18 replies to this topic

[Servant of the Lord]

Hey, this just appeared for me under my avatar. Is that a bug, or something that everyone has?

[Stormynature]

I got it as well. So am going with bug or new feature added.

[Michael Tanczos]

http://www.gamedev.net/blog/1037/entry-2254297-system-change-viewing-your-warning-level/

[Stormynature]

I like the idea but gosh darn it...I feel like I have ascended the throne of Dionysius II and have a sword held only by the hair of a horse suspended above my head. Of course I only live in fear due to my dark sense of humour and the foreknowledge that it is the year 2012.

[Servant of the Lord]

http://www.gamedev.n...-warning-level/

Oh, thanks - I missed that post. I don't know why I haven't yet subscribed to that journal.

I like the idea but gosh darn it...I feel like I have ascended the throne of Dionysius II and have a sword held only by the hair of a horse suspended above my head. Of course I only live in fear due to my dark sense of humour and the foreknowledge that it is the year 2012.

Hey, I'm just glad my prior warning histories (from when I was much younger) hasn't been transferred from the old forum software.

[rip-off]

Hey, I'm just glad my prior warning histories (from when I was much younger) hasn't been transferred from the old forum software.

Hmm, you must have been overlooked. I'll take a look through the archives and rectify this.

[Cornstalks]

I was going to make a suggestion, but just saw shadowisadog made the same suggestion I was going to in Gaiiden's journal. Suggestion: don't show the Warn Status on every post if it's at 0. "Warn Status" has a negative connotation with it, and even though I have no warnings, I seriously asked "what did I do wrong?" only to check and see that "Oh, nothing." But I still ask the question every time I see it. If it's at zero, let me see that in my profile. But I don't need to be reminded of that on every single post of mine.

If, however, it's not at zero, leave it on each post.

[mdwh]

Never mind not just hiding it for people with no warnings - if this is really "primarily a moderator tool", can it be turned off even if people do have warnings?

I speak as someone with no warnings - but it strikes me as rather poor if someone has to be reminded every single time they come to this site, of one bad experience with a mod (whether justified or not), perhaps years ago (especially as it evidently never goes down).

It also comes across as teaching people like schoolchildren. I'm a mod on a site - we get a much better response if we PM and talk to people about what's gone wrong, rather than just a robotic "YOU HAVE RECEIVED A WARNING" that then forever gets tarred on their profile/posts that they forever have to look at. I can see that some sort of system might be a useful tool for moderators, e.g., to mark out someone who's been causing a lot of trouble[*], but then there's no need for the person to see that all the time, unless you really intend that to be some kind of humiliation punishment.

I'd even go so far as to argue that there's no reason for users to know what their "warning level" is at all, even if they look - it just risks encouraging resentment, a sense of unfairness, and a feeling that mods would just rather slap out warnings than engage with users like adults.

* - But you'd better take into account the time period - someone might accumulate warnings over a period of years because they have some bad experiences, but do post a lot here in general, is different to a troll who's only just joined, and quickly built up the same number of warnings.

[Cornstalks]

I speak as someone with no warnings - but it strikes me as rather poor if someone has to be reminded every single time they come to this site, of one bad experience with a mod (whether justified or not), perhaps years ago (especially as it evidently never goes down).

It does go down. Read Gaiiden's journal entry about it. It just doesn't go down automatically. If you redeem yourself, a mod can (and I'm sure they will) lower it.

[Gaiiden]

there's no need for the person to see that all the time, unless you really intend that to be some kind of humiliation punishment.

This is information only visible to you and the mods, and it's information you should remain aware of if you don't want to incur further warnings.

I'd even go so far as to argue that there's no reason for users to know what their "warning level" is at all, even if they look - it just risks encouraging resentment, a sense of unfairness, and a feeling that mods would just rather slap out warnings than engage with users like adults.

That is not how the warning system is used. I would suggest you read the blog post I made that Mike linked to in his post above for a better understanding. We don't "slap out warnings" we notifiy and talk with you about them.

[jbadams]

a feeling that mods would just rather slap out warnings than engage with users like adults.

From my perspective, the warning system is a way of engaging our users in an adult fashion, whilst also providing a history to be taken into account for future moderation.

When you are issued with a warning, you will also receive a private message detailing exactly why a warning is being issued and allowing you to reply and further discuss the matter with the moderator in question. Warnings are not a punishment -- they're exactly what it says on the tin -- a warning that some behaviour was considered unacceptable and should not be repeated in future, and if you receive one you receive a message personally written by the moderator in question, not some automated notification.

But you'd better take into account the time period

Absolutely -- as mentioned above, we do not consider issuing a warning to be a punishment -- but we do take warning history into account when considering options that might limit a user's posting privileges. Not only the time period, but also the types of any previous warnings are taken into account, and unless the user has engaged in some unusually bad activity they will not be suspended until they have received multiple warnings for the same errant behaviour.


The warning system is also important to allow us to try to be consistent in our moderation -- I believe we currently have more than 70 moderators active on the site, and without a clear record of moderation actions it would be near-impossible for any given moderator to know how to correctly handle a situation -- or for that matter whether another moderator is already dealing with a particular problem.

Lastly, by officially recording warnings, we create a clear record of what has been done, which moderator carried out the actions, and what reasons they stated for the actions. If a user feels they have been treated unfairly this allows them to go to the senior moderators, a member of site staff, or another moderator they trust to discuss the matter without it turning into a "he said, she said" finger-pointing match where it isn't clear what really happened. I feel that by opening up the warning history page to users as we have done the system gains more transparency -- you can see for yourself exactly which moderator(s) have issued warnings as well as what they were for, and there's no concern that you're being persecuted for unknown reasons.


