warning deleted becuase of good behavior. .

[LeetFidle]

i think that the forum had a way of getting rid of warnings.( if there is tell me and then you can lock it) because some people had a bad day and do something stupid. and later regret it. i think there should be an option to get you warning erased by good behavior. say you spam one day. you get a warning, and you learn your lesson. say your good for a month, by not spaming and contributing meaningfull posts. then mabey you will get your warning deleted?

[blackdevil0742]

That's the way it is. They'll remove it when they see that you have been good for a while even if that while is looooooooooooong.

You shouldn't even have to worry if you behave.

[a-4-year-old]

even if that while is looooooooooooong.

Congradulations for understatement of the year! Cue the confetti!

[Will]

well, I think I'm rather well behaved, I even don't flame people in the fisting zone (only B-N).
But I don't think they're gonna ever strip me down of my warning... but htat is not the point of this post and I'm not complaining.

The thing is, some of the beta testers are really behaving immature and go on flame rampages everywhere on the forum, and yet they're somehow invisible to the moderators...

[FliesLikeABrick]

The main thing that keeps warnings from being removed is that they pretty much have to be removed by the moderator who gave it.  Nobody else knows how long ago the warning was given.

This is pretty much the one big downfall of using titles to track warnings instead of a dedicated warning system that could automatically remove the warning after 3-6 months or something

[PaFel]

This is pretty much the one big downfall of using titles to track warnings instead of a dedicated warning system that could automatically remove the warning after 3-6 months or something

So maybe someone could write some type of system like you said.

I guess that if it would be good you would put it into forum (with premission exactili).

[Graham]

There was a system to see who gave what warnings to who in the moderator forum. However the new system is better and its not that hard to remember who you gave a warning to.

[LeetFidle]

the funny thing is, is that i dont know why or who gave me my warning.(am i supposed to get a message?) i asked some mods and they didnt say they did so wth? i wish i had my warning level G back.

[Twistkill]

Thankfully, I am still without a warning, and I intend to keep it that way... I see the problem with the system that Flab mentioned, but perhaps moderators could start posting who got warned, and when, for what reason, in a Staff Forum or something? I know vBulletin has an automatic feature like this, but you guys would obviously have to do it manually.

[FliesLikeABrick]

Moderators are supposed to PM members when they are given a warning, so at the very least the warned member *should* know who warned them

[a-4-year-old]

I should have lost a warning level months before my 3rd one. -_-

[Blue-ninja]

My warning levels got cleared a year after I got my fourth and fifth one.

That's a long time.

[Will]

because you weren't posting bullcrap as much as before... so I think the warning system actually did succed in one way or another.

[a-4-year-old]

The system sucks, he lost 4 warning levels before most people lose 1. And he is still a douchebag.

[Graham]

The system sucks, he lost 4 warning levels before most people lose 1. And he is still a douchebag.

He may be dummy, but we can't warn people for that...


You on the other hand like to annoy people or start up arguments... you are not gonna get any warnings removed for a long time.

[a-4-year-old]

The system sucks, he lost 4 warning levels before most people lose 1. And he is still a douchebag.

He may be dummy, but we can't warn people for that...


You on the other hand like to annoy people or start up arguments... you are not gonna get any warnings removed for a long time.

Well you could TRY

It should have taken him forever to get his warnings removed, being stupid and all.

[Graham]

If we banned people for being stupid then no one would be left... because without a doubt everyone here has at least one person that thinks they are stupid.

[a-4-year-old]

If we banned people for being stupid then no one would be left... because without a doubt everyone here has at least one person that thinks they are stupid.

that isn't what i am saying, I am saying he shouldn't have gone from the last straw to flagrunner just like that. Even if I didn't hate him I would question that.

Plus the whole system is biased anyway.

[Will]

well, I agree with a 4 year old here... don't you just hate when someone posts like 100 posts a day. And he isn't even an administrator or anything.

[Graham]

well, I agree with a 4 year old here... don't you just hate when someone posts like 100 posts a day. And he isn't even an administrator or anything.

So we regulate number of posts per member? That would be greeted with open arms... >.>

[Demonic]

I was the one who removed Blue Ninja's warnings. He had five previously, which should have been enough to get him perma-banned months ago. He had some constructive and nice posts over the mapping section, so I cut them down.

It's not about how much you post, it's about WHAT you post. We're not machines either: none of us is going to keep in mind how long have your warnings been hanging there. If your posts contribute, we will remove the warnings, as the sign that we're noticing a change in behaviour since you got them. Period.

