New forum user warning system

[Baldrick]

We have added a forum user warning system. If you violate any of our forum rules you may receive a warning. After 5 warnings you will be banned.

[tgpo]

That's right. It is also gonna be a lot faster reactions to rule breakers. Moderators now have the ability to ban/warn, so if you break a rule expect swift action.....and of course if you don't break the rules, then expect warez questions to die off in the coming month....and of course if you don't visit this site, then don't expect anything.

[housepig]

good deal. Thanks Baldrick.

[macleod]

I saw jomo's post (oddly enough he was talking about a great deal at shop4tech with $85 100 spindle dvd-r). It had 1 warning next to it.

GREAT IDEA to whoever came up with it.

[SaSi]

.....and of course if you don't break the rules, then expect warez questions to die off in the coming month

Actually, I think warez questions and information exchange is not a real issue in this forum. Ok, I have seen occasional postings about DVDMaestro or something, but these are mostly out of ignorance and have seen the same people "realize" the rules and play right.

I agree with the warning system, mainly to do with some (thankfully few) people that are hot-headed and passionate.

Hopefully, nobody will need to get banned.

[Craig Tucker]

GREAT IDEA to whoever came up with it.

Why thank you. It was my idea, but Baldrick had to do all the hard work to impliment it. I don't mind coming up with great ideas as long as it does not mean any extra work for me.

[twodogs]

Agree this is a great idea, but is 5 times too many warnings?

A member should clean up their act after only one warning, so perhaps turf them after only 2 warnings? ie: 3rd strike you're out

[Faustus]

I think the idea here is not to be to rough. Everyone slips up sometimes, personally I'd rather error on the side of caution if the alternative is to ban someone who made a couple of honst mistakes over a period of time. Heck I got banned form a forum last week (this one VERY strickly inforces its rules) One little mistake and BAM your gone. That aside if its bad enough we can ban instantly, so the ability is there. We just hope to not have to use it.

[Gazorgan]

5 is probably adequate.
#1 is a "..WTF???" and they go and read the rules.
#2 is a "come on....I didn't ask for wareze"...no you didn't, jsut some nudge-nudge wink-wink files.
#3 they thought thye could get away with it.
#4 is usually the "whoops, I shoulda known better"
#5 is the final flameout for being pissed about #3/4

Whose checking emails of banned people versus new people that sign up?

[tgpo]

Whose checking emails of banned people versus new people that sign up?

I assume the server.

[txpharoah]

It was my idea, but Baldrick had to do all the hard work to impliment it.

If you guys weren't so far away, I'd buy you a beer.
This is long overdue. Good job.

[i_am_dave]

Great idea guys, but..... and there is always a but...

Is there some mechanism to let warnings expire?
Let's say some confused soul gets a couple of warnings against him.
Is this going to be a stain on his permanent record? Or will moderators periodically review offenders and remove warnings from those that have reformed?

[tgpo]

Is this going to be a stain on his permanent record? Or will moderators periodically review offenders and remove warnings from those that have reformed?

We can undo the warning, but there is no way we can monitor the people. That would take far more time than I know I have. So unless Baldrick wants to hire us to do that I highly doubt it.

[i_am_dave]

Maybe the best course of action is to have an offender PM a moderator and ask for forgiveness after some time has passed.

Or Baldrick could program it to decrement the warnings after the offender has posted a fixed number of times, say 100 posts results in an automatic decrement.

He has similar logic in place that allows a user to change his 'Member' after being a member for so long and making posts.

Oh well, the PM to a moderator is probably easiest and most foolproof!

[tgpo]

The posting of a set number probably wouldn't work. Then out test forum would be filled with warned people doing "TESTS" in an attempt to rid themselves of warnings. If a person is sorry, then they can PM, if they don't care, then they don't care. It's all in there hands.

[SatStorm]

Clever idea indeed...
Sometimes, the simpiest things are the best ones!
Excellent!

I hope I won't be banned quick!

[tgpo]

I hope I won't be banned quick!

That's it, you're gone! :P

[txpharoah]

I hope I won't be banned quick!

That's it, you're gone! :P

<- Hey, look. You've already got the "banned" icon.

[0 kewl]

I saw jomo's post ........ It had 1 warning next to it.

GREAT IDEA to whoever came up with it.

I have to agree that this warning system itself is a fairly good idea but CONFIDENTIALITY would make it a great idea. I don't think that allowing everyone to see the warning is a good thing, it is somewhat discriminating to say the least, IMHO. While in jomo's case it would probably make no difference whether the warning is visible or not since it looks like a case of shameless advertising, i strongly believe that in most other cases it would be quite difficult for a "warned" person to come and post here again since it would be visible to everyone that the person has "sinned". His/her posts wouldn't be regarded as as serious or valuable as everyone else's regardless of how open-minded or non-discriminating we think we are.

I am quite sure there are some other (confidential) ways to warn users, sort of a warning visible only to administrator (and maybe moderators). Even in real life (i.e., at work) we get warned by our boss and, ideally, not many other people will now about it (if any). And even then it will be forgotten a few weeks/months later since nobody walks around with a sign saying "i was warned".

But this is Baldrick's site and he sets the rules here, what he says, goes. I, personally, would love to see some adjustments to this warning policy soon.


