Penalties x2

I have Sherry Lynn's blessing to start this thread provided we stay on course.

So again I'll open up the discussion for penalties.

Before times were lenient and people got away with a lot. Then times got tough and we got cracked down on (not saying this is a bad thing, just fact).

So now it's seems kind of in limbo area.. and I wonder - do we always need multiple warnings before a penalty is issued?

My thought - if a person is skirting along the disrespect line (or any other rule), a warning sounds right. If it's clear-cut rule breaking (calling someone a name etc) there should be a penalty issued. I figure the warning there is in every forum - the rules thread.

Right now it seems sometimes there are warnings, sometimes penalties (rare) and sometimes deleted posts. I think edited posts, especially lately, have been done well in each instance (the ones I've seen both sides of anyhow). Like I said in the other thread, I've been on both sides of the aisle and I know how frustrating it is to be a mod and deal with crap constantly. But as a member I also see how it looks like when talking to people we sometimes tiptoe, sometimes not. I guess I'd like to see mods reasoning for multiple warnings - is it because people always asked for it?

If so, do people still think we should get multiple warnings, even if it's a clear cut rule being broken?

I think first the whole reasoning and pointing fingers at someone who wasn't penalized doing the same once (god only knows when) and using this as a way of getting around the rules and getting away with more breaking should stop. we've all gotten away with too much at some point of the other however we should say that starting now for example, rules would be enforced and no more bringing of who did what and wasn't treated the same. It's not the person's who's being insulted fault that in another incident someone got away, that should be supposedly a mistake and not grounds to just make it normal attitude.

As to penalties and warnings, I think warning is good when there is an argument but not explicit disrespect. and anything that would be penalized on the main boards should be subject to penalization when it comes to pms. In other words, same rules.

I think you have both summed it up nicely.

Since we've said that we're going to stop warning so much, there have actually been very few incidents where penalties were called for. Deterrent effect?

That could be. I don't think mods should be heavy handed, but at the same time they shouldn't issue 5 warnings for the same thing to the same members all the time. Just my two pennies.

I don't think enough time has passed to really compare, Sibs, lets not jinx it. xD

That's true. Statement recanted!

PnQ seems to have come a long way from the teen takeover of the chatroom. All that needs to be determined is how much quality we as members are willing to sacrifice for quantity Quality members and mods that left without saying go to hell to nobody

We are a diverse group that can go from a welcoming committee to discussing how we can humiliate our next victim with penaties . Am I the only one honest enough to admit to the humor of the human side of PQ Theology

My thoughts on this are simple, if you knowingly break a rule, you receive punishment that matches the broken rule. Plain and simple. We aren't running a Chicago style government here. Reguardless of your age, years on the site, past accomplishments and even if you are a moderator, each individual should be held responsible for his or her actions. Moderators must be consistent with their actions and if not, such as two people break the same rule and get different punishments, then the moderators must be held accountable. Also, I know the mods are a team, but they must call each other out when another breaks a rule.

Nobody here is better than the rules, and that's how it should be.

There's nothing in this thread that I disagree with. I hope if I'm inconsistent or unfair, members and mods alike feel they can safely mention it to me. There are a couple members I leave to the other mods to moderate. Everyone else I try, and will try harder, to treat equally. In the future if I see a rule being broken, there will be no warnings, just penalties. I don't want anyone to get automatically suspended for a series of minor offenses, so just be careful to follow the rules ok guys? Maybe reread them from time to time to jog your memories. Can't hurt.

In all honesty, mods shouldn't have to issue any kind of warning. All members agreed upon the rules and regulations of the site at the time of their account creation.

Need there be more than that? After all, you all clicked on the 'I agree to the terms and conditions' button at the time of signing up.

But then again, if there must be a warning issued, then it should only be done once, not 500 times. One warning, and then the next infraction equals a penalty. Period! It's that simple.

I think, to keep everything as fair and balanced as possible, Mods should stick to a system of punishments.

3 strikes and you're out, or one warning then penalty box. It doesn't matter so much what the system is, only that you all stick to it and everyone gets the same treatment.

Joe makes a good point, we did all agree to the website rules so do we need multiple warnings? I'd say yes, and here is why.

I've recieved edited posts and warnings from Mods because of their personal feelings on subjects every other Mod i spoke to didn't care about. Mods are people with their own fears, predujices and issues. If you have no system is place to even out their punishments, what you do is leave the website open to the kind of heavy handed bullshit we saw about a year ago when this place was clamped down and a massive amount of the very best memebrs left, or became inactive/retreated off the main boards.

The rules should protect everyone, including people who do mess up. I know there are people on the Mod team who get weird about certain issues, it's natural. We need a layer of warning between them and us.

Why is there a trend for mods to be hardarses now? I don't get it. Lighten up, yall.

We happened to disagree on whether Bob was allowed to post his email as an exception in his ''surprise me'' thread or not, Abby. After a long discussion about whether the rules could be applied differently or vary with each case and person or is it just the severity of penalties that does, the mods made it clear they'll stop being flexible anymore and just follow rules as is. In other words, we're being punished. My fault, too. I merely wanted such flexibility, if allowed, then it should be for all members alike and not only certain ones as exceptions. which, to me, didn't seem like an extreme or impossible request.

I pretty much agree with Kevin's post.

Hmmm, I say maybe giving one warning but once that doesn't work you(mods) give out penalties and also close the thread in which the penalty was given. That's just my little opinion. :P

Close the thread? why? what have the other posters and OP done to deserve such? it's not like it's there fault some broke a rule. You're no fun, Wolfy.

