{note: the above warning was not inscibed on the Book of Kells.}
So we come full circle to the question of why bothering to include those very old warnings at all?
You said earlier that it was done because of the possibility that people would ask about them. You said, specifically:
I don’t buy the argument. If a person’s behaviour over a short and relatively recent time period is sufficiently bad to warrant a suspension or banning (e.g., the case currently under discussion), surely that’s enough. Having made a decision to suspend or ban someone for a few specific instances of poor behaviour, the SDMB admins should feel comfortable enough to stand by their decision for what it is, rather than “padding” it with irrelevant instances from the distant past. I have always inferred—reasonably, i think—that if particular incidents are listed when a poster’s banning/suspension is announced, then those instances must have contributed to the disciplinary action. If they didn’t, it seems completely pointless to list them, your explanation notwithstanding.
It’s not really a question, for me, of whether the warnings themselves are arbitrary. I think that moderators generally do a pretty good job of being fair about warnings and admonitions. It is, rather, the apparently arbitrary nature of what actually constitutes a formal warning and what doesn’t, of which moderator interventions are saved up for future use and which are forgotten as mere “admonitions.”
For example, i can think of a few occasions when i’ve been taken to task by moderators for infractions. Some of those appeared, in their wording, very similar to a couple of the instances listed for weirddave. On the other hand, i can recall no instance where i have been explicitly told that the admonition was a warning. I guess i could, in theory, have anywhere from zero warnings on my record though to about four or five.
I’m not, by the way, interested in knowing how many i have. I’m also not worried about my status as a member of these boards. I believe i’m generally a decent and rule-abiding person, although i can also be a jackass on occasions. I’m just trying to point out that the whole situation may not be completely arbitrary, but it is also far from transparent.
In general, i don’t disagree. It just seems that some of the concerns i’ve raised would be quite easy to address without changing the actual system very much. That’s all.
I agree that it is an honest question and I also agree that we do not have a concrete answer. No one in a staff discussion has ever stated, “That warning is over 827.25 days old; we can’t use it.” I suspect that we do not have a specific statue of limitations.
On the other hand, when a poster has called attention to himself or herself so that we are considering sanctions, usually someone will point out if some warnings are pretty old or if one of the warnings appears to be a one-off. It is a matter of human judgment, but it is not a “gotcha” situation. We’re looking for patterns of behavior.
Cool, the great book of warnings has inscribed colorful artwork? Are the Drawing by Slug Signorino or possibly Amazon Floozy Goddess?
Jim
Dude, you really are going for 6000 posts in under a year, aren’t you?
Not that there is anything wrong with that. Just askin.
No, I have no goal. Besides 6000 would be a foregone conclusion. 
I enjoy when these pit threads turn humorous, the exchange between Duffer and the Mods is Gold and his Mea Culpa very honorable. I hoped my silly little aside would be appreciated.
Jim
A reasonable inference. Unfortunately, when we first began posting banishments, we pointed out at that time, (although I cannot now find the specific post), that the list of warnings was indicative of the sort of infractions we had discussed and that they were not the entire reason for the banning (which might include e-mail exchanges or other events that had not been specifically documented as a public Warning).
I think that it might be reasonable to ignore “aged” warnings in the post announcing a suspension or banning. We can kick it around in staff and see where the idea goes.
This is nothing! Wait till I really get worked up!! 
Ukulele Ike, does a fake warning subract an official one? Seems only fair for the overload of stress caused by your joke. Prick.
[sub]Good one[/sub]
I don’t think I have any official warnings, which is kind of odd considering how often I’ve been an asshole.
Really, not that many warnings are issued. Most moderator actions are to correct mistakes or clarify rules. Many, many times I’ll look and say, “wow, that post was pretty out there, but it’s not really actionable.” We try to keep the boards free for personal expression and warn when people ignore admonitions or are just jerking chains, with a lot of emphasis on how things were intended (though that’s not always a get-out-of-jail-free card).
If anyone cares to email a mod, I’m sure we can check if and how many warnings have been issued to you if you really don’t know.
that’s cause nobody notices you.
Did someone notice a sea monster passing by?
That was no sea monster. That was Ray Bradbury,.
I duuno - I seem to be able to draw the distinction between some one who is a short tempered irrational prick and some one who is momentarily upset.
Btw, since no one is using it and it’s pretty unforgettable, I’ll be changing my username to bup.
See you on the boards,
bup
Whooooooooosh!
Anaamika posted a quote by **Askia ** which led me to read the whole ‘apology’ thread.
I think I love Askia - yep, think I do.
Askia,
Please accept my sincere apology for attempting to take over the ‘spokesmodel’ position. The job is yours for life! (humbly bows and backs slowly away.)
Heh, my friend, I’ll take this blame for this one as maybe we were a bit far removed from posts 60, 61, 63 and 64.
Wimps! Not only do I have some official warnings, I also caused a STICKY! … and it’s still there - Haunting me 