-1

 

-1

 

-1

 

instead of just "-1".
I do disagree, staff team usually gives a user 1-3 warnings, based on the situation. Lets say he advertised, he gets 0 warnings, lets say he speaks in auction, he gets 3 warnings. It is all based on the staff members discretion. A staff member can give 2 warnings, while another might give more then that. Staff give out warnings, but it doesnt last forever, it will only last for that day, or until the user and mod who gave warning both forget about it.

 

We do somewhat do this, its just that the regular players dont know about it, we will warn, but as veng has stated not for a whole month, or so on.

I however do think that a official system where all mods would be notified of how many warnings a user gets may help out our server. I say +1

 

-1

 

And your reasoning behind this is...?

 

Just -1 mods give a reasonable amount of warnings already.

 

I just felt it was a bad suggestion aimed at a few users as he felt he was done unjust, totally self centered and not to help the server.
-1

 

Also http://www.ecocitycraft.com/forum/threads/1-comments-on-suggestions.42190/page-2#post-204215
-Just slightly inconsistent.

 

This would actually help the server because some people may continue to do the same thing after being warned many times.

 

Well they are banned!

 

Blowtube may I propose a change?

Possibly add the commands /warn (username) (reason)
And then to see why the user was warned (Staff only command) maybe have it in /seen, or /warnings (username)

I do not think we should immediately ban for it after 3 times, at least depending on the case, as a few staff have pointed out, what if someone spams three times during a month, we all have times were we accidentally spam. Bans would/should still then be at staff discretion, however it will show us how many times a user was warned for this. Maybe even have the whole system for warnings cleared every month, or maybe adding a time thing to the /warn command. Just a few ideas. I would however love to see this added.

 

I'm sure this would make staff's life much, much easier.

 

Please refrain from tagging andrewkm, or wewin, they will look at suggestions when they have time.

 

I agree what you mean, I've had this opinion for a long time now. Users need to realise that they cannot just keep abusing their powers.
Personally I couldn't agree more, we really need something like this, everyday I see time and time again users simply breaking the server rules and the thing that is even worse is that these people seem to be high donators abusing the "powers" that they have from being a donator, every day it is the same thing, a user trolls, they get a warning, a few hours later they do the same thing, I agree that donators should get some lee-way with it but there has to be a line drawn. Over the past few months the situation certainly has been improved which is a good thing and is making this community stronger.

To summarise we do need this implemented, the way I described above wasnt the best

 

My opinion on this suggestion is a bit of the middle-ground, first off, when warnings become more of a "strike system" they then must hold a certain amount of power behind their use. When I warn a user in-game now, Its more of "I'm advising you to stop doing that so I don't need to take severe action", and most users comply with that. The problem with our current system, is that certain users who know the rules also know how to use our current warning system to their advantage.

We also have this system employed on the forums, and to be honest, I do not fully like it. I do not like the fact is a preset value, how could three minor cases warrant more punishment than one major incident? We could assign points, but with a number as low as three, the flexibility of it becomes to low. The positive side of it is though, it saves staff members a lot of time that would be used to find and compile the data, when it is already gathered on a user's page.

While this is a great suggestion, and I could see why some people would like it, I myself do not, this system seems to make the entire process more automated, and may make it harder for everyone to agree on, as what if one user does something wrong in chat, and three moderators issue a warning simultaneously, like we do in global now? Do we add a timer on how fast we could warn a user, does there need to be a two-step confirmation process? It seems like it could be an improvement, but I would rather stick to our current ways.

The change would cause warnings to mean much more than they currently do, when in most cases the warnings we issue are enough to stop most users. The process becomes more automated, which can over complicate a very simple procedure now, and we should be able to continue with our current system, without any major modification.

Tl;dr

Great idea, questionable on how to execute it.