[Will]

well, I agree with a 4 year old here... don't you just hate when someone posts like 100 posts a day. And he isn't even an administrator or anything.

So we regulate number of posts per member? That would be greeted with open arms... >.>

I'm not saying that we should make a limit or something, just that sometimes, half of those posts are bullcrap. Of course we who frequent these forums know who is who, new members could see someone with a huge amount of posts posting shit and they could follow the example.

[Laser Guy]

I was the one who removed Blue Ninja's warnings. He had five previously, which should have been enough to get him perma-banned months ago. He had some constructive and nice posts over the mapping section, so I cut them down.

It's not about how much you post, it's about WHAT you post. We're not machines either: none of us is going to keep in mind how long have your warnings been hanging there. If your posts contribute, we will remove the warnings, as the sign that we're noticing a change in behaviour since you got them. Period.

Thanks for telling me after I had my 1st warning for more than half a year -_-

[Twistkill]

Thanks for telling me after I had my 1st warning for more than half a year -_-

Honestly, it should be self-evident to you that you need to change when you get the warning in the first place. That's the primary reason for it anyway... its message is "Hey you. You did something bad. Change your attitude."

[a-4-year-old]

If people are making really high number of posts per day, a red flag should go up for the moderators just saying "hey, it looks like this guy might be spamming"

[LeetFidle]

well i would like to know why warned me.

[a-4-year-old]

Quoting me in your signature is a death sentence.

[Psycho]

Dont you get a PM when you are warned?

[Graham]

Dont you get a PM when you are warned?

You should get told either in topic or in PM. However sometimes people forget.

[BondJamesBond]

Should create a warning system based on warnings per time ratio or warnings per posts ratio.

[Graham]

Should create a warning system based on warnings per time ratio or warnings per posts ratio.

So when people are about to be banned they just don't post for a while? That kind of system is way to flawed.

[a-4-year-old]

Should create a warning system based on warnings per time ratio or warnings per posts ratio.

So when people are about to be banned they just don't post for a while? That kind of system is way to flawed.

Well if someone goes say 300 posts without getting a warning it should auto reduce one warning.

[Graham]

Should create a warning system based on warnings per time ratio or warnings per posts ratio.

So when people are about to be banned they just don't post for a while? That kind of system is way to flawed.

Well if someone goes say 300 posts without getting a warning it should auto reduce one warning.

If they really have improved it wouldn't take 300 posts to tell...

[a-4-year-old]

Well the system we have now (3-6 months) is lots more than 300 posts

Besides, change can be short lived.

[Graham]

Well the system we have now (3-6 months) is lots more than 300 posts

Besides, change can be short lived.

We don't have a system... most people just learn from the first two warnings. Some people like you don't. Those people get banned. Seems like thats creating a friendlier atmosphere to me.

[a-4-year-old]

I took a look:

Warning I: August 2 2006
Warning II: August 19 2006
Warning III: October 26 2007

It speaks for itself.

[mxyzptlk]

I took a look:

Warning I: August 2 2006
Warning II: August 19 2006
Warning III: October 26 2007

It speaks for itself.

Why would you hate someone if their fat? I think anyone is cool just as long as their not a total asshole.

that policy sucks, you suck. Go die.

Speaks for itself.

[a-4-year-old]

thats exactly why we have the fisting forum.

[Graham]

thats exactly why we have the fisting forum.

You post like that outside the fisting forum though. It's stupidly obvious you will never get a warning removed... I have no idea how you cannot see that...

[a-4-year-old]

thats exactly why we have the fisting forum.

You post like that outside the fisting forum though. It's stupidly obvious you will never get a warning removed... I have no idea how you cannot see that...

Example?
I keep my flaming for the flaming area. in fact; I seem to be one of the few people that use it for what it is for.

[Graham]

http://forums.soldat.pl/index.php?topic=23256.msg270855#msg270855
http://forums.soldat.pl/index.php?topic=23256.msg270846#msg270846
http://forums.soldat.pl/index.php?topic=22743.msg270532#msg270532
http://forums.soldat.pl/index.php?topic=23132.msg270531#msg270531
http://forums.soldat.pl/index.php?topic=23193.msg270230#msg270230
http://forums.soldat.pl/index.php?topic=23132.msg269865#msg269865
http://forums.soldat.pl/index.php?topic=23139.msg269742#msg269742
http://forums.soldat.pl/index.php?topic=23040.msg269520#msg269520

Quick search and got those flames/spam

[a-4-year-old]

http://forums.soldat.pl/index.php?topic=1589.msg270891#msg270891
http://forums.soldat.pl/index.php?topic=23256.msg270835#msg270835
http://forums.soldat.pl/index.php?topic=106.msg270739#msg270739
http://forums.soldat.pl/index.php?topic=23194.msg270212#msg270212
http://forums.soldat.pl/index.php?topic=23081.msg269809#msg269809

Oh my, could that be considered spam? Gasp!