I don't mean this thread. :P I mean in other threads when a rule is clearly broken. If one person starts something then it will probably go downhilll from there. I could be wrong but it was only a idea. :P

I know you did not mean this thread. I was just thinking it would be unfair to the other posters who are posting or have already posted in a thread and the original poster of the thread to have the thread locked due to no fault of their own but the misconduct of one or two members. Just a thought as well.

I see what you are saying. :] I guess as long as those who started the thread and those participating don't get involved in the argument or the breaking of the rules then I would say the thread should be kept open then. :]

You mean as long as they all aren't at each other's throats, right? Oh, I'm fine with locking the thread after a warning in this case.

Yes, that's what I meant. :)

I totally agree then.

"what you do is leave the website open to the kind of heavy handed bullshit we saw about a year ago when this place was clamped down and a massive amount of the very best memebrs left, or became inactive/retreated off the main boards."

Kevin I do believe you are in violation of one of the rules... Rule #12 that has been recently very enforced.

I don't really think it's in violation.. it wasn't something technically handled by the moderators, nor was it one specific member/moderator at the time, but rather the moderation team as a whole at the time. My two pennies.

We were told when something happened not to long ago that kind of talk wouldn't be tolerated either. That's the only reason why I say it now. It does single people out lets be honest, anyone with half a brain knows who those' moderators' were a year ago... If the past is to be left behind it should be left behind for everyone not just selective people.

I don't think rule #12 applies to the generality of Kevin's statement. He was referring to moderation as a whole and it was never a "past error," but the way things were done.
Bob wrote in a recent thread, "I'd trust them a lot more than some that are already mods, but that's neither here or there."
Kevin briefly stated his opinion of the past mod squad, Bob briefly stated his opinion of the current mod squad. Neither opinion is pleasant, but they're too general to be rule breaking. The posts were not edited therefore they were handled fairly, without bias.

Nice try. : )

Haha yes, we read the same manual and talk over most issues amongst each other. Members usually receive warnings before receiving penalty points unless the rule being broken is blatant (plagiarism, derogatory rants). Accumulating 10 penalty points will get you an automatic suspension. With only 1 or 2 penalty points left to make a member reach 10, we tend to be more wary and will issue that decisive last penalty for something "big."
I'm not sure if a member is ever unaware of their potential or resulting penalty points. We try to make it clear.
Penalizing a post on the discussion boards is limited to a +2 point penalty, no more and no less. I guess that was Janis' doing.

You also get an email sent out now when you get a penalty point issued to you, now that Janis fixed that glitch!

All in all I think the rules are pretty cut and dry. If you break them I don't feel warnings are necessary. After all that's the way it was done a year ago. Call it heavy handed, call it whatever you want. But as many of you are pointing out you agreed to the TOU of the site and the forums. I'm actually finding it a bit funny that those who caused so much trouble more then a year ago for the Mod's are now essentially saying they agree with no warnings. Strange.. and ironic..

In any case my humble thoughts are 'you' know the rules, why should there really be 'warnings' if 'you' already know the rules?

There are some rules that require discretion of the mod dealing with the issue. Those aren't as cut and dry. But PM'ing people calling them names aka personally attacking a member isn't allowed. Calling a member names on the main forums. Same thing. No nudity in avatars, personal information etc. Does an 'adult' of this site truly need a warning for a behavior they already know is wrong? I'd like to hope not.

Yesterday I attended a cook out with what I think of as an extended family . I must tell you that I not only felt tolerated I felt welcome to the point I felt loved. In most cases when I have started a topic I usually become the topic so I am inclined to agree with britt that most of the time theses forums are a joke . When I quote others it does not mean I don't have feelings of my own, it just means my feelings match my fellow guest . I never thought it was fair to rate anyone on leadership if you do not intend to let them lead. As long as I can remember rules have been subject to interpretation and change. I don't believe any members expect moderators to be excellent all of the time, or even good , but most of us believe it is possible to be fair. I have not observed a great deal of improvement in the so called debate threads by threatening penalties or an agenda to strike someone out . I guess I have bored you all with my feelings on this matter and intend to enjoy the rest of my independence day.

Those who caused trouble a year or two ago were fighting to have their opinions count in site rulings - freedom to state their opinions and disagree, freedom to add poems to posts and go offtopic, freedom to use minor cuss words if not aimed at anyone, etc. Mostly we wanted our opinions to count. Now they do.
Wanting blatant rule breakers to suffer consequences is not contradictory to what those people, including myself, fought for years ago. To cry hypocrisy... well it just ain't accurate. Matter of opinion I guess.

"the mods made it clear they'll stop being flexible anymore and just follow rules as is. In other words, we're being punished."

I'm not seeing that. I'm seeing members, not mods, wanting the rules to be enforced more strongly and other members supporting that. We're punishing ourselves.

I guess it does seems so in a way, Abby. It is my understanding however that some do not want others to get away with things they themselves didn't since some post were edited due to bringing back past issues. However in doing so they're somehow indeed asking for things to be more strict since like it was mentioned above nothing happened when Bob too said a certain comment. So yes, we're punishing ourselves in a way. pretty sad if you ask me.

I think Kevin here was just giving an example we should avoid for the betterment of the website. It wouldn't be fair to leave his whole post and just pick on this part. I think everyone should be entitled to state his/her opinion without fearing a penalty too provided they didn't flat out insult someone.