My slight concern is with subjectivity; before posts were deleted for not contributing - fine. Now warnings are issued which can be tallied and result in a ban? I think I am understanding this correctly, but if I'm not, apologies. The reason I bring this up is because I had a personal encounter with this new system. I reviewed my post and decided the only fault I made was not being clear with my intentions of the post, but the content was sincere, even if the method in which it was delivered (sarcastic) was not considered appropriate. Perhaps I should have appended my post with a "/notsigned" and then my post "would have contributed."
So all that nonsense said, I think the system should stand, but warnings should only be issued when there is a very clear problem/infraction at hand. The "does not contribute" reason frightens me considering the extreme subjectivity of it.
Quote: Originally Posted by Avarre
If you feel a moderator is not accurate in their actions, report them to an Administrator (or, at least, a supermod).
I'd just like to make a quick note that it's impossible to know who deleted posts or issued infractions aside from Ventari's, where mods/admins edit the thread detailing the infraction & punishment. I'm no expert on the Warning System addition, but is there any way to include who issued the warning?
I get daily emails cursing me out for a simple 24 hour ban. Daily. Without fail. Perhaps I shouldn't mention it, but users do not get bans or extensions for simply voicing their frustration in PM/Email (which yes includes a mountain of cursing). Because I do indeed see something wrong with issuing bans or extending a ban for someone who is merely upset at a warning, infraction or ban.
