"No warning given"

[CookingWithGas]

I have started to see a lot of mod posts in GQ (which has stricter rules) that say things like, "No warning given, but don't do this again."

Is there such a thing as a formal warning around here, so that it goes on the member's record, and is visible to mods the next time that there is some violation? So that if you collect a certain number of warnings you're out?

(I think I have only ever gotten attention from a mod once in the years I've been a member, and don't remember if it was an official warning. I think I made a tasteless joke in GQ.)

[Oakminster]

Yes. Such things are also visible to the affected posters for relatively recent warnings--I think that started the last time they did some kind of upgrade to the board software. It might be in the User CP tab.

[XT]

Not a mod, but the answer I believe is 'yes'. If you get a 'formal warning' it goes into your account and they keep track of them...accrue enough, or quickly enough and they take it to the next level with suspensions and bannings.

You can see your warnings in your User CP area...I currently have 2 on file or whatever. No idea when they will pull the trigger...think it varies with what you are doing and how much you are pissing the mods off in any given time period.

ETA: The section in your profile where your warnings goes is the 'Latest Infractions Received' section at the bottom, after your PMs.

-XT

[C K Dexter Haven]

Generally speaking, there's the "friendly reminder" level from the mods, where there's no permanent record and not a big deal (assuming that the reminder is heeded.) The next layer is the formal warning; when you look at your post, you should see a yellow or red card on that post to mean that a formal warning was issued. You're also notified via the email in your registration account, and we usually post in the thread as well.

If you've accumulated lots of warnings over a short time period for the same offense, then we move to the next level. We know that people goof from time to time, lose their tempers, act out, etc; the problem arises when we see the same offense over and over and over from a person who seems to be ignoring warnings (or unable to change behavior patterns.)

[Knorf]

I have one warning on my file, which I'm alternately proud of and ashamed of. It was for using a personal insult outside of the Pit. My only regret is that my insult was rather mild; my pride or shame would be increased if I had really let someone have it. Alas, I had pulled my punches. Not enough to escape the warning, though.

[mlees]

You can see your warnings in your User CP area...


Where?

[Leaffan]

Where?

At the very bottom, where it says "Latest Infractions Received." I assume the header is still there even if you haven't received any. I wouldn't know though!

[Red Barchetta]

Generally speaking, there's the "friendly reminder" level from the mods, where there's no permanent record and not a big deal (assuming that the reminder is heeded.)

Neither are warnings, according to you.

In short: it's NOT a big hairy deal.

[silenus]

At the very bottom, where it says "Latest Infractions Received." I assume the header is still there even if you haven't received any. I wouldn't know though!

If you are pure of heart and deed, there isn't any such area in your User CP. Only known reprobates and scofflaws have such a heading. :p

[fachverwirrt]

Generally speaking, there's the "friendly reminder" level from the mods, where there's no permanent record and not a big deal (assuming that the reminder is heeded.) The next layer is the formal warning; when you look at your post, you should see a yellow or red card on that post to mean that a formal warning was issued. You're also notified via the email in your registration account, and we usually post in the thread as well.

If you've accumulated lots of warnings over a short time period for the same offense, then we move to the next level. We know that people goof from time to time, lose their tempers, act out, etc; the problem arises when we see the same offense over and over and over from a person who seems to be ignoring warnings (or unable to change behavior patterns.)

Is there any difference between a yellow card and a red card? (I mean, besides being dismissed from the game, leaving your team a man short, and being suspended for the following game.)

[Bosstone]

Neither are warnings, according to you.My, we can hold a grudge, can't we?If you've accumulated lots of warnings over a short time period for the same offense, then we move to the next level. We know that people goof from time to time, lose their tempers, act out, etc; the problem arises when we see the same offense over and over and over from a person who seems to be ignoring warnings (or unable to change behavior patterns.)No, a single warning is not a big hairy deal if you're not the kind of person who habitually accumulates them.

[twickster]

Is there any difference between a yellow card and a red card? (I mean, besides being dismissed from the game, leaving your team a man short, and being suspended for the following game.)

No.

[Marley23]

We give red cards for trolling and yellow cards for all the other warning explanations. There's no real difference, but it's true that somebody with multiple trolling warnings is unlikely to last long.

[Knorf]

Do these yellow cards really never expire?

[RickJay]

Do these yellow cards really never expire?
Not systemically, no.