Regards

[BJ_M]

i see 100's of people driving around with parking tickets on thier windshield ... doesnt seem to bother them much ..

[0 kewl]

i see 100's of people driving around with parking tickets on thier windshield ... doesnt seem to bother them much ..

It is, obviously, their choice. The ones who don't want to be seen with one take them off. In our case the user has no choice. I just thought it would be more sensible to make it confidential if it isn't too much of a hassle for Baldrick. 8)

[housepig]

I don't know... I think that before the mods even get involved, other users will jump on someone who is breaking the rules, so by the time a mod gets there it's probably a moot point - other members have already pointed out the problem, in public.

I also disagree with the idea that someone who is warned will lose status and be ignored or not be able to contribute. Everybody was a newbie once - everyone makes a couple of mistakes. But to make 5 mistakes in a row would be pretty hard - more likely it's someone with no regard for the rules of the board.

I would judge someone by the preponderance of thier posts - if they have 3 warnings in 10 posts, and the other 7 posts are "me too", yeah, I'm probably not going to assign much weight to them. But 3 warnings in 200 posts, with some good info in there - I'd give them the benefit of the doubt.

[Baldrick]

I have changed the warnings to yellow cards.
https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=165187

But I can easily make it confidential (only mods and admins can see the warnings/cards) if you all would like that instead. If so and you would like to know if a user have received any warnings you can always read all the users posts and check for the blue "formal warning"-text(the user cannot remove this).

[BJ_M]

i think public viewing of warning cards is not a bad thing ... of course others may not like that ..

[vitualis]

I think public "yellow cards" are not necessarily a bad thing either...

However, would it be possible to implement for the "yellow cards to expire"? For example, perhaps at the beginning of every month, one yellow card will be removed (if none added within last month).

Then, wayward newbies won't be "stained" forever with public warnings long past their relevance.

Regards.

[shoozleboy]

From what I have seen so far, you have to step out of line pretty far to get the actual 'yellow card' warning and that minor/first occurances have just been policed by the other users pretty well.

So, the display of the yellow cards shouldn't bother anyone who doesn't plan on getting out of line with Baldrick's wishes and common sense rules.

I say keep 'em on there, if the user has nothing to hide, then it's a moot point.

As far as this being a democracy - it's Baldrick's home, not ours... so his rules are king as far as I'm concerned. And honestly, the rules set forth are pretty much common sense... he doesn't want anything illegal being transacted here, there are other places for those things and those users who are looking for trouble - go there if that's what you want.

I have found this place to be invaluable as far as information for video creation/capture/editing/burning.... that's what it is here for, exchanging ideas.

[0 kewl]

I don't know... I think that before the mods even get involved, other users will jump on someone who is breaking the rules, so by the time a mod gets there it's probably a moot point - other members have already pointed out the problem, in public.

Yes, but it is only a fraction of users that will be aware of the incident. I don't think that people who never read it (the offending thread) or newbies who join after really need to SEE that warning.

I also disagree with the idea that someone who is warned will lose status and be ignored or not be able to contribute. Everybody was a newbie once - everyone makes a couple of mistakes. But to make 5 mistakes in a row would be pretty hard - more likely it's someone with no regard for the rules of the board.

Yes, they will not necessarily lose status or be ignored. However, everyone is different. I would find it difficult not to judge a "sinner" by the amount of warnings he had. Why should we risk it if we can avoid it?

I would judge someone by the preponderance of thier posts - if they have 3 warnings in 10 posts, and the other 7 posts are "me too", yeah, I'm probably not going to assign much weight to them. But 3 warnings in 200 posts, with some good info in there - I'd give them the benefit of the doubt.

That's the problem - you shouldn't judge. What if the person slipped up and the next seven times is trying to relate to others to make friends? You wouldn't assign much weight to them?

Regarding the responses of 2 moderators above - shouldn't we just focuse on the fact that the new warning system will work regardless of the fact whether it is confidential or not? The "sinner" him/herself and administrator/moderators will know how many warnings have been given, why should everyone else know? It will be effective and will not make those that slip up feel bad if it is confidential. I understand that visible warnings will contribute to "visually improved" site but, after all, we are dealing with people. I, personally, believe that if it makes even 1 person feel uncomfortable to have a visible warning next to his/her name then it is discriminating and should be avoided by all costs. Just my opinion.

[j1d10t]

Quote from shoozleboy:
"As far as this being a democracy - it's Baldrick's home, not ours... so his rules are king as far as I'm concerned. And honestly, the rules set forth are pretty much common sense... he doesn't want anything illegal being transacted here, there are other places for those things and those users who are looking for trouble - go there if that's what you want."

Here-here!

"I have found this place to be invaluable as far as information for video creation/capture/editing/burning.... that's what it is here for, exchanging ideas."

Couldn't have said it better myself

[SatStorm]

I suggest this:
Fist and second warning, private
Third, fourth: visible.
Fifth: Banned.
And I think a system that "deletes" the yellow cards from noty users, has to have a treshold of 6 months!

[MOVIEGEEK]

Great idea Baldrick et al,but I agree with twodogs,three strikes and the offender should be banned.
There would only be one way to be reinstated....if the offender makes a donation to dvdrhelp.com.