I’d use this as my sig line, if I had the balls.
I (a big U2 fan) like yours anyway, Cv…
Of course he’s arguing semantics. That’s the point. You don’t get to make up your own definitions of words, any more than you should let me get by calling people “cocksuckers” even if I say that, in my mind, that’s a good thing.
And it’s such an easy thing to fix. You already usually do it: when you are putting a poster under review, you usually post, “Your posting privileges will be under review,” or similar. That allows you to continue to use the word Warning without the semantics problem.
I don’t see the point in taking so much effort to defend your action when the problem is so easy to fix.
Really? You’re bumping this thread two weeks later to argue this dead issue? This ridiculous dead issue?
Surely there are better molehills to die on in ATMB than this one.
He is apparently on a binge. I see several (at least three) several-week-old threads here that he’s just bumped today.
For some of us, living in the past is better than facing the present…
Oh, we won’t give in; let’s go living in the past.
Senegoid, it seems you’re just objecting to the word “Warning”, which you take to imply that you get another chance. If they changed “Warning” to “Citation”, and then said that accumulating too many citations can result in a banning after a suitable period of deliberation by the mods, would that satisfy you?
And if so, would simply telling you “Warning” actually means “Citation” satisfy you? Consider that most long-standing posters already understand how the mods use the term “Warning”, and changing the term now would probably cause more confusion than it solves.
Ah, yes. Attack of the micro-zombies. Wait while I get out my micro-garlic.
Close, you’re on the right track, but not quite. My complaint was basically, a warning (or citation or admonishment or whatchamacallit) that says “Don’t do this again” or anything similar. That’s the magic phrase (or anything similar) that implies you won’t get banned – not just now anyway – but you could get banned next time. So I don’t think the mods should ban someone after issuing a warning worded anything like that.
OTOH, sometimes when a poster posts the final straw, the mods will write something to the effect: “Okay, that will be all. You’re outta here.” (After some, typically generous, number of prior warnings.) I don’t know how a mod action like that could ever be called a “Warning” or anything synonymous.
ETA: Is this thread just going in circles now? Upon re-reading what I just wrote in this post, it appears, basically, to just repeat the argument in my OP.
ETA2: Or compare the banning of Jaledin today. Marley23 cites and links the final “warning” he received. Yes, he called it a “warning”, but that he didn’t say “Don’t do this again”. He said “…your posting privileges will be under discussion.”
(Missed edit window.)
ETA2: Or contrast the banning of Jaledin today. Marley23 cites and links the final “warning” he received. Yes, he called it a “warning”, but he didn’t say “Don’t do this again”. He said “…your posting privileges will be under discussion.”
ETA* (Did I just double-post this remark? 
So you want the Mods to let that behavior continue in the thread until the mods can come to the conclusion that the poster should be banned or not? Would you be okay with that in a thread that was very personal to you?
There’s no particular magic to the phrase “don’t do this again.” I use it with people who are not on thin ice, but the fact that I use it doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re not.
We have a full staff of mods, all of whom have their own writing styles. We make an effort to keep things fairly consistent, but when it comes down to parsing the specifics of the phrasing of a note, warning, admonition, or slap on the wrist – no.
If we say “don’t do this again,” it means “don’t do this again.”
If we say “no warning issued,” that means that there is no mark on your permanent record, but there could have been.
If we issue a warning, you should keep in mind that this may lead to additional sanctions if it’s part of a pattern of behavior.
If we issue a warning for behavior that the user has previously been suspended for, it will almost definitely lead to additional sanctions.
This discussion is getting literal-minded to a degree that is not useful. I say “don’t do this again” or “please don’t do this again” in almost every single warning I give, plus many of the mod notes. Whether we use that language or not, the meaning of a note or official warning is the same. They mean ‘you just did something that is against the rules, here’s why, so don’t do that again.’ Sometimes we include more particulars and sometimes that does not seem necessary depending on the situation, and we’ll explain further if there are questions.
