Denied Prioritize Verbal Warns Before /warn

I've been told that verbal warns are by staff discretion, and aren't necessarily an action that needs to take place. I'm suggesting that in most events a verbal warn must happen whether globally or in pm before a /warn takes place. I'm not saying that there are staff members that don't do this, as there are many wonderful members of staff that do, I'm rather saying that all staff members must do it as well. Verbal warns are much less threatening than any other form of staff intervention, and can give people the opportunity to argue for their actions, prevents the creation of records that don't need to be created, prevents bans and warns that shouldn't even happen, verbal bans worked in the past, and people will learn to stop even sooner than with any other form of staff intervention, especially /warn. Verbal warns are an action that must be taken by staff, and should be an essential part of the action that staff takes when a rule is broken in chat rather than an action that can be taken, regardless of if it is in global chat or pm.

1. Prevents unnecessary records from being created. With /warns, people are given a record that need not be there in the first place. People don't need to be warned if mods can simply tell them in chat what they did wrong and why. If players aren't educated on what they did wrong, they'll repeat it in the future. As well, the fact that unnecessary records are created can irritate the player and incite them to continue their streak of illegal actions, which altogether is an undesirable situation. These warn records do not need to happen at all if mods simply take the time to inform them! Not at all! However, I do not think said warn records should disappear. Rather, they should happen after an attempt to inform the player, so to have at least given them an opportunity to learn and understand what they did wrong, or to argue their thought process.

2. Prevents false bans and warns from happening. Similar to the previous point, but a bit different. If verbal warns become prioritized, people will be given the chance to argue for their point of view and will be able to prevent false records from being created. Especially with newer moderators; many of them are great, however, many of them act quickly or in a way that they think is proper but rather is improper. In recent times this has generated much distaste for staff in general; I think many staff members are great, but to say that the community as a whole just loves the staff would be false. If people get the chance to prevent themselves from receiving false warns, the truth is that the staff as a whole will become more liked. I am an inactive player, but even I often see people calling "bs" on warns or actions taken by staff as a whole. I know so first hand.

3. Verbal warns as a priority worked well back in the day. As far as I was able to tell, for the many years before verbal warns being at staff's discretion rather than a priority, the system worked well. There was a general line of things that would happen to a player; repeated verbal warns, kick, ban. This system worked well in my opinion, as doing so prevented the unnecessary records that we have today, and also allowed for a higher opinion of the staff as well. People were given the chance to argue for their point, and people were allowed to pitch in to said point and support or refute it. This allowed for the prevention of unwarranted bans as players were given the chance to tell staff what they thought and were able to either learn or even teach the staff member about the situation. Unnecessary action didn't take place as much either; players were told to stop, and they stopped without needing a record created. I miss the days before /warn, because all I've heard since its inception is complaints about it or people claiming that their warns were unwarranted or not required. I'm not saying that /warn is bad, rather that combined with verbal warns it can become a tool that the community comes to appreciate.

4. People will learn when to stop even quicker. When people are given a verbal warn, they know that they should stop or else something worse will happen. Punishments should start small, and lead up to larger ones. They should not start at "get 7 of these and you'll get temp-banned." People learn to stop when they understand that worse things will happen, but there are people that think the threat of a temp-ban is already bad enough and that they have no reason to halt their actions. It may not be most people, but the fact is that if there is even one person that believes that they have nothing to lose that is one too many. In ban appeals, people are given leniency or lighter sentencing if they lack the history, and that then leads up to worse punishments in the future. In-game it should be like that as well- starting at the small verbal warn, then leading up to the threat of a temp-ban, then a ban. Because the truth is, while the threat of a temp-ban is convincing for some, verbally telling people is much more convincing for some and puts on a much lighter face. I've been told ECC is a child-friendly place. Do you threaten a child when they break the rules for the first time? You tell them what they did wrong and why, and they stop and learn from it or continue and then are given a real punishment.

