(STAFF ONLY) Establishing User Infraction Time Frames

[Propellus]

After a private staff discussion, we have decided to keep track of warnings for rule violations via a staff-moderated list of some sort.

However, we also need to decide after how much time such warnings should expire.

Staff evaluations are necessary.

This thread is very strictly intended to be staff only. If non-staff members comment here their posts will be removed.

 

[Antvasima]

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale

What do you think about this?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Looks good to me.

 

[Antvasima]

The first post here missed the intended point of this thread that I requested in private, so I had to rewrite it. My apologies.

 

[Agnaa]

I think this sort of thing is way too broad to rule decisively on.

If someone was banned for 1 year for faking scans, came back and had good behaviour for two years, then faked scans again, I'd think that old warning should still be valid, and they should probably be permabanned.

However, if someone was warned for misformatting pages 10 times in 2 months, then had impeccable formatting for two years, before they slipped up again, I wouldn't want them banned, since they've clearly vastly improved and had an understandable minor slip-up.

Warnings are meant to encourage people to change bad behaviour. If they re-offend, after any amount of time, that indicates that the behaviour hasn't fully changed. Maybe their new frequency is under-the-radar enough to not be ban-worthy, but those old warnings would still inform our thoughts.

tl;dr warnings should never go away, but depending on the offence, the importance of the warnings may fade with time.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. That makes sense. So we should simply specify the type and degree of the infractions in our list in chronological order, and then judge by that then?

 

[Agnaa]

I think something like that, yeah.

Since we'd preferably be linking to the warnings, we can always check the dates when they're brought up for a report.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. That seems good to me. Thank you for helping out.

 

[Firestorm808]

Yes, the severity of the infraction would correspond to its permanence on the record.

 

[Crabwhale]

I would like to point out that originally this was only intended to be chronicling RVR infractions. That's what I originally proposed, at any rate.

Anyway, I think the expiry time should be dependent on the nature of the rule violation and the improvement shown by the user.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

I agree with Agnaa and the other's take on this.

 

[Propellus]

I think this sort of thing is way too broad to rule decisively on.

If someone was banned for 1 year for faking scans, came back and had good behaviour for two years, then faked scans again, I'd think that old warning should still be valid, and they should probably be permabanned.

However, if someone was warned for misformatting pages 10 times in 2 months, then had impeccable formatting for two years, before they slipped up again, I wouldn't want them banned, since they've clearly vastly improved and had an understandable minor slip-up.

Warnings are meant to encourage people to change bad behaviour. If they re-offend, after any amount of time, that indicates that the behaviour hasn't fully changed. Maybe their new frequency is under-the-radar enough to not be ban-worthy, but those old warnings would still inform our thoughts.

tl;dr warnings should never go away, but depending on the offence, the importance of the warnings may fade with time.

But then again that's still why this thread was made. Sure they're here to cease people from bad behavior, but at the same time we don't even seem to treat it as warnings eventually fade away overtime like they should, it still creates issues with other users bringing up their past actions even if they drastically improve their behaviors since then.

 

[Agnaa]

I think it's a case-by-case sorta thing. It doesn't hurt if someone brings it up, since we'll know how long ago it happened, and judge whether that punishment that implies for their current offense.

 

[Propellus]

I think it's a case-by-case sorta thing. It doesn't hurt if someone brings it up, since we'll know how long ago it happened, and judge whether that punishment that implies for their current offense.

I guess that's true, but shouldn't we propose a longer time period depending on the severity of the infraction?

 

[Agnaa]

I don't think it's worthwhile to actually write down when warnings for the 30 different things people can get warned for wear off.

Just do it on a case-by-case basis when they're reported for a new infraction.

 

[Antvasima]

So since we seem to have reached a consensus here to not set specific time limits to warnings, should we close this thread?

 

[Agnaa]

Probably.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I have done so.

Thank you to everybody who helped out here.