I do personally think it would be nice if a) warning levels were not shown to users who do not currently have one, and b) warning levels expired automatically over some length of time. As mentioned above, we will lower warning levels manually if we come across them and feel it is deserved, but it would probably be nice for them to go away automatically (whilst still leaving a note in the history page mind you!) if a mod hasn't noticed in order to do so manually.

[samoth]

I do personally think it would be nice if a) warning levels were not shown to users who do not currently have one, and b) warning levels expired automatically over some length of time. As mentioned above, we will lower warning levels manually if we come across them and feel it is deserved, but it would probably be nice for them to go away automatically (whilst still leaving a note in the history page mind you!) if a mod hasn't noticed in order to do so manually.

My thinking exactly. When I first saw this feature, my initial reaction what "What the...? Why do I have a warning, for what?". Information that isn't information just shouldn't show, even if you're the only person to see it. This is as if the the police placed a sign into your front yard reading "you are not a child abuser and wife beater". Of course the sign would face away from the street, but you still have to see it every day.

Also, no automatic expiration over time is probably more harmful than useful.

What does it mean for a user who deservedly gets a warning? Maybe it works in a "oh, I need to behave better" way. But most probably, it will only trigger a stronger reaction.

What does it mean for a user who undeservedly gets a warning, and what if it isn't reset manually later (Yes, moderators are only humans, too... they are not perfect. This can happen.)? From that user's point of view, it means "great, now I'm forever tainted because some jerk pressed the button, and I'll never get rid of it". Likely that user will either show less helpful behaviour in the future or will just leave the community. Which may or may not be a substantial loss.

On the other hand, if for example your warning level automatically went down by 1 point (or whatever the units are?) after say 3 months without an incident, people would have an incentive for changing behaviour and needed not fear being tained forever.

[mdwh]

I did read the post, but just to make some comments:

It does go down. Read Gaiiden's journal entry about it. It just doesn't go down automatically. If you redeem yourself, a mod can (and I'm sure they will) lower it.

Going down / expiring automatically (as jbadams also says would be nice) would be a good thing. Otherwise it seems a bit random as to whether it's noticed that a period of time has passed (I mean, how does one "redeem" oneself, other than not doing it again for a period of time?)

@Gaiiden , jbadams : This might not be how the system is intended, but what it said is nonetheless how I can see it coming across. If I'm the only one on Gamedev who thinks that, then fair enough. But if on the otherhand there's a common feeling, then it's a valid point, no matter how it was intended.

This is information only visible to you and the mods, and it's information you should remain aware of if you don't want to incur further warnings.

Fair enough to keep the history available, but do people need to be reminded every single time they see their posts? This is what I mean by treating people as children.

@jbadams I don't object to keeping a history, or the warnings used as a moderator tool. The point I was raising was how much of a use this is to the user themselves, and do they need to see it branded onto their posts? (Especially as it's currently permanent.)

Information that isn't information just shouldn't show, even if you're the only person to see it. This is as if the the police placed a sign into your front yard reading "you are not a child abuser and wife beater". Of course the sign would face away from the street, but you still have to see it every day.

Indeed. And I also think it's a fair point to ask if this is fair to wear that sign even for those people who have committed such a crime?

We might not care about such people - but it does strike me as humiliation or unnecessary rather than a justified punishment.

On the other hand, if for example your warning level automatically went down by 1 point (or whatever the units are?) after say 3 months without an incident, people would have an incentive for changing behaviour and needed not fear being tained forever.

If people are really a problem continually, then ultimately they need to be banned. But people who don't care about having a warning every so often, probably wouldn't care about warnings that never expired, anyway.

But I think this is part of the problem that comes with tying "what the person sees" with "what the mods see". For mods, it's reasonable that you might want to see the full history, and that shouldn't disappear. But for the users, it isn't so reasonable. If these weren't tied together, you wouldn't have this problem.

[Servant of the Lord]

I do personally think it would be nice if a) warning levels were not shown to users who do not currently have one, and b) warning levels expired automatically over some length of time. As mentioned above, we will lower warning levels manually if we come across them and feel it is deserved, but it would probably be nice for them to go away automatically (whilst still leaving a note in the history page mind you!) if a mod hasn't noticed in order to do so manually.

I'd prefer:
A) Warning levels are not shown to users under their avatar if the warning level is zero, regardless of past non-zero warning levels. (But show it under the avatar if it is currently non-zero)
B) Warning notes are permanently visible to the user by a link in their profile even when zero.
C) Warning levels expire after some length of time, like the old forum software used to. I vaguely recall it being 45 days per 10%, but am probably mistaken there.

[phantom]

we get a much better response if we PM and talk to people about what's gone wrong, rather than just a robotic "YOU HAVE RECEIVED A WARNING" that then forever gets tarred on their profile/posts that they forever have to look at.

Something which hasn't been mentioned is that often warnings are at least the 2rd level of interaction when a user does something wrong; more often than not a mod will ask someone to stop what they are doing, sometimes via PM, sometimes in public and sometimes first one then the other BEFORE you get to a warning point.

"Warnings" are very much a "ok, we've tried to be nice about this and now it is on record for good" system.

[Michael Tanczos]

As a footnote in this conversation, we have made a change that will no longer show 'warn status' if you have done nothing wrong.

[Cornstalks]

As a footnote in this conversation, we have made a change that will no longer show 'warn status' if you have done nothing wrong.

Yay!

[TiagoCosta]

Hi, I just noticed that I've a warning level of 10% but no moderator message... Can a moderator tell me what I did wrong so I don't do that again? Thanks

[jbadams]

Just a quick note to let you know we're looking into it for you, and we'll get back to you after checking in with all the moderators.