It's not really a points system. It isn't "The Long Walk," where if you get X warnings in Y time you get shot. The warning and infraction system is essentially a way for the board's admins and mods to be able to keep track of who is and isn't getting warnings, because for actual posters, we discuss suspensions and bannings. (Spammers are just banned without discussion.)

"No warning issued" essentially means the moderator is trying to calm things down and keep the rules enforced without triggering the infraction/warning system. We're expected to be able to keep our respective forums toodling along reasonably well without shooting up signal flares every time an otherwise good poster forgets a rule.

[Gary "Wombat" Robson]

The main reason we use that system is that we have 23 staff members at the moment. If there was no way of keeping track, people could conceivably pick up a dozen different warnings from a dozen different moderators without the rest of us noticing.

We don't have the formal point system and expiration systems even turned on. It's just a way of keeping track of what's going on with 10,000 active members.

[Colibri]

Do these yellow cards really never expire?

They remain in the system. However, if we are considering taking further action (suspension or banning) we take into account how long ago the warning was. Older warnings are less significant than more recent ones.

[Marley23]

We don't have the formal point system and expiration systems even turned on. It's just a way of keeping track of what's going on with 10,000 active members.
Right. If my post was not clear, I was saying that the system - at least as it's set up here - marks warnings for trolling with a red flag and other warnings with a yellow flag, but there's no practical difference. A warning is a warning.

After further review, it looks like this is not the case. All the warnings come with yellow cards unless we assign points. I saw one warning for trolling that came with a red card and assumed they all did.

[Capitaine Zombie]

Question (related to Dio's banning):

ok, suppose a doper manages to stay a long time and gets more than a few warnings (I think it was Dio's case), do you need a last warning-worthy offence to finally ban that person? (and if you do, do you post what was the offence and the warning attached in the relevant thread? I didnt see it in Dio's case [not trying to open an under-the-radar Dio thread but I have always wondered about this and Dio's situation is exactly what I was wondering about]).

Also, do you have to close every (or most) threads where the OP is banned (in a lot of cases, the OP has just started the thread, it isnt linked to him specifically)?

[Leaffan]

Good question, because although Dio has been less than diplomatic over the years, I didn't see anything ban-worthy in his last number of posts.

[Colibri]

ok, suppose a doper manages to stay a long time and gets more than a few warnings (I think it was Dio's case), do you need a last warning-worthy offence to finally ban that person? (and if you do, do you post what was the offence and the warning attached in the relevant thread? I didnt see it in Dio's case [not trying to open an under-the-radar Dio thread but I have always wondered about this and Dio's situation is exactly what I was wondering about]).

People are rarely banned for a single post, but rather for an overall pattern of behavior over an extended period of time. If people persist with the same kind of behavior for which they have been warned repeatedly, they become candidates for suspension. A suspension is intended as the last "wake-up call" before permanent banning. If a poster comes back from suspension, and once again starts to rack up warnings and mod notes for similar behavior, we are forced to conclude they are either unwilling or unable to change and become subject to banning. So no, the final offense does not have to be a major one, it just has to convince us that the poster is not going to change.

Also, do you have to close every (or most) threads where the OP is banned (in a lot of cases, the OP has just started the thread, it isnt linked to him specifically)?

No, not at all. We do that mainly if the OP was trolling or perhaps posting in the Pit.

[Der Trihs]

At the very bottom, where it says "Latest Infractions Received." I assume the header is still there even if you haven't received any. I wouldn't know though!Apparently not, I don't see anything.

[XT]

That's weird...I would think it would be part of the structure, not just turned on if you have infractions. But if you don't have that section it must work that way.

-XT

[TubaDiva]

I would think that the overwhelming majority of users have no infractions whatsoever.

And a small group have one.

And an even smaller group has multiple.

[XT]

Well, at least I'm in an elite group, so to speak. :p

-XT

[Kolga]

It's not really a points system. It isn't "The Long Walk," where if you get X warnings in Y time you get shot.

You should market that concept as a reality show. People would watch.

[Tristan]

You should market that concept as a reality show. People would watch.

Stephen King story, written as Richard Bachman. Weak ending, imo, but still one of my fav's of the Bachman books.

[Kolga]

Stephen King story, written as Richard Bachman. Weak ending, imo, but still one of my fav's of the Bachman books.

I am aware of the story. I was referring to the concept as applied to warnings on this board.