How does your warning system work?

[John]

How does your warning/infraction system work? I generally like to use one like this.

1st offense: Friendly reminder/PM
2nd offense: Warning/infraction
3rd offense: Warning/infraction and moderator approval for posts
4th offense: Suspension/permanent ban
5th offense: Permanent ban (generally they don't get that far)

I think it's important to have a flexible system in place. So moderators know what to do in case of a rule breaking member, but also so you can deal with everything on a case by case basis.

 

[Deleted member 17779]

1st offense: Friendly reminder
2nd offense: Warning on their warning bar
3rd offense: A second warning on their warning bar
4th offense: A suspension and a third warning on their warning bar
5th offense: A fourth warning and a suspension (generally a little longer suspension than the first one). They are also put on moderator approval for posts.
6th offense: This time they've received their 5th and final warning. They now will be permanently banned from the forum.

 

[Lorcan]

Mine would be based on a case by case basis, not everything is going to be the same, a flame war might be over something silly and then another one might be of something serious, but normally I give a friendly reminder and then a warning and Im a fan of mod queues and temp bans, I only use permanent bans for spammers.

 

[Cosmic]

I typically use one which looks like the following:

Rude Comments: Friendly Reminder
Flaming: Warning
Advertising: Friendly Reminder
Spam Bot: Permanent Ban
Disregarding a Reminder: Warning
Disregarding a Warning: Moderator Queue
Re-Offense After Removal from Mod Queue: Moderator Queue
Illegal Activity: Permanent Ban

So basically, it goes: Reminder -> Warning -> Moderator Queue, although some offenses start off with a warning or mod queue, and some offenses go straight to permaban.

Instead of using infractions, I typically use an "Offense: Response" type model. It's a lot more flexible in my opinion.

 

[Gio]

Instead of using infractions, I typically use an "Offense: Response" type model. It's a lot more flexible in my opinion.

So like Infraction: Reason(Flaming)?

 

[Cosmic]

Instead of using infractions, I typically use an "Offense: Response" type model. It's a lot more flexible in my opinion.

So like Infraction: Reason(Flaming)?

What I mean is that there aren't really warning points, or anything like that. The idea is that for each possible offense which a member can commit, there is a defined response, regardless of what past offenses they have committed. So, if someone flames, they will always be given a warning. However, if they disregard that warning and flame again, they are given mod queue (because disregarding a warning is considered an offense).

It seems a lot more simple to me than infractions, and also allows room for a lot more discretion. One issue with infractions is that if someone flames someone else and gets 10 infraction points, then they commit something trivial like bumping their thread too often, they can get banned for the trivial offense, even though they may have not received a warning not to do that type of thing.

Here are a few examples of what could happen:

User A:
- Posted rude messages, given friendly reminder. 1/1/15
- Ignored friendly reminder and posted rude messaged, given warning. 1/2/15
- Advertised website. Given friendly reminder. 1/20/15
- Ignored warning not to post rude message, added to moderator queue. 1/30/15

User B:
- Flamed another member, given warning. 1/1/15
- Ignored warning not to flame, added to mod queue. 1/2/15
- Removed from mod queue due to good behavior. 3/1/15
- ignored moderator queue. Re-added. 3/3/15.

So, as you can see, each time a user re-offends, they are not punished for the offense, but for ignoring the warning (which comes with a harsher punishment than just committing the offense itself). This way, you just have to keep up with what warnings someone has on record, and which they should still be cognizant of. You don't have to fool around with warning points. 🙂

Also, I think it increases the value of a warning. Instead of asking "how many points does this person have," you ask "what has this person been told not to do before, and are they ignoring those instructions?"

 

[Agent_Zero]

I have not really utilized the warning system much. I have found some creative ways to deal with members who are acting inappropriately. They do not seem to care about warnings and for some it seems to just make them want to stir the pot more.

I have used the warnings only for record keeping reasons. When I see a member is causing a lot of trouble I add a warning to the system and that links to their account so it is tracked for future reference.

I have implemented a quarantine status if a member is causing trouble and needs intervention. This creates a ribbon banner under their name and restricts their ability to post in the forums. They have only publicly hidden forum they can access to post in. This forum is called the Drama Llama and trapping members there seems to be effective. They can still post and free members of the site can still comment to their posts but they are still able to get away from them. If they continue to cause trouble that requires intervention I have stepped in to ban a couple members.

I also have a photo share ban. This disables a member from being able to post images if that is an issue they are using inappropriately. This has been an issue on my site and I am happy to have this tool.

 

[Deleted member 25872]

1st offense: Friendly PM
2nd offense: Official Board Warning
3rd offense: Temporary Ban
4th offense: Permanent Ban

 

[Ash]

It all depends on the actions of the user and I don't really have a set system for warmings or bans. If it wasn't a big problem then it will be a warning but if it is more severe then it will be a ban. I personally don't believe in temporary bans