Salutations everyone,

With the draft of the new Code of Conduct up, and the old thread having basically run it's course, the old CoC and Moderation Discussion thread is now locked.

All issues regarding the draft CoC can be directed to the thread [HERE], while discussion of moderation itself and the actions of site staff will take place in this thread. If you wish to discuss a particular event, but wish to do so in private, please contact GobO_Fire or GobO_Althalus via PM or their site emails.

Please keep all posts in this thread on-topic, respectful, and within the rules. Remember when discussing a particular instance the more data you give the easier it will be to assist; please try to provide dates/times, links, or quotes as applicable as well as being as detailed as possible.

Thank you,

~Sapper

judging by mine i guess forever

Forever. Warnings do not expire--the software has the option of allowing them to do so, but since it doesn't retain a record of expired warnings if we want to keep a full record (and we do) they have to be permanent.

that's messed up

im so clever

So what are the consequences for different amounts of warnings? Like if you have 2 and then you get another is it less severe than if you have 5 and then get another? (i only have one so i'm just curious)

The more warnings you have, the worse the consequences of getting another one tend to be. We do plan to take into account the age of warnings when issuing those consequences, and disregard them after a period of time--a warning earned two years ago with good behavior since is very different than a warning earned two days ago--but we don't plan to make a schedule for expiry or a list of consequences public, because that kind of thing encourages seeing warnings as a resource to be expended. ("Oh, hey, I can rip this guy a new one and only get daybanned for it--totally worth it. I wasn't going to be online tomorrow anyway.")

I will say that the length of time we're currently considering warnings to be disregarded after is longer than the site has yet existed.

Gotcha, makes sense.

I figured.

Hm, I take issue with that.

You say that you won't take into account warnings past a certain point, but I frankly don't think that's psychologically possible. If you really want the warnings to expire, they should expire. And that process should be transparent for the users as well--we should be able to know that we don't have the Sword of Damocles hanging over our head forever, coloring the mods' perceptions of us on an unconscious level.

Basically, I see absolutely zero benefit to doing it this way other than record keeping, and frankly if you want to keep records on users dating back two, five, ten years... well, I gotta question your intent there.

This is an internet forum for a children's card game. There shouldn't be a permanent record of illegal activity on here. That's completely ridiculous.

I agree with you

also can we talk about why this thread (viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1178) isn't in posting games. It's just people mindlessly copy pasting **** into a thread, that is the embodiment of forum posting games

it also has nothing to do with how the site is run or anything else the metaboard is actually for

D&D isn't a card game....

THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING

ps just post with your moderator account next time

Funny. People get pissy when we make posts like that with our mod accounts. More than once, somebody has posted to the effect of, "Mod accounts should only post official stuff."

when you post, no one wins

Let's keep posts in this thread constructive.

That having been said, yes this is a forum for what can ostensibly be called games for children. It it worth keeping in mind that we shouldn't take ourselves too seriously, but we should also keep in mind that for the same reason, it is important to have an atmosphere that is open to everyone.

what does that have to do with warnings never expiring and a posting game being allowed in the metaboard

I'm not sure I get the issues around warnings. Keeping track of them allows for the mods to see patterns. So, if someone had a few warnings, then nothing for a year or so, they can infer a posting change from the poster. Plus, since the mod base seems pretty stable, having it documented could be in the poster's favor - i.e. a mod remembers giving a few warnings to someone. No matter if they are expired or not, that person is going to remember. If it's documented, they know why/when/how many correctly. Not, I know it's been a ton, and I think this is something I've warned them for before. But the exact reason and times.

More information is always better.

On the forum count post, I agree, it would have a better home in PbP.

refer to this post

My point is, once it happens, it's happened. Everyone remembers. If there's no official record of it, in some people's minds, it might be worse (i.e. a mod knows they have warned you more than once. It was twice. The mod thinks it was 5 times. Without a record, in the view of the mod, it was 5 times, not the actual result, which was twice).

I don't believe the activity is illegal - just against the board rules.
Yeah - 10 years from now, who cares...but, this site is still pretty young.

Again, I'm of the opinion that more information is better. Plus, if the mod staff can show a reduction in warnings/issues, while showing an increase in the overall population, that shows they are doing a good job, and the community is responding well to how they are dealing with issues.

Can you demonstrate that the presence of several-years-old warnings won't unduly bias staff unconsciously?

Because that's what I expect to see as concrete justification for this policy.

And I personally wouldn't blame any user, a year from now, who held up these permanent warnings as evidence that the mods are singling them out and persecuting them. Why should they believe otherwise? They have no way of knowing which warnings are counted and which aren't, so they may as well just assume that all of them, regardless of when they were issued, still apply. So, the most logical thing, when being acted on by a mod, would be to raise bloody hell about the clear bias on the mod staff against them. That's certainly what I would do.

If someone can't be banned for a post made two years ago (which I do certainly hope is quite well established as a rule among mods now!) then the warnings for posts made two years ago should similarly expire, plain and simple. Consistency and good faith demands it.