Member warning system to prevent abuse / spam / off-topic posts

Polonophobia falls under "and what not"... :)

There are a million things people get upset about or are offended by. No member warning system can cover that, and not even the best mod has the time (and nerves) to check everything. In short: a big waste of time.

Which means it's at the end of your list and swept under the carpet.

Yes,I agree with you,I was a host with AOL in late 90s and my basic job was to clean message boards and TOS(terms of service=Ban here)members.It was a voluntary work but fun was tosing:) like a teacher in class giving a kid time out.lol and one gets more authority in the chatrooms when scrolling,punting,cloning and phishing came in.Was all fun until in early 2000 AOL got hit by class action labour law suit by the hosts,and there went the power of the click.Since then most chatroom providers shut down there chats.

Moderating is good to keep people in line but there are lots of defiant species out there and then it becomes a war.But to keep the forum clean of abuse,drugs and sexual solicitations one needs it.But it has to be moderated 24/7.

Don't be silly. Polonophobia or any other of that kind can be filed under xenophobic posts. I thought that was clear. Don't try to create a problem where there is none.

"Polonophobia" is a right wing creation anyway. It's like they're upset that no-one actually hates them, so they invented hatred so they could cry about it.

Interesting, following your train of thought it could well be said that homophobia is a similar creation of the left wing "doves".

Polonophobia is not only a "right-wing" thing. Your far-end left-wing friend Harry may be a good example of it. Another is TheOther, but to a slightly lesser extent.

What, the man who is passionate about Polish restaurants, Polish beer, Polish history and many other Polish things?

I'd call him pseudopatriotphobic, not polonophobic.

I would call him progressivist not polonophobic.

Merged: Admin, get a clue how the warning system should be used...

Again, I got a warning for telling a xenophobic psychopath to shut up, while the psycho got nothing. So, I guess when I will say that for example, people from Liverpool suck dicks for 1 GBP, to some "expat" coming from there, and the "expat" in turn will come up with some "abuse", I can count on the expat getting a warning and I won't get one ? How can I tell if someone else has a warning?

youtube.com/watch?v=XdofmoYcJNE

There's only one expat who posts here, but Po never gets warnings.

Merged: ATT MODS! RE WARNINGS

Why are posters not told over what they are being warned. A fair sampel warning might go: jon357: Today you abused a fellow-poster by calling him a Hairy Ape and that is your first warning.

You posted irrelevant information in the wrong topic and that is your second warning. Three mroe and you're suspended.
Instead you let the warnings pile up and nobody knows why they are getting suspended. That's like Stalinism where the axe fell wherever it might and people didn't know why they were being sent to Siberia or executed.

You can see the warning in your profile. Here are the possible codes:

S - Please do not spam!
A - Please do not abuse other members!
T - Please do not troll!
O - Please do not post off-topic / meaningless messages!
Q - Please avoid excessive / unnecessary quotations!

Might, but since it's something made up, then it's a 'no', isn't it.

As far as I can tell the mods are fairly even handed and do a difficult job.

Got to say that I agree with Po here. One would assume that warnings are given so that posters can change that ways so that they post only in a manner which is acceptable to the administrator. but if posters are not told to which post the administrator objects, it is hard for posters to know what they should not post again. Would it really be so hard for moderators to link to the post that they object to and to which they are giving a warning for?

However, with that said, reading between the lines Po appears to be objecting to being given a warning. Have we not now twice been told that the next time Po gets a warning he will get a ban? I personally would expect to get a lengthy band for telling another poster that the mother should have aborted them, especially when doing so in open forum and therefore going off-topic.


What's the code for "Provocation / devil's advocating"? = T (trolling) Or do you make that up as you go along, just like the reasons why you give certain posters repeated "last" warnings?

The most annoying thing is there's no link to the specific post that brought about a warning. So the person getting warned has no idea what brought the warning on.

I have strong opinions and I express them strongly (and I expect others to do the same) and I've gotten two warnings out of the blue and I have no idea what they were for except maybe the mods (whom I despise openly) were feeling especially stupid that day.

0= off topic posts. Have you ever given a thought that your posts on the main forums had nothing to do with the thread. Perhaps you were feeling especially stupid on those days?

I don't think u should have banned my wulky

OK thanks.
And what's the warning for deliberately changing quotes so people appear to say what they did not say. Or is that not a warning now?

We created the warning system to give all users equal chance and 'benefit of the doubt'; we understand there are times of provocation or 'bad day.' The majority of other sites don't use a warning system at all (it's easier to manage that), BUT they ban offenders right away. If the warnings are something undesirable, we can ban offenders right away.

Or you can just ban posters to get a warning doing something and then get another warning for doing exactly the same thing.

May I suggest to date the warnings and then after one year they get deleted.
That's they way they do it in Atch's kindergarten class. :-)

Feisty! I like it!

But which particular post was off topic in what way? I've had posts that were completely on topic removed to random because......?

And to be frank, why the jihad against thread drift anyway?

It affects, negatively, the all important google rankings.


Stupid enough to not notice how a certain poster gets final warning after final warning after final warning? Sorry to tell you this, but nobody can be that stupid.


And some users (well, one user) are more equal than others.

But didn't someone point out that the random and often just plain wrong thread merging does the same thing?


One brain gooooood, no brain better!

Merged: Should the number of warnings and suspensions be posted against a members profile

I think that this will help guide new posters / members as to the credibility of those making a comment or giving advice on the forum.

Ok let's try it.

Maybe everyone could start with a clean slate, then there would be an incentive to keep ones nose clean as to put it.

Let`s not have warnings at all. Only warning should be, when Admin evaluate complete situation, to send message to the poster in question and warn him. If poster continue to represent problem, Admin should ban him. All other is `old granny system`.

I don't think it would make the slightest bit of difference with some posters. Besides, there is no real incentive to change anyway. A couple of days ban after accruing enough warnings is hardly a deterrent is it? As has been seen time and again.

I Didn't see it as a deterrent but more as a guide as to the credibility of members, I see it as more of an aid for new posters.

I see what you mean, but just because a person has accrued warnings doesn't mean that everything posted is without merit. Many posters here, past and present, have been helpful to others, despite warnings. Reading what is posted is probably the best guide. If members could see each others warning status, it would just lead to arguments and more hassle for the mods.