A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych
I really don't like this trend of backing down off our warning/suspension/banning system.
By the time people come to the admins to complain they have already bent over backwards trying to accomodate the problem poster and have already made polite requests (or been driven past polite requests into terse requests).
The time for gentley worded requests for pleasant behaviour is past and it's now time to say "look, you've made many people upset, you've broke our rules of etiquette and this is a warning for you to stop. If you don't and have to be warned again you will be suspsended for two months. We'd rather that it not come to that so please respect our community and our rules."
Which is still polite but to the point.
I prefer Lyra's wording -- straightforward is better than clever in this case -- but agree that this is the official warning. This is what gets sent from "Admin" after individual in-thread efforts have failed, the last chance before suspension.
I don't think I'd have a problem with the system being changed from warning/suspension/ban to warning/warning/suspension/ban, but that's a much bigger policy issue.
Am - thanks, I've corrected.
Sorry, I wasn't drafting an official warning, I was drafting the notice, the kind that doesn't go down on the record, askye. I thought we had a draft for the warning.
I agree with Laura that mine needs to be chopped, and although I like bringing the fun in, Lyra's suggestion that it be more straight forward is an important one.
I prefer clever wording. But it is an offical warning and on your permanent record.
Like I said, I wasn't doing an official permanent record type warning. I got confused as to what people were discussing.
(I may have skimmed)
Honestly, if I recieved Cindy's warning, I would have no clue what it meant.
I'm deleting it now, because, again it wasn't a draft of a warning.
We have a system that says misbehavers get a warning letter from the stompies. If we wanted to change the system so that we would no longer have a warning, that would require a vote.
No, actually, it wouldn't. The voting ballot (initiating voting) specifically left out that sort of thing as non-voting items.
What ita and Ple were saying is that there is no standarized wording for a warning at all.
At least that's how I understood it.
What I sent Zoe wasn't a warning. Some of the delay in my sending it was because I didn't know what to write. I made some stuff up, but really, I thought that was what Cindy was composing. Since her text said nothing about the meaning of the warning, and that another warning would result in suspension.