5. Verbal warns give people the opportunity to argue for their actions, and why what they are doing is legal or that the reasoning behind it is just, and they also allow for education of players and the prevention of rules being broken in the future. If someone is doing something that is breaking the rules, there is a chance that either they thought it was legal or that the purpose behind it was just or wouldn't be warn worthy. As well, many players, such as myself, see that if something illegal is happening in chat while mods are present and no warns or anything occur, then it is alright. Players aren't the judges of what is right or wrong, what crosses the line and what doesn't. Mods are the judges of that. When players get warned because they thought they weren't crossing the line or they thought that what they were doing was perfectly legal, they must be given the chance to fight for their thought process. Without the chance to argue for themselves, ECC is an authoritarian place where people lack the ability to have any freedom of speech. It is irresponsible and immoral to punish someone for something they do not understand or thought they were doing correctly. I'm not saying that people should be able to say what they want, rather they should be able to appeal to the person that warned them and explain why they did it and then the staff member could then refute them and educate them on why such a thing is illegal. To not do so teaches nothing; /warning people teaches absolutely nothing because players simply get something attached to their record without actually understanding what they did wrong, thereby ensuring the possibility of them enacting a similar or completely different situation in the future that is equal in illegality. Reading the rules tells people what is right and wrong, but actually informing people gives them a deeper understanding and ensures that the action will not happen again.

 

Because there are a few things in here to address, i'll just address it as a whole and say noted. Also, thanks for feedback :b

Also, edited the suggestion because I agree that the situations shouldn't just be ban worthy, but I disagree on the situations in question.

I disagree with this to a point. When it's swearing at someone I agree, but when someone genuinely did something bad enough to incite someone to say that I don't think they should be punished simply because of someone else's wrongdoing. I think that in as many situations as possible a verbal warn is necessary because in that specific situation it may be someone who thought it was legal for some reason and verbally warning them educates them on the issue, rather than a /warn that worsens the issue as the person then gets even angrier and still then isn't certain what they did wrong. It might also simply be the way a person jokes around, and I find that it's unfair to give someone a record simply because they didn't know the way they joked around was wrong. If they spam this then obviously they know it's wrong and are just trolling.

However, there are other situations that should be exceptions as well. Such as VIP chat, as there are inactive players that don't know the change that was made to it and aren't given the opportunity to explain themselves or even stop before being given a /warn, thereby inciting them to anger because they genuinely believe that they were within the rules. It could be said that they should know the rules and should be given a /warn, but a verbal warn in this situation works much better as it teaches the person what they did wrong and ensures that they don't do it again, rather than the /warn that confuses and teaches them nothing. More serious things I understand, such as if someone spouts discriminatory comments or tells someone to harm themselves, but when they honestly think they're within the rules I don't think that they deserve a /warn at all as a verbal warn is enough to get the point across while giving the player an opportunity to actually explain themselves.

 

Well, I did say I disagreed to a point.

I understand they're not a punishment. The fact still remains that /warn shouldn't be used liberally, just ask any player that thinks they've been improperly warned. I simply think that verbal warns should come first, then /warn because it gives players the chance to explain themselves. You don't pay a speeding ticket until you've had a chance to appeal the ticket. I don't disagree that /warn should be used, rather I think it should be used either more carefully, after verbal warnings, or even both. I believe that people have the right to explain the situation before someone comes down on them and tells them that they're wrong without giving them a chance to prove otherwise. As well, a /warn from swearing at a player without a mod directly intervening and just telling them up front raises questions for some players because situations aren't always as simple as one would think, such as "Can I swear at my friend jokingly?" "Can I swear in pm?" "Can I swear at all?" "Why is this illegal?" I don't think simply telling someone to swear at another person is enough, I think it should be explained why and they should be given the chance to ask questions before /warns are imposed on them. Not all situations are the same, after all, and to treat them all the same I think is unfair because saying "f**k you" to a friend jokingly is far different from saying it to a staff member.

So yes, I still think /warns should be used first in certain situations, perhaps not just ones that would entitle bans. I just think that most situations should have verbal warns first because I'd rather give a player a chance to explain themselves before imposing "justice" on their actions.