Reading comprehension check......

Will you all please read this statement and tell me what it means to you:

One wrinkle that may not be immediately obvious to some people is that if you already have 9 points or more, a single minor infraction will put you over that 10 point limit, which will automatically trigger a fine and suspension.

It means that if a person has 9 warnings on the books, then gets that one more warning bringing them up to ten, (9 + 1 = 10) the automatic system will kick in and impose a fine and suspension.

The wording is a bit stilted though. And there will still be many who won't (or claim not to) gather from it the meaning you intend. I think it is the " One wrinkle that may not be immediatly obvious..." part.

Eh....it means you can be suspended for a "minor infraction" if you've already had enough "minor infractions" to work your way up to 9 points.

Is that right? Do I get a cookie if I'm right?

I agree with Marjee that the last small infraction triggers an automatic sanction when one has 9 points, and with Cathy that we should get cookies for correct answers. May I have a chocolate chip please?

One wrinkle that may not be immediately obvious to some people is that if you already have 9 points or more, a single minor infraction will put you over that 10 point limit, which will automatically trigger a fine and suspension.

I think you have to look a little deeper to see the real meaning of this statement.

In the Fauna universe, those who will be affected by this statement will most likely read it as:

"Anyone who already has points can be bullied and discriminated against by the evil Webslave and suspended for a minor infraction - even though it really wasn't their fault".

Stay the course...

Don't forget the "or more" clause. If you have 9 through 98 warning points, as it stands now, a single one pointer warning gets you fined and suspended. So yes, it is quite possible for someone with 9 warning points (if they can afford to and willing to do so) get 91 more single warnings, with a fine and suspension each time, before they reach the PERMANENTLY BANNED level of 100 warning points.

Personally, I don't know if I would have the patience to go through a scenario like that, but maybe I would just laugh all the way to the bank instead of losing my patience and banning him/her prematurely.

This is just how the code was written to work. My programmer is in the process of changing the code, and as I have just had to fine and suspend someone, I'm curious about how it will now work since it is only partially completed.

Honestly, this site would just be SO MUCH easier to run (and I use that term loosely) if I just dropped all the rules and took a completely hands off approach to this. Some days that option is almost OVERWHELMINGLY attractive to me.

Well the first involuntary use of the modified warning system appears to have worked as designed. At least up to this point. The member got fined and suspended, the new warning was posted in the private log, and then when the fine was paid, the public warning display was cleared back to zero.

Bear in mind that this is NOT fully implemented yet, so if you have 9 or more warning points, even the one pointers are going to get you fined and suspended. I need to find the time to modify the warning points in such a way that there will be some wiggle room for new members to stumble without getting suspended, yet not so much that someone with an antagonistic bend to their personality will be able to do too much damage before being escorted out the door.

Now, will this be a better system then before? Probably some will think "yes" and some will think "no". But what else is new?

i'm new to these forums and i understand what it says . i also think it is more than fair of you to do this . most places would just ban a person and be done with it . imho you are giving people a huge oppertunity to correct themselves and continue on . personally i see no problem with the way you have it set up . i dont think i could be that tolerant .

Originally Posted by WebSlave

Honestly, this site would just be SO MUCH easier to run (and I use that term loosely) if I just dropped all the rules and took a completely hands off approach to this. Some days that option is almost OVERWHELMINGLY attractive to me.

The landscape would sure look different if that happened.
If there were no rules at all here, those who do not enjoy the slash and burn mentality would leave. News of the abdication of rules would travel and the site would become a sitewide Hell.

The BOI would become meaningless as any opinions opposed by the returning wolf pack would be hounded out of existence. On top of the heap would be the cruel and relentless, the kings of blood sport who would lie in wait for the honest question and then pounce.

Like the Roman spectacles of yore, those who enjoy watching pain and shame, as hard built reputations lay helplessly bleeding in tatters, would boost the stats during the well attended gorefests.

The timid and new who now come to the forums to ask for technical assistance and request the help of the voice of experience would not risk it, so the critters all across the U.S. and beyond would get lesser care than they do now.

But yes, it would be easier.

Originally Posted by WebSlave

Don't forget the "or more" clause. If you have 9 through 98 warning points, as it stands now, a single one pointer warning gets you fined and suspended. So yes, it is quite possible for someone with 9 warning points (if they can afford to and willing to do so) get 91 more single warnings, with a fine and suspension each time, before they reach the PERMANENTLY BANNED level of 100 warning points.

This part actually conveys a little more than your initial statement. It is now more obvious that once you pass 9 warning points, you will be fined and suspended for each and every point you accrue. So if you have 12 now, and get a 3 pointer - fine & suspension. Pay it, come back and be good for a year (or 500 posts, lol), then add an extra line to your signature to earn a single point...single point = fine & suspension.