As is obvious, I disagree. What it appears like to me is that you’re handing out de facto warnings and then stating that they’re not warnings even though that’s what they’re intended to work as.
The passive-aggressive thing I’m seeing would be like having a boss who wants someone to bring him a cup of coffee. But instead of asking somebody to bring him a cup of coffee, he’ll just make a general announcement “It would be great if I had a cup of coffee right now.”
If someone picks up the broad hint and brings him his coffee, he can pretend like he’s just one of the guys and he didn’t order anyone to do anything. But he’d be annoyed if everyone took him at his literal word.
“Where’s my coffee?”
“What coffee?”
“The coffee I asked for fifteen minutes ago.”
“You’d didn’t ask for any coffee.”
“Sure I did.”
“No, you said it would be great if you had a cup of coffee right now. The coffee maker’s in the break room so I was mildy curious why you didn’t go get yourself a cup if you thought one would be great.”
“I didn’t feel like walking over there.”
“Then you should have asked somebody to go get you a cup of coffee.”
Same thing here. Don’t say something like “Messing around with the President’s name is disrespectful. No warning issued.” if what you really mean is “Messing around with the President’s name is a violation of board rules. I’m warning you to not do it.”
Don’t drop hints. Say what you mean. Defining and stating board policy is part of being a moderator.
Personally I don’t have much of an issue with warnings and such. I’ve never been looking to live out on the edge.
But the moderators are not being clear. If they’re posting something that has the same effect as an official warning (a direction not to do something backed up with the possibility of future consequences for not following that direction) then they shouldn’t confuse the issue by saying it isn’t an official warning.
And while the moderators are not our managers, they, like cops, have a position of authority over us. It’s not putting them on a pedestal to acknowlege that reality.
They’re intended to stop or discourage breaking of the rules, which is the same things warnings are for. They’re not de facto warnings, though.
You’ve seen us give mod notes. This is not what they’re like. In my experience they’re usually along the lines of “this isn’t allowed, so don’t do it again” or “tone down your rhetoric” or “don’t post complete lyrics to songs/links to illegal filesharing sites” and things like that. That’s not passive aggressive and it’s not a hint. It’s a specific instruction. We don’t keep track of them; we usually save that for more serious violations.
You’re correct that in your hypothetical, the mod doesn’t say ‘don’t do this because it’s against the rules.’ If we really had to argue about it I would say that’s implied. Aside from that this is really just a terminology discussion. It’s a warning not to do something, but it’s not a formal warning as we use the term on the SDMB. A formal warning is a mark on your record.
I disagree. I believe the issue of non-warnings is very clear, and has been explained very clearly by the mods in this thread.
Now, if the question was “what is the POINT of non-warnings”, then there might be a discussion. Its rather strange to repeatedly see something like “Dont call people cunts in the pit, no warning issued”. After the xth example of different people not getting a warning, the mod note loses all clout as a deterrent. If I wanted to call somebody a cunt in a pit thread tomorrow, the chance of getting a “no warning issued” wouldnt stop me in the slightest.
But thats a different issue. As oppsed to the non-issue Nemo is complaining about.
I have no problem with that. I don’t feel a warning needs to be explicitly labeled as a warning to function as one. If a moderator says “Don’t do that again” I feel that’s a clear warning and should be regarded as such.
Except (and this is the point I’m making in this thread) when the moderator then goes on to explictly state that what he posted isn’t a warning. How are we supposed to assume what was posted is supposed to be regarded as a warning when we’re told it isn’t a warning?
That’s the only thing I have an issue with - a moderator posting something he intends as a warning while writing that it isn’t a warning.
Like I said before, most people don’t seem to have a problem with the distinction. In fact, to the best of my recollection, this is the first time someone has complained about the system itself. (People frequently dispute whether or not a particular offense should merit a mod note vs a warning, but not the fact that we have a graded system.) Congratulations for coming up with something original to take issue with!
In fact, the automated warning system we went to a few years ago allows us to issue two different levels of notices for offenses: red cards, the more serious, which the system calls “Infractions,” and yellow cards, which the system confusingly calls “Warnings.”*
Now we could start issuing yellow cards for what we now call mod notes, and red cards for what we call warnings. We haven’t because 1) we’ve told people in the past that we don’t formally track mod notes, and we would have to change our official policy; and 2) the naming system conflicts with the system we presently use, and would cause confusion until people got used to it (and continued confusion when we tried to discuss actions in the past).
