If we're discussing warning text here, I did up a boilerplate back when and then we got caught up in worrying about admin font. Just to give options.
[Edited to add the text iffen you don't want to click.]
---
Official Stompy Foot Warning Attn: <Problem User>
Hiya. It seems that you've violated our community etiquette standards, viewable here.
We've tried to resolve it in the context of your posts, but it looks like a problem. Please
consider this an official warning that your behavior is not acceptable in this community.
If you amend your behavior, and want to contribute positively to this enviornment, you are a
welcome member of this community. However, if you continue to violate our standards or
disrespect others, you will be suspended for two months. If you come back unreformed, you
will be banned. Banning is rare, and very much a last resort.
To discuss your warning or your situation, please see the bureaucracy thread. Thank you,
and we hope to resolve this problem.
<Insert specific info as necessary>
- Stompy Foot (Admin) Liese
---
I don't think it is clear what the steps are to move from a warning to suspension.
You mean "Consistent demon-like behavior may earn a warning from the Stompy Feet. If you don't listen to the warning, you will be suspended for two months. And if you come back unreformed, you will be banned. Banning is rare and very much a last resort." needs to be clarified?
Proposal: Warnings will be in effect for 4 months. After four months, the offending poster's slate is wiped clean.
Perhaps we should spell out "After four months
of good behavior
the offending poster's slate is wiped clean."
Perhaps we should spell out "After four months of good behavior the offending poster's slate is wiped clean."
But if they weren't behaving well during that time, wouldnt they have gone on to the suspension stage?
But if they weren't behaving well during that time, wouldnt they have gone on to the suspension stage?
Oh, that's true. Probably not necessary, then.
Oh, that's true. Probably not necessary, then.
Well, it doesn't hurt to have it in there, does it? I mean, it's only 17 characters, and I'd hate to see someone try to weasel out of it with that loophole.
In light of recent events, I think after the initial warning procedure, it makes sense to have a common-sense next-steps plan. I mean, if there's any angst over giving the warning, but then the person, say, FREAKS OUT, we should be able to move to suspension more quickly, think.
How quickly is more quickly?
Technically, yesterday/this morning's behaviour followed procedure EXCEPT there was no allowance for clarification. Perhaps a loophole for "egregious disrespect to the community as a whole"?
I have a suggestion that people may or may not like, and it probably outside the bounds of this particular proposal. (If it is, I'll propose it in B'cy when the vote for this one is over.)
Currently, the steps are warn/suspend/ban. In the two cases we've had so far, banning followed very closely on the heels of suspension due to continued demonlike behavior. Because of this, I think we should change the steps to warn/warn/ban. We're under no obligation to paper train people to be good Buffistas, and if they can't cut it after two official warnings, I'm not gonna want 'em back in two months.
Thoughts?
Technically, yesterday/this morning's behaviour followed procedure EXCEPT there was no allowance for clarification.
I was initially thinking that the suspension would need its own ten seconds.
