Using the Forum Warning System officially?

[The_Impress]

This is in respect to the official warnings given out through RVRs and whatnot, not the standard "quit it".

I was wondering if there is merit to using the wiki warnings system more. For those unwary, its interface looks like this

Joke unsubmitted warnings aside, you can see we can have a history for past warnings, as well as apply warning points to denote severity of the offense as well as make temporary warnings. All of these are important enough feature to make it be more widespread as the accounting method, rather than the past "some user may remember their offense".

Of course I'm not fully aware of any bugs/inconvenience it may cause, so I won't be pushing it that hard, just putting this thread up for its consideration

 

[The_Impress]

Shh, smh

 

[Antvasima]

I personally would not mind in theory, but it should obviously only be used if we have officially decided to apply a warning via our rule-violation reports thread.

Also, I do not know how warning points work. Would somebody be automatically permanently banned after a certain amount of them for example? If so, that could cause serious problems. Perhaps me and AKM should ask our forum system manager for further information.

 

[Antvasima]

@AKM sama @Promestein @DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality @DarkDragonMedeus @SomebodyData @Celestial_Pegasus @Soldier_Blue @Wokistan @Mr._Bambu @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Ogbunabali @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000

Your input would be appreciated here.

 

[The_Impress]

Perhaps me and AKM should ask our forum system manager for further information.

Most preferably, yes. We can also not alot any warning points while making a report, for the record. It's optional

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I will wait until AKM comes back and comments here then, in order to make certain.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Commenting to follow the thread, I'll wait for word back from the system manager.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I still prefer using the RVR thread for the most part, but can wait for AKM to elaborate why.

 

[The_Impress]

I still prefer using the RVR thread for the most part, but can wait for AKM to elaborate why.

...we'd still be using RVR, you misunderstand.

Just that any warning made on RVR, will also be added on the Warning System, since it seems to be able to record-keep. Thus we don't have to use memory for us to recall someone's offenses.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes. It seems like a reasonable idea, as long as there are no automatised blocks applied after a while.

 

[AKM sama]

I can also see an option of thread reply ban, which is fine. Not seeing any info on what the warning points do. Preferably ask the system manager, but we can surely test it out going forward.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for the reply. Are you willing to ask our system manager about this in an email, or should I do so?

 

[Antvasima]

Never mind. I will handle it.

 

[Antvasima]

Our system manager sent me the following information about warnings:

Warnings​

Warnings allow you and your moderators to add warning points to users when they violate rules. These points can then be connected to actions that apply restrictions or bans based on how many warning points the user has.

The warning system consists of two parts: the warnings themselves and warning actions.

In the control panel, you may pre-define warnings that your moderators can apply to users. For each warning, you'll be defining things like:

• The title, which will be displayed to moderators viewing the list of warnings a user has received
• The default number of points the warning is worth
• The default time until the points expire (and are no longer counted)
• Any user groups you want to add the user to while this warning is not expired
• And the default conversation settings to notify the user that they have received a warning

Note

When a user is warned, they will only be notified if the moderator opts to send the user a conversation while applying the warning.

Warnings will be applied by moderators by clicking the Warn link on specific content or by applying a warning directly via the user's profile. If a warning is applied to specific content, the moderator may be able to leave a public warning message to indicate to others that the content is not appropriate.

Moderators will be able to see a user's warning history via their profile. This will display the current warning points total and the total number of warnings they have received, regardless of whether those warnings have expired. Each of the warnings can be clicked to receive more information about the warning or to go to the related content.

The second component of the warning system are warning actions. This allows you to define specific actions to take based on the number of warning points a user receives. These actions include banning, discouragement or adding additional user groups. If you choose to add the user to additional groups, you will generally be removing permissions; in this case, you will want to define permissions using the Never option.

Each warning action will be applied for a specific length of time. This will either be an explicit amount of time (even permanent) or while the total number of warning points the user has is above the points threshold for the warning action. These settings allow you to apply restrictions using several approaches:

• You can apply restrictions for a short period of time while using long expiration times on warnings. As users receive warnings, their total points will tend to accrue and you can apply more strict restrictions at higher points thresholds.
• You can apply restrictions while above the points threshold, though often with shorter expiration times. This means that subsequent warnings will cause the restrictions to be in place for even longer.

Note

Warning actions are only applied when crossing a points threshold. If you define a new warning action (or change the points threshold of an existing one), a user that already has more than that number of points will not have the action applied until their points drop below the threshold and then increase above it again.