Basically, this is just a semantic issue. We could call a mod note a “caution,” a “warning,” a “naughty-naughty,” “venial sin,” or a “pecadillo,” and a moderator warning an “infraction,” “penalty,” “mortal sin,” or “no-no,” but the actual results would be the same.
*We don’t make a distinction between these in current practice. Red cards and yellow cards are equivalent when we consider taking action.
There’s a difference between warning someone and an official warning.
At a job I had, if I was goofing around I could expect my boss to tell me to knock it off. He’d be warning me. But we had official “warnings” that were recorded in our files and everything if we ever did something serious. This isn’t a difficult concept and I’m not sure if you’re just being difficult on purpose or not.
It’s really pretty simple: An official warning (one we formally keep track of) will normally be accompanied by a statement by the moderator that he or she is issuing an official warning. (I admit that this has occasionally been overlooked, but this is an oversight by the moderator.) If you are the recipient of a warning, you will receive an official notification of it by PM, and it will appear in the “Infractions” box in your profile (visible only to the poster and moderators).
If it is not an official warning (and intended just as a caution), it will usually be labelled “mod note,” “moderator instruction,” or “moderating.” And you can tell it’s not a warning because we often say it’s not a warning (meaning official warning).
I think we’re down to the terminology issue at this point. It’s a warning not to do something, but it’s not a formal SDMB warning that gets written down and sent through the infraction system. So when Gfactor says “no warning issued,” it means just that: he’s warning someone to stop doing something, but he’s not issuing an official warning and doing the paperwork.
It seems to work, though. It gets the job done and there have been few warnings related to that policy - and the ones there have been were for either breaking the rule repeatedly, or stating ‘I didn’t forget the rule, I’m doing this on purpose.’
I still feel there’s a large potential for confusion over a system that has warnings and Warnings. Maybe you guys should reconsider some of the terminology you use.
If we were coming up with a system from scratch, we might in fact have used a different terminology (as the automated infraction system does). In fact, the present system has developed gradually over the past 11 years. So it is what it is.
The main consideration I think are:
We have a long-standing system in place which doesn’t seem to create confusion for most people. (And we added the “no warning issued” phraseology specifically to clarify whether someone was receiving a warning or not.)
Changing the system at this point would undoubtedly cause confusion for some time.
I suppose you could argue that mod notes are warnings in a sense, but the word “warning” with regard to moderator actions has a well-understood specific meaning here.
To draw an analogy from comments upthread, if a police officer gives you a warning that the roads are slippery today, that’s a far different situation than him giving you a warning for speeding, but you understand the distinction just fine. What’s more, to aid with this, he generally won’t use the word “warning” when discussing the road conditions as opposed to “letting you off with a warning.”
Same deal here; the mods use the term purposefully, and pointedly avoid using it for other actions they take that might fall under the dictionary definition of the word. Seems clear enough.
There will always be someone who interprets an act of mercy as evidence of weakness.
My understanding is, the mods don’t have to nudge you with a note, they could go right to an official warning, which becomes part of your Permanent Record. Although it involves another layer of work for them to do so, they nevertheless often choose to give a heads-up note in order to spare the poster in question from the consequences of a warning.
I once watched a young woman talking to a cop who had arrested her boyfriend. As soon as the cop said “I could give you a ticket for this [harboring a fugitive – she’d been hiding him], but I understand, so I won’t write you up this time,” her whole demeanor changed – she stamped her foot and got angry. “You’re damned right you won’t write me up – you haven’t got any reason to, you…” She degenerated into shouting names and epithets at the officer. Although she’d been sullen, she had been behaving up and until he eased up on her…then she went right over to the offensive (in more than one sense).
Wordlessly, he flipped open his ticket book and began writing.
Except that both Marley and Colibri have said that mod notes are warnings. And an Official Warning is presumedly a Warning. Except that sometimes an Official Warning is an official warning, which is probably a Warning and not a warning.
I have a hard time agreeing that there’s zero confusion on this issue.
To make it simple, if a mod tells you to stop doing something, stop doing it.
If it’s an Official Warning, it shows up in your profile(only you and mods can see it, visitors won’t).
