Things seem to have reached a pretty even keel around here lately, so I am considering toning down the severity of the warning system somewhat. Just thinking out loud here, so bear with me.
One aspect I am considering changing is the eternal persistence of the public warning log. But HOW to do that is a bit problematical. What I want to do is to have a situation whereby once the warnings accumulate to the level that a member warrants a fine and suspension (which will require them a bit more effort to reach), that the warning points in the publicly viewable display will be cleared and reset back to zero. However a private log will still be maintained for the use of myself and the moderators to consider the track record of someone who appears to be a recurring problem. With more and more members here, trying to remember such things really isn't very easy to do.
But there are some issues with this approach. Is it fair for someone to get a couple of one pointers to have that on their public record pretty much permanently while someone who gets fined and suspended will then have their warning point log cleared? In effect making someone with a lesser number and less severe warnings look more as a problem then someone who habitually gets themselves suspended now and again. At least up to the point that the habitual offender reaches the limit where he/she gets banned permanently.
I suppose I could have my programmer put a CRON routine in place to automatically clear the public warning log every year, but doing something like that could quite probably have December 31 of every year turning this place into a site wide HELL forum, since everyone would know that the warning points that day wouldn't matter as long as they kept the level below the fine and suspension stage. They would be cleared out anyway, so their activities that day really won't matter much. But for myself and the moderators, perhaps it really would be a HELL day for us trying to keep on top of people taking advantage of this loophole in the system.
And what about the accumulated points up to this time? My gut feeling is to just wipe the slate clean, but not to the point that anyone fined and suspended would get their fine cleared out. We have members with from 1 to 96 warning points on here at this time, and everything in between. Just not sure how to handle this one.......
Heck, how do I even address the more moderate view of some things? Is there really any FAIR way to do it? Some one using profanity two times is OK, but the third time gets you fined and suspended? With 27,000 registered members, with each getting two counts of profanity for free, that means potentially 54,000 posts with profanity within them that would be considered acceptable according to the rules.
So, what I want to do is to tone down the handling of honest mistakes in judgement without giving a carte blanche loophope. I know I was harsh upon implementing the crackdown, but I hoped that the results would be worth the method for getting there. I think the point has gotten across to most people, so that part of it does seem to have been accomplished. And there is certainly the issue of a first time offender for things like profanity and threats should just KNOW that such things aren't allowed, or shouldn't be, in a publicly accessible forum such as this. So there will still be cases of a harsh penalty resulting from a first time offense, if myself or the moderators feel it is warranted by the circumstances surrounding the post. Not everyone will agree at all times, but I can't take away this selectivity in how the rules are enforced here by hobbling the moderators with unreasonable stipulations in how they act. I have no reason to doubt their judgement, so yes, there are some aspects of this that are needful of being discretionary.
Honestly, one option I was considering is just abandoning the warning system altogether. Although I believe it has done a lot of good, helping to clean things up here, it can really be a pain in the butt a lot of the times. It generates ill will from a lot of the people who get warned, no matter what the circumstances, since no one likes to be reprimanded in public. On my CornSnakes.com site, my methodology is completely different. Problem members are simply issued 3 day suspensions. If followups are required, the length of time is stretched out as appropriate. But that site is completely different from this one, and unruly members are thankfully a rarity. I never really felt the need to implement the warning system on that site.
Another option I just thought of is to just remove the warning system completely from public scrutiny. It would still be in effect, but no one but myself and the moderators could view the warning system at all. In a way, this may be the better of the choices, since the warning system is really a tool for us to use to keep track of members who appear to be acting in a capacity that does not have the interests of this site in everyone else's best interests. So is there really any need at all for public scrutiny of this management tool? The reason I preferred to have it public from the beginning was because I wanted a public log for all to see to use as an audit of how myself and the moderators react to and treat the members here when issues arise. No behind the scenes penalties or such. Everything out in the open. But perhaps that just is not necessary and is causing more problems then I had hoped it would solve.
Anyway, I'm getting tired of thinking out loud here. I don't expect anything I do with it to be a perfect solution, but since it does appear that the known "bullies" I had some concerns about have gotten the picture, perhaps it is time to tone it down a notch or three. Make the warning system more like it was originally with some latitude for a learning curve on the part of a new member, or one who just lost some control here and there and needs to be reminded of the courtesy and good taste we hope to get from them in their postings.