Once again Unofficial Warnings

[North Covenant]

I read the posty region's founder created, and am confused. Enfaru doesn't seem to mind a difference in severity of a warning just the term Unofficial. I see where they are coming from, albeit without the same passion, if it is being recorded and used in decisions it isn't Unofficial it is just a mild offense.

I think both sides, those being warned and those warning, would benifit from "transparency" to use a term from the last post.

Why not just change the name of the warning in fact you could even grow the number of warning types if you'd like. For example

Mild replaces unofficial

Major replaces official

Severe stronger warning

Final ban is imminent cease and desist

[Enfaru]

Thank you and this is exactly where the thread would have ended up I suspect. It's my feeling that the word "Unofficial" leads to an unfair perception that leads to users being put into a false sense of security.

[Drasnia]

Personally, I have no problems with how Moderations does "unofficial warnings." It is really important that they are able to establish a pattern of behavior and, with such a large site and large moderation team, it can be very difficult to do so. There are no penalties for a very occasional unofficial warning for people like myself. (I believe over my time on this site with multiple accounts, I've racked up only two unofficial warnings, one of which was downgraded from an official warning after a successful appeal.)

Unofficial warning only affect rulings with players who are regularly breaking rules. It helps make sure the people who are mild flamers or threadjackers, etc. are actually punished instead of getting ominous loomings and such over and over and over.

TL;DR: If you aren't a rule breaker, there is no reason to fear unofficial warnings.

[North Covenant]

The point of the argument isn't based on fear just a desire for clarity

[Ethel mermania]

I like the idea of unofficial warnings, and knock it offs, not all behaviors need warnings leading to bans, unofficial warnings allow a lessor slap to juse guide the user to the way they should be playing/posting.

If I were to pick on something I don't understand is why don't deat's come with bans. If you do something drastic enough to lose your nation, most of the time a cooling off period should be required.

[Implacable Death]

I like the idea of unofficial warnings, and knock it offs, not all behaviors need warnings leading to bans, unofficial warnings allow a lessor slap to juse guide the user to the way they should be playing/posting.

If I were to pick on something I don't understand is why don't deat's come with bans. If you do something drastic enough to lose your nation, most of the time a cooling off period should be required.

There's no need for unofficial warnings. Either you do something wrong, or you don't. Everybody needs to read the site rules, ignorance is no excuse, not for first timers nor for long timers.

[Luna Amore]

Did a moderator tell you to stop doing something in some shade of red? Best practice is to not do that thing anymore.

Calling it unofficial, mild, extra spicy or super serial doesn't really matter or change anything. Don't do the thing you did to get the warning unofficial or otherwise. If you do, punishments will escalate.

If a cop lets you off with a warning for speeding, are you shocked to get a ticket if you keep speeding?

[USS Monitor]

I definitely need to start giving out extra spicy warnings. That'll definitely wake people up.

[Imperial Union of America]

Did a moderator tell you to stop doing something in some shade of red? Best practice is to not do that thing anymore.

Calling it unofficial, mild, extra spicy or super serial doesn't really matter or change anything. Don't do the thing you did to get the warning unofficial or otherwise. If you do, punishments will escalate.

If a cop lets you off with a warning for speeding, are you shocked to get a ticket if you keep speeding?

Don't make me give you a super extra serial spicy mild warning!

[Lockdownn]

I read the posty region's founder created, and am confused. Enfaru doesn't seem to mind a difference in severity of a warning just the term Unofficial. I see where they are coming from, albeit without the same passion, if it is being recorded and used in decisions it isn't Unofficial it is just a mild offense.

I think both sides, those being warned and those warning, would benifit from "transparency" to use a term from the last post.

Why not just change the name of the warning in fact you could even grow the number of warning types if you'd like. For example

Mild replaces unofficial

Major replaces official

Severe stronger warning

Final ban is imminent cease and desist

In all honesty, this proposed system is overly complicated and needlessly so. The current system is fine the way it is in terms of effectiveness.

[NERVUN]

If I were to pick on something I don't understand is why don't deat's come with bans. If you do something drastic enough to lose your nation, most of the time a cooling off period should be required.

It's something we've gone back and forth on for a bit.

The main problem is one of tech ability. The forum and the Game don't exactly talk to each other as much as we would like to. So if you the player makes a new nation, the ban doesn't automatically transfer over to said new nation.

Which could mean a lot of accidental (Or not so) posting past bans.

[Lockdownn]

If I were to pick on something I don't understand is why don't deat's come with bans. If you do something drastic enough to lose your nation, most of the time a cooling off period should be required.

