Someone (2014-10-10 01:21:05)

---

So I get on plaza after 3 days of not getting on, and then I see that Edgee a old user like me, and friend of mine had got warned. So I look at the chat for a reason and it said 1/1 warning. Next thing you know Edgee is ban so I ask.

We go on and on and he mentions Rob let him do it, so I asked for a picture for proof, here's what he gave me.

What do you guys think about this any opinions?
Edit: and note it says STRIKE (referring to the strikes that gets displayed on your profile)not warn.

---

carlos11: Yes, Meia is retarded and should not be a moderator. She just decided changing the rules is ok. It's almost as if she enjoys banning people.

This post has been edited one or more times, the last time was:
2014-10-10 03:05:53

---

Leviathan (2014-10-10 02:32:15)

---

Put the screenshot url between [ img] and [/img ] because users on 3ds can't view it.

---

little5 (2014-10-10 02:40:44)

---

Did you look at the amount of times Edgee bypassed before that warn? Before a mod was online? Why didn't you even give proof of Edgee bypassing and the warn? You're only giving proof of the ban.

Also, carlos, I didn't /change/ any rules. Rob himself said that we could give any amount of warns, and the mods agreed that we could and should.

This post has been edited one or more times, the last time was:
2014-10-10 03:24:05

---

Leviathan (2014-10-10 03:50:36)

---

That theme tho.

---

carlos11: >"The mods"
>Some three people.

>"Confirmed by Rob"
>So it matters what a retired admin says only when it helps your side of the argument?
>Gee, that's just great.

This post has been edited one or more times, the last time was:
2014-10-10 05:17:36

---

little5 (2014-10-10 10:31:39)

---

The other mods were told later in the other chats;Nearly all of them questioned the 1/1 warn.

Also, we don't even have an admin, just an owner really. SL doesn't consider himself an admin.

This post has been edited one or more times, the last time was:
2014-10-10 10:32:56

---

Jason2k14 (2014-10-10 10:53:58)

---

I hope SL doesn't consider himself an admin after my thread in Feature Suggestions.

The 1/1 warn is pretty dumb, I should say.
Just because you have been on this site for 1 or 2 years, it doesn't mean you only get one warn.

I have been in the same Middle School for 3 years now, and here I am, a Freshman. I insulted in 6th, insulted in 7th and insulted in 8th. That's like saying if you curse once, you're suspended. In Eighth grade, I cursed. What, aren't I supposed to be suspended now?

2 or 3 warns is better than 1 warn. What if somebody quotes something off a website, and accidentally curse? Is it the end of them now? Are they banned?

"I think common sense should be used when being a moderator" -Quote by Robdeprop

COMMON SENSE
BE USED
WHEN BEING
A MOD

Hello?!?! Common sense, where are YOU?

And like Rob said, "But if a one strike system seems good to ya'll, then you should go for it"

The strike system is dead now, and we moved back to warns and bans. One warn is dumb, and I seriously wish we had the mods we used to have in 2012. 2013 maybe as well.

---

Mephistopheles (2014-10-10 13:42:36)

---

You know how when someone has a history of criminal activity they're treated more harshly when they commit a crime again?
Older users should know the rules. Especially choice users like Edgee, who have an extensive history of being banned. By only allowing one warning before a ban, we are ensuring that the rules will not be taken advantage of, and teaching the user to get their act together. So in essence, we're also helping the user who received the warn.

Also, a reoccurring issue that I've noticed is regular users intentionally breaking rules with the knowledge that they'll only receive a warn. They have a mentality that says:
"Hey, I can get away with breaking two rules a day and it'll just be reset the next day!"
This is a huge problem that we have with the current chat warning system. It's a very broken system and the only way to slightly fix it is to deal out less warns when necessary.

Because of this I wholeheartedly believe that we should go back to the strike system or use a strike system/warn system hybrid.

---

Mephistopheles (2014-10-10 15:12:33)

---

It's not that I ignore it. I'd just prefer not to talk about moderator issues in the public chat because someone always turns it into an argument. (Not referring to you.)

---

carlos11: An argument you can't defend.

This post has been edited one or more times, the last time was:
2014-10-10 15:58:03

---

Leviathan (2014-10-10 15:56:18)

---

In this particular instance, I am on Meia's side. Simply because she just did something that Lani has done a million times, and now everybody hates her.


Lani openly expresses her opinion about being able to ban after one warning, and enforces it multiple times, and nobody bats an eyelash. But Meia does it and everybody loses their God damn minds.

---

Mephistopheles (2014-10-10 17:04:21)

---

@Carlitos
Obviously, because 90% of the other moderators actually agree with the warn system.

---

carlos11: Yet I'm still banned.

This post has been edited one or more times, the last time was:
2014-10-10 19:24:30

---

Jason2k14 (2014-10-10 19:32:33)

---

We do need the strike system back.
The only issue is that moderators will strike the wrong person at one point, so there has to be a way where a moderator is able to take off the strike for the wrong user, and place it for whoever broke that certain rule.

The ban/unban system does get abused easily, and this is why you mods should've been like Junaid and I. When we both were chat moderators back in the ol' days, we'd create a 'Ban Log' in our profiles and record the # of warns that certain user has, and how many days the user is banned for.
Junaid probably didn't record the # of warns, but all I know is he recorded the days ( I think ) and who he modded/demoted.

I still think 1 warn is unfair, and I just want the strike system back for god sake.

I don't know why it was taken away, can someone refresh my memory?

---

Lani (2014-10-10 23:54:32)

---

I wish it could be as simple to let the moderators take actions how they see fit...using "common sense" and therefore likely moderating by the same standards...But we all can't seem to settle and agree on what the standards are. As mega mentioned, all of the moderators have different standards; so someone might get away with bypassing twice around a mod who warns 3 times, and get banned when bypassing around a moderator who only warns once or not at all. It's a bit chaotic and inconsistent. Either moderators need an official "Code of Conduct", or we need a stricter moderation system, like strikes.

I've been hoping for the strike system to come back for a long time, now. However, I think it should be revised:
-During the first strike system, moderators had no confirmation of striking (aside from when the user complained)....I think it would be simple enough to add a notice of: "Striked User ina(/swr/mswr/sm/etc)" It wouldn't be a public notice...it would be just like the notification mods get when they ban a user.
-All moderators should be able to view, and have the option to remove user's strikes (in case of false or accidental striking) Perhaps there can be an automatic log of removed strikes?
-Individual strikes should expire after a set time (a week or two, maybe?) though recent strikes would still remain.
And of course, all strikes would be accompanied by automatic screencaps as before (though if it wouldn't include whispers).

Of course, this doesn't necessarily fix what each mod considers to be a rule violation, however it would help keep things consistent.

---

SackThing101 (2014-11-17 19:16:15)

---

And another one bites the bump.

---

carlos11 (2014-11-19 05:56:12)

---

That's the funniest thing I've read all day.
Well, other than "too much water".

---