Board Warnings Redemption System

[FerrumIntellectus]

Scott said that the best way to really have your voice heard and to make any kind of a genuine change is by posting your disputes/suggestions here in the feedback forum. I hope to start a discussion about a potential new site policy in the wake of me getting my first warning and seeing quite a few of my friends get them as well. Now before we go any further I must make two things explicitly clear: 1.) I am going on hiatus for a while to refocus my efforts and goals in the field but I will come back in due time. As such I will be sure to check all postings but Scott's answer is ultimately what I am looking for. Other than that I will be having no presence here for a while. 2.) I have NO ISSUE with Scott whatsoever. I apologized to him and he explained his actions to me and we squashed it. I am merely looking to handle things through the proper channels with civility. Now that that is out of the way let us begin.

We know that if we violate the forum rules we get issued board warnings. If we accumulate enough of these warnings, we could see ourselves banned, or our work blacklisted. Such was the case with my friend Blauw Bloed for when I tried to share his Blue Blood is Black Blood blog via URL with a colleague I was notified that the site had been blacklisted. Now Blauw was the recipient of many board warnings so this was a natural consequence. Now it has been contested whether certain board warnings issued were justified or not but that is a moot point once they have been administered. However, what I would like to contest is that there is no system by which to see these warnings expunged. If you are like me and you get annoyed a few months after your first issuance still seeing that warning there or are someone who exercises great caution when posting because you are teetering on the cliff of banishment or having your work blacklisted, such a system would prove most beneficiary. What I propose is that board warnings are treated as probationary periods. If one can serve the period without incident, they get their warning removed from their profile. Here is hypothetically what I mean:

1 warning- 90 days

2 warnings- 180 days

3 warnings- 270 days

4 warnings - 1 year

Now I also recognize that one could simply just take time away from the site. Not be active in any way shape or form until their probation was up. I originally was going to leave my redemption system at simply time served but then I realized that this could be a great way to increase productivity even more than it already is for people who are serious about redeeming their profiles. So not only would users have to endure a probationary period but they would also have to make a certain % of positive, rule conforming contributions as well. Again, here is a hypothetical model of what I am proposing:

1 Warning = 90 days & 20 posts

2 Warnings = 180 days & 40 posts

3 Warnings = 270 days & 60 posts

4 Warnings = 360 days & 80 posts

I fully realize that this is an imperfect system and may need several alterations before any serious implementation. Heck, some of you may hate the idea altogether. However, I do hope we can start a serious dialogue about a redemption system for profiles that is easy to both institute and manage. I welcome all ideas from all places.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I am under the impression that users cannot see how many warnings other users have received. Is this not the case?

Technically, warnings currently expire 90 days after being issued. But I can still always see the notes stemming from that warning for the user.

I see nothing wrong with your suggestion of a more advanced system of expiring warnings. But I also think at this time it may be a moot issue, and thus might not be worth the trouble. That's because the warning count really means little, namely since there is currently no standard about how many warnings would lead to being put on moderation queue ("temporary probation") or being banned. I take into account numerous factors before making such a decision, although with the exception of obvious bots and shameless spammers, I wouldn't take any action without warning a user at least once about the specific thing for which their account is being limited. That would be the strictest case. Usually people get at least a kind of three strikes chance, or many more depending again on those numerous factors including: total post count, whether the warnings are for breaking the same rule, whether multiple warnings were received so close together as to somewhat deserve to count as one.

If we are to implement a more specific guideline regarding how many warnings lead to a probation or a ban, then I think a more elaborate system with more explicit standards of forgiveness of warnings would be in order along the lines of something like you suggest.

[FerrumIntellectus]

I am under the impression that users cannot see how many warnings other users have received. Is this not the case?

Technically, warnings currently expire 90 days after being issued. But I can still always see the notes stemming from that warning for the user.

No you are correct Scott. Also, I did not know warnings expired after 90 days. That is totally fair to me and renders my dialogue pointless. I hope I did not waste your time. I'll be good the next 90 days!

[Blauw bloed]

(Nested quote removed.)


No you are correct Scott. Also, I did not know warnings expired after 90 days. That is totally fair to me and renders my dialogue pointless. I hope I did not waste your time. I'll be good the next 90 days!

Big mistake dear. Scott is the proverbial enemy, and he is not one person, he is a multitude. And they will con you with all this politeness, and talks of fair trade and religion and human rights, while sticking it to you in the back. We have been falling in this trap for the past 165 years. I read how he ansers you, and I read how he answers me, and I know this thinking. and nobody can blacklist my research, they would first have to kill me, Scott has no power unless you yourself give him power over you. So we are our own enemy, and Scott is innocent.