I’m all for members receiving a PM upon a warning; frankly, I’m a bit shocked that that’s not being done already.
Once upon a time there was a three-strikes-you’re-out system here. I think it’s better to use personal judgment instead of drawing lines in the sand.
We keep records of warnings and I don’t think we would stop doing that, but a message that makes sure posters see a warning, and that it expires with time, makes sense. Longtime posters would probably have to ask us how many other warnings they have (uploading all the past warnings would be a big undertaking and not worth the time). Overall this is looking like a better idea than I had originally thought.
All systems can be gamed, so that is an argument against points or similar schemes. The key issue here, though, is the extra step to make sure the offender is aware of the warning. There is no gaming that and it is an excellent idea.
And I do think that posters are responsible for reading their PMs. Not having it set up or not having the habit of reading it is no excuse. Just set all the defaults for notifications to the most intrusive settings and let people know that changing those indicates an agreement to be vigilant of PMs.
I kinda like it. Pretty straightforward record and you can also send a PM when someone is getting close to the banning edge. I’m thinking someone like Collounsbury might have benefited from an analytical system. " Holy crapola, have I really been warned three times for personal insults" kinda thing.
I can live with it.
In a related issue, I want to point out that we usually do contact people when they are facing a potential suspension. Sometimes we post about it, more often we send them an email or private message. It’s possible to miss a warning but we make sure people know when they’re at risk for something more serious.
Well, while I’m all for public shaming, so I’d say put a public list up, I think the proposed system is better than the one we have now. Even though I have my e-mail set up, I’ve found I sometimes don’t get e-mails from here.
I think Una meant that if the full url is too long, just put the thread id or post id in the Reason field:
personal insult - t=519082; p=11185112
That way the user could just plug in the values to the standard url.
I’ve never set up a PM or used one or received one. So what happens at my end?
Fair enough, but I’d like to get an email for my first (and any) infraction thats actually going on my permanent record, not just the one thats the last step from me getting banned.
And as I and others have mentioned before, for at least some of us, it would be quite possible for us to never see the warning meant for us in a thread.
I take it you guys arent going to bother to record the general warnings to all or several group participants or the non-official warnings to specific posters.
Are the warnings STILL going to be posted in the threads as well. Because IMO it still helps for other readers to be reminded where the line is and when it is crossed.
Otherwise, the system certainly sounds like an improvment to me. Not that current system ever cause me any grief.
Your account will still receive a PM, and at the very least you’ll be alerted to the arrival of a new PM in the upper, right-hand corner of your screen, right under the You last visited: line.
You can see a sample here of what you’ll see if you don’t have PMs enabled.
You won’t be able to reply to the PM until you enable private messaging, but you’ll be able to read it.
That’s certainly a better idea, but it does involve a little more cutting up of the thread URL and room for error when we could just include the full link in the body of the PM. At this point I don’t think it’s too much of a burden for posters to retain the PM if they want expanded details of their warnings. Should they accidentally delete the PMs, they can revert back to asking us and we’ll look up the info for them.
Really, I’m just too lazy to spend ten minutes writing up a warning when one would do. 
It’s possible to have a POST field where you could put the link, and without the character limit of the REASON field.
We don’t make records of those things. They’re generally called things like “mod notes” or “modding” to distinguish them from warnings given to individual postesr.
Yes, for exactly that reason.
One slight correction to the OP for this thread: it is not necessarily the case that the only warning is the post in the thread. I usually try to send an email, if I think there is a reasonable chance the person won’t read the thread again; I don’t bother if there’s clearly ongoing participation. I almost certainly send an email if there have been several warnings for the same person. So, I think the practice of notification varies by mod and by situation.
On the question of “arbitrary” vs some point system for deciding when to suspend or ban someone: we really think it’s better to leave it to moderator judgement. For example, a person who has three infractions of the same offense (such as personal insults) in the last month is different from a new poster who has three different infractions in the same time period, or for lesser offenses. Currently, suspensions or bannings are the result of a moderator discussion and vote, and are based on the number of warnings, the time-frame, and the severity of the offense. I don’t see any simple way to reduce that to “three strikes and you’re out.” Nor would I want to.
I don’t see that system changing. The only change would be notification of offenses.
I like the new way.
This is a good point. We had a jerk last year who made a point of starting tons of threads and almost never coming back to read them. We ended up emailing (and also private messaging, I think) warnings and notifications to that guy because it was obvious he wouldn’t see a warning posted in the thread.
Of course he went on ignoring them anyway. And I think it’s very rare that someone gets a warning and misses it unintentionally. But if we can improve communication, eliminate a few accidents and get rid of an excuse for people who are screwing around, that’s all good.
I thought guests couldn’t receive or send PMs?
Or maybe two years for some of the worst infractions. However, looking at the examples, it seems like there is supposed to be an expiration date for the warning/violation.
But in general, I like the idea of the new system.
Maybe when it was pay-to-post, but no longer.
–Cliffy
I think the new system is better. As I’ve mentioned once or twice, when I get pissed off by threads, my solution is to stop reading them. But if I’ve lost my cool immediately before I come to that decision, there might be a warning there which I’d never see.
–Cliffy