He also provided a link for a page in which I can customise the standardised warning types a bit, but I think that it is only available to him, me, and maybe AKM and Promestein.

 

[The_Impress]

So if we never define a warning threshold and remove any prior ones, it'll be good to go, right?

 

[Antvasima]

I am honestly not sure how we should set up the duration times and requirements for warnings and the number of warning points that different types of infractions warrant, or if we can specify the reasons when applying them and then easily see that later.

However, we should obviously only apply warnings after they have been accepted in our rule-violation reports thread.

 

[The_Impress]

I think we should keep the warning points off, since if you note in the warning system, they're toggleable, along with the duration, for the time being.

 

[Antvasima]

Please elaborate regarding what you mean.

 

[The_Impress]

Warning points system is entirely optional when you make a report, and can be toggled to off. So it's not necessary to consider them, we can make a staff guideline to not alot warning points when giving said warnings

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. So have you changed your mind to that we should not use warnings then, or just regarding that we should always only give the standard 1 point per warning?

 

[The_Impress]

No we can give 0 point warnings, I am saying we do that.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay.

@AKM sama @Promestein @DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Damage3245 @Mr._Bambu

What do you think?

 

[DontTalkDT]

So, if I understand it right, we would be using the warning system for warnings so that the user gets a message, but without the point stuff, and the advantage is that the forum then automatically keeps track of the past warnings that were given so that one can easily find them?

 

[The_Impress]

So, if I understand it right, we would be using the warning system for warnings so that the user gets a message, but without the point stuff, and the advantage is that the forum then automatically keeps track of the past warnings that were given so that one can easily find them?

Yes

 

[DontTalkDT]

Makes sense, I guess.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I suppose that this is probably fine to start using then, but we should only do so after it has been decided in our rule-violation reports thread.

Should I create some custom warning types? I can upload a cropped screencapture of the currently listed options if you give me a little time.

 

[Antvasima]

Here are the current options:

 

[The_Impress]

If you'd prefer we can add warning types based on every rule violations we list, or would that be too elaborate and time consuming?

 

[Antvasima]

It would be extremely tiresome and time-consuming for me, given how exhausted and distracted I am in general.

 

[The_Impress]

Then we can skip custom warning types for now :v

 

[Antvasima]

I could handle adding a limited number of sensible options. Just not several dozens of them.

 

[The_Impress]

Then we can do:

• Inappropriate On-Site Demeanor: Includes being rude, toxic, flirty, and the like
• Inappropriate Off-Site Demeanor: Harrassment of users offsite (Listed separately since evidence may not be fully on wiki)
• Manipulative Behavior: Purposely mishandling information and context to further their own gains, be it calculation manipulating, report manipulating, or even things like purposely miscounting votes.
• Vandalism: Self-Explanatory
• Sockpuppeting: Self-Explanatory

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I am too busy and tired to add it now, but would appreciate input regarding the suggestions from other staff members here.

 

[The_Impress]

Bump, I don't think this was resolved.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I personally do not mind, as long as we can figure out a working system for it, but we need more staff input first.

 

[Confluctor]

I know this is old and necro, but this conversation never ended and I think it's important we bring it back. It will be easier to keep a record of stuff in the future.

 

[Antvasima]

Can somebody remind us about our progress and conclusions here so far please?

 

[Confluctor]

There was no proper conclusion. But this is the warning system Impress came up with iirc.

Then we can do:

• Inappropriate On-Site Demeanor: Includes being rude, toxic, flirty, and the like
• Inappropriate Off-Site Demeanor: Harrassment of users offsite (Listed separately since evidence may not be fully on wiki)
• Manipulative Behavior: Purposely mishandling information and context to further their own gains, be it calculation manipulating, report manipulating, or even things like purposely miscounting votes.
• Vandalism: Self-Explanatory
• Sockpuppeting: Self-Explanatory

 

[Antvasima]

Well, with everything else going on for me both in my online work and IRL, and given that we haven't even set up modified supporter badges yet, I am afraid that I simply do not have the time and energy to initiate a forum system change in this regard as well right now. My apologies.

I can ask our system administrator about it after a few months if you remind me here then though.

 

[XXKINGXX69]

Well, with everything else going on for me both in my online work and IRL, and given that we haven't even set up modified supporter badges yet, I am afraid that I simply do not have the time and energy to initiate a forum system change in this regard as well right now. My apologies.

I can ask our system administrator about it after a few months if you remind me here then though.

Are you still too busy to ask