# Rules Propostion: Multiple Warnings **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [January 27, 2010, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rules-propostion-multiple-warnings/526681 "2010-01-27T20:15:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Trepa\_Mayfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Trepa\_Mayfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trepa_Mayfield)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2010, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rules-propostion-multiple-warnings/526681/1 "2010-01-27T20:15:56Z")
Okay. We know that you moderate people differently if they acquire multiple warnings. Like, if someone has a history of making a poll with no substance and then leaving, their polls are more likely to be closed. And if someone has a history of overly harsh statements, they might have less leeway on questionable inferences. That’s fine. It’s understandable. But please, tell us! If you close a thread or warn someone because of history, tell us that _in the warning post or closing post_! Otherwise, it looks like blatant favoritism or randomness. ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2010, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rules-propostion-multiple-warnings/526681/2 "2010-01-28T12:58:43Z")
An interesting point, **pedescribe.** I think that the other side of the coin would be some level of confidentiality: we don’t want to be dragging someone’s past history around as public record. We usually handle that in PM or email (or both), to alert someone privately that they’re getting near the line. So, an interesting discussion. Please remember that we don’t really care much about single warnings. Everyone flies off the handle now and again, so a warning here and there is just a reminder to the person to calm down. When we see repeated bad behaviors, despite reminders and warnings, that’s when actions get more serious. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2010, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rules-propostion-multiple-warnings/526681/3 "2010-01-28T15:20:34Z")
I seem to recall a number of warnings that came with the additional note that the poster in question was on thin ice for previous misbehavior. It might just be particular to a specific Mod, however. ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2010, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rules-propostion-multiple-warnings/526681/4 "2010-01-28T19:42:19Z")
I think those were prior to the present warning system. The prior system, warnings were usually notified by email, but some people changed their email address without changing it in their registration (a baaad thing, but an understandable oversight). So, we weren’t sure if the person KNEW they were on thin ice. Nowadays, with the new warning system, there shouldn’t be much doubt. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2010, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rules-propostion-multiple-warnings/526681/5 "2010-01-28T21:38:00Z")
We usually do this, I think. But you’re right that it’s important to be clear about it, **pedescribe**. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2010, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rules-propostion-multiple-warnings/526681/6 "2010-01-28T21:43:52Z")
> [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](#): > > An interesting point, **pedescribe.** I think that the other side of the coin would be some level of confidentiality: we don’t want to be dragging someone’s past history around as public record. We usually handle that in PM or email (or both), to alert someone privately that they’re getting near the line. So, an interesting discussion. > > Please remember that we don’t really care much about single warnings. Everyone flies off the handle now and again, so a warning here and there is just a reminder to the person to calm down. When we see repeated bad behaviors, despite reminders and warnings, that’s when actions get more serious. I think you could pull both off by mentioning having a history, but not being too specific. Yeah, somebody can look up the person’s actual posting history if they care, but they could’ve done that anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2010, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rules-propostion-multiple-warnings/526681/7 "2010-01-28T21:58:55Z")
Well, posting “Because of your posting history…” invites other people to ask, “What history is that? What’s he done?” At the same time, not mentioning extenuating circumstances leaves other members at a loss to explain why some action looks particularly severe. So it’s a balancing act to figure out how much is enough info and how much is too much.