Yes, because Jaledin had been warned about that same kind of behavior many times (five or six, including a suspension in January). He’d been told “don’t do this again” a bunch of times and it had not worked. Colibri was informing Jaledin he was probably going to get suspended or banned.
No. Sometimes, it really is a matter of semantic loopholes at play. A word like warning has new meanings now. It no longer only means what it used to mean. If the OP doesn’t believe me, he should ask his boss if it’s ok to make the same mistake after his one verbal and two written warnings.
That last written warning is really your pink slip.
That’s if you are the kind of cat to wrack up warnings. When I get fired, I tend to go out with a more old fashioned, out of the blue “You’re FIRED!”. No warnings issued.
When issuing a Mod Note or Warning, I usually add “Don’t do this again” as a matter of course. It is not ever meant to imply that the poster will necessarily be given a chance to do it again.
If I’ve had the time to check a poster’s infraction record beforehand, and see that he or she has enough previous warnings to consider a suspension or ban, I’ll include “Your posting privileges will be under discussion.” But sometimes if a thread is in danger of running off the rails because of the poster’s remarks, I’ll issue the warning before checking the details of his history. The lack of this statement doesn’t imply that the poster may not end up being suspended or banned for the offending post.
As twickster says, there are no magic words. Some posters expect that our mod notes and warnings should be written with the precision of a Supreme Court decision. As it is, I try to be as explicit as possible.
Any poster that has previously been suspended should be aware that they could potentially be banned for any new infraction. We shouldn’t have to give them advice about not committing new offenses. Posters who are on the verge of banning have already received a bunch of previous warnings, and have had the rules explained to them multiple times. There’s really no excuse for committing new infractions.
I decided it would be best to just withdraw from this discussion because most people know that no matter what they may say, you can virtually never win an argument with moderators or administrators.
They will wrap themselves up in incredible layers of “we are virtually the best ever and the nicest ever and no one is as good as us.” But then they will resort to what I consider to be “dirty tricks”.
However, the level of baloney has just risen to such heights that I find I cannot remain silent any longer.
Let me give you an example of one of your so-called “dirty tricks”.
-
A poster unknowingly breaks some rule.
-
A moderator or administrator approaches them (just as pleasant as can be) and asks, “Did you do such and such”? If the poster foolishly co-operates with them and tells them the truth saying, “Why yes Sir, I did that. Is that a problem?” Then they are a “proven” offender and the mod can ban them with a clear conscience.
IMO, that is a dirty trick because you are using a members innocent naivety against them.
One of the moderators up thread said, " No Mod can simply ban a poster (other than a spammer or proven sockpuppet) on his or her own".
Excuse me for laughing but when it is “proven” by an innocent admission out of the poster’s own mouth, it just stinks that is then used against them. At least that is my opinion.
There is a reason why the criminal justice system has the Fifth Amendment so that the police and DA’s can’t trick people into saying things they can then use against them when they could never otherwise arrest or convict them. And thank goodness for that.
I suppose you will all have a hundred reasons why I am completely mistaken about this and just don’t know what I’m talking about and why it is perfectly OK for you all to use whatever devices you want to have your way.
I guess the bottom line is that it is your board and you can do whatever you want.
My point is simply that it stinks. At least that is my opinion.
I hope people are still permitted to post contrary opinions here. Although I would not be surprised if that was taken away from us one day “for the good of the board”, of course.
What an absurd post. Your very first post in the thread is to declare that you are withdrawing from the discussion, a discussion to which you haven’t yet added a single thought.
It is a “dirty trick” to ask a question about whether you’ve done something, and then act based on your answer? You are responsible for knowing the rules, and not knowing them is not a justification for breaking them. Nor is it a moderator’s job to give you some kind of internet Miranda rights.
Has anyone ever been banned because they admitted to doing something wrong and the Mods called them a “proven” offender?