method lends itself to forming of "good" and  "bad" mods, kind and evil, fair and unfair, etc. Two people committing the same "crime" could get different punishments depending solely on the mod that handled their issue. There are rules, and there are clear and unambiguous punishments for breaking them. In a proper system, that is. This ensures a fair trial, an essential part of court. Yet here mods here are free to do whatever they want. Which leads to my main problem here.

 

Trust issue. I simply cannot trust mods, I cannot expect them to follow the written rules if those rules are open for their interpretation.

 

Who moderates the moderators? What are their punishments? Are they equal to us, peasants, or are they just a little bit more equal? How do you handle situations when a mod done a bad thing? Is it behind the scenes or open to the public? Etc., etc.

 

I do not know. Tell me, would ya?

I honestly cannot tell if you're serious or you're being overly sarcastic.

 

It's a tf2 forums site. Mods are placed to follow the rules. If someone breaks the rules in a unique, and more destructive way they get more punishment. Mods are moderated by Admins (Basic chain of command, really). Why would it be your business in any way as to how a moderator is reprimanded if they do something bad (Only possible situation I can see this is if you were the one who was mistreated). Why are you going on about equality on a tf2 forum? Everyone has the same rules. 

 

Also, your whole statement about the rules being open to interpretation is a misunderstanding of what Teeny said. I don't think she meant mods can bend the rules and manipulate them to punish users (Although if someone does something clearly wrong but not stated in the rules, I have no doubt they will do something about it), she meant that if a moderator sees fit they can give more warning points than the default 1. They are promoted because the owners of the site trust them; why should your opinion mean anything it all.

 

You seem to be taking a lot of offence to a pretty sound, well developed and proven system that really no one else is up in arms against. Interesting.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of my bans came with warning points and I didn't get any outside of those, just saying. Also it kind of gives a good indication you're close to perma if you have too many, like, I have 17 so I think if I fuck up one more time I'm outtie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah, I mean they got there for a reason.

 

Other users can't see it anyway.

 

But a discussion of this is like listening to a discussion on the recent updates with people complaining and bitching for no apparent reason while eveyrone sharply correcting each other for minor details of being wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Chilled Soda said:

What's the point in having them wear off? They're mod+ permission-wise so they don't damage your community reputation.

I think they're fine remaining forever, encourages people to learn from their mistakes and follow the rules.

The thing is, if you acculmate too many warning points, you get a perma/temp ban

 

so having them wear off so u dont get bans.. so say u get 3 one year, 3 the next year, and 2 another year, thats a 2 week (or 4 week?) ban. And if you post everyday, well... rip...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, ḎℰѦÐ! Boom said:

The thing is, if you acculmate too many warning points, you get a perma/temp ban

 

so having them wear off so u dont get bans.. so say u get 3 one year, 3 the next year, and 2 another year, thats a 2 week (or 4 week?) ban. And if you post everyday, well... rip...

That's true, but shouldn't the user just stop breaking the rules? Not extremely difficult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...