Better hope you don't get a warning, because then it would never get removed!

A number of those were sarcastic/funny more than flame/spam.

If you want to make everyone angels then you will have a hard time finding anyone left on the forum. I didn't get a warning for over a year before my last, which is proof enough that I deserved a level reduction.

[Graham]

1. According to me the picture theard is a no-mod zone... least I didn't mod it unless it got really bad.
2. I actually really liked that link.
3. I know I spam and flame here and there, however I don't troll most of the users here. Also I am not the one complaining about my warnings. Only reason I don't have my old one is because I was a mod for a while.
4. I am not trying to hurt you here. I consider you a buddy. Just trying to help you out,  don't want you to get banned.

[Demonic]

Behave less like a moron and I'll remove your warnings. That's my christmas deal, take it or leave it.

[LeetFidle]

what about me?

[Demonic]

Haven't even seen you before. You should've gotten a PM when you were warned.

[LeetFidle]

i made the topic. and i didnt get a pm.  you can even check my profile as im not lieing.

[Graham]

PM Bricks, he can ask around and mystery solved.

[Demonic]

Judging by your posts, you probably got it for spamming. Just look at the first few pages of your post history, you haven't been a very good boy now have you!

[Chakra]

He posted shite in the wrong sections of the forums on purpose a while ago, so I warned him ...  I figured if he was stupid enough to ask why he got it when he did then he wouldn't be the kind of person i'd care to explain such trivial bollockry to.

And yes, noteworthy good behaviour does warrant warning removals.

[a-4-year-old]

Behave less like a moron and I'll remove your warnings. That's my christmas deal, take it or leave it.

You are going to have to define moron if I am going to hold you to this.

[BondJamesBond]

Part One - Issuing Warnings
Just like it has always been. Person breaks a rule and a mod delivers the warning, simple.

Part Two - Issuing Bans
Also like it has always been.

1 Warning - 2 days
2 Warnings - Week
3 Warnings - Month
4 Warnings - Moderator's Decision
5 Warnings - Permanent

Naturally posting hacks or illegal activity is still a permanent ban.

Part Three - Removing Bans
First warning is permanent - a constant reminder to watch your attitude.

To remove a fourth warning, person must go without warning for (predetermined amount of time) or (number of posts)

To remove a third warning (time slightly less than fourth warning) or (posts slightly less than fourth warning)

And so on.

Maybe such a system can be programmed into the forums or something. That's my suggestion, tweak it however you'd like.

[a-4-year-old]

Your banning system sucks.

Also, don't let the moderator decide on a ban, they could make it nothing to a perm ban on a whim.

Keeping a permanent warning (not ban) isn't a good practice either, since someone who just joins gets a warning for doing something without realizing it is a rule (sig rules, spam, general stupidity ect.) Which is easily a big portion of the warned people, and most of them only get one warning and then none after that.

[BondJamesBond]

Spam and general stupidity is... common sense? Getting a warning for the sig rule shouldn't be too big of a deal, either. It's a quick fix and if your attitude and posts follow the rules, it should be the only warning. I also think many mods don't even warn for that, they just PM.

But the bans are kind of off, I'll agree. Not important here though.

[a-4-year-old]

what could be  spam here could be acceptable on some other forum, and never removing the warning would just be lame.

[Demonic]

But it's so fun keeping you on your toes, with one warning left to perma-banland. Atleast you behave to an extent now!

[Kszchroink]

what could be  spam here could be acceptable on some other forum

actually it's the other way around, judging from the lounge

[mxyzptlk]

what could be  spam here could be acceptable on some other forum

actually it's the other way around, judging from the lounge

Actually, I go to several forums which are much, much, MUCH more lenient than this one. This is well up there in strictness.

[Pie]

Is there actually a system implemented to remove warnings or is it being suggested? I never see people with warnings being removed. Only getting perm banned and creating new accounts.

[Laser Guy]

Is there actually a system implemented to remove warnings or is it being suggested? I never see people with warnings being removed. Only getting perm banned and creating new accounts.

No actual system... It's Moderator vs whole forum... He decides weather or not u get the warning removed... my guess is they flip coins to see weather or not to remove a warning... BUT that's just my theory