It's something we've gone back and forth on for a bit.

The main problem is one of tech ability. The forum and the Game don't exactly talk to each other as much as we would like to. So if you the player makes a new nation, the ban doesn't automatically transfer over to said new nation.

Which could mean a lot of accidental (Or not so) posting past bans.

However, I have seen on some occasions the implementation of a DEAT followed by a forum ban.

[NERVUN]

It's something we've gone back and forth on for a bit.

The main problem is one of tech ability. The forum and the Game don't exactly talk to each other as much as we would like to. So if you the player makes a new nation, the ban doesn't automatically transfer over to said new nation.

Which could mean a lot of accidental (Or not so) posting past bans.

However, I have seen on some occasions the implementation of a DEAT followed by a forum ban.

Please see my first sentence.

We HAVE done it multiple times, it's just a matter of some debate on if it's worth it or not because there's no good way to do so automatically.

[Ethel mermania]

If I were to pick on something I don't understand is why don't deat's come with bans. If you do something drastic enough to lose your nation, most of the time a cooling off period should be required.

It's something we've gone back and forth on for a bit.

The main problem is one of tech ability. The forum and the Game don't exactly talk to each other as much as we would like to. So if you the player makes a new nation, the ban doesn't automatically transfer over to said new nation.

Which could mean a lot of accidental (Or not so) posting past bans.

Technical limitations, not love, conquerors all. On the to sides not talking, I do find sometimes I am longed in forumside but not gameside.

If it were easily possible i I can see it not being a hard and fast rule, but ideally I think it is a should be.

[Lockdownn]

However, I have seen on some occasions the implementation of a DEAT followed by a forum ban.

Please see my first sentence.

We HAVE done it multiple times, it's just a matter of some debate on if it's worth it or not because there's no good way to do so automatically.

Apologies, I see what you meant now.

[NERVUN]

It's something we've gone back and forth on for a bit.

The main problem is one of tech ability. The forum and the Game don't exactly talk to each other as much as we would like to. So if you the player makes a new nation, the ban doesn't automatically transfer over to said new nation.

Which could mean a lot of accidental (Or not so) posting past bans.

Technical limitations, not love, conquerors all. On the to sides not talking, I do find sometimes I am longed in forumside but not gameside.

Exactly!

If it were easily possible i I can see it not being a hard and fast rule, but ideally I think it is a should be.

For what it's worth, I agree with you! I would love to have the option, it's just... well, finding a way to DO it that doesn't involve me having to spend the next 24 hours camping every new nation and seeing if it's the guy I DEAT'ed coming back to apply the ban to.

[NERVUN]

Please see my first sentence.

We HAVE done it multiple times, it's just a matter of some debate on if it's worth it or not because there's no good way to do so automatically.

Apologies, I see what you meant now.

No worries. I may not have been clear enough (Damn cold meds are making me loopy(er)).

[Lestreic]

I read the posty region's founder created, and am confused. Enfaru doesn't seem to mind a difference in severity of a warning just the term Unofficial. I see where they are coming from, albeit without the same passion, if it is being recorded and used in decisions it isn't Unofficial it is just a mild offense.

I think both sides, those being warned and those warning, would benifit from "transparency" to use a term from the last post.

Why not just change the name of the warning in fact you could even grow the number of warning types if you'd like. For example

Mild replaces unofficial

Major replaces official

Severe stronger warning

Final ban is imminent cease and desist

In all honesty, this proposed system is overly complicated and needlessly so. The current system is fine the way it is in terms of effectiveness.

To bring this back on topic, a whole scale change was not what I was after, simply a rename (Enfaru here). So instead of calling it unofficial call it a 'Newspaper Thwack'. It's friendly enough and less misleading. That is what I think north was alluding to by recommending the name change.

[Mousebumples]

In all honesty, this proposed system is overly complicated and needlessly so. The current system is fine the way it is in terms of effectiveness.

To bring this back on topic, a whole scale change was not what I was after, simply a rename (Enfaru here). So instead of calling it unofficial call it a 'Newspaper Thwack'. It's friendly enough and less misleading. That is what I think north was alluding to by recommending the name change.

Given that their function and purpose will not change, nor will the way they are stored on your profile change, I will join my colleagues in saying that we could call them "Spotted Cow Warnings" and it wouldn't make a difference. Nothing changes in function, so I fail to see the point.

[Lockdownn]

In all honesty, this proposed system is overly complicated and needlessly so. The current system is fine the way it is in terms of effectiveness.

To bring this back on topic, a whole scale change was not what I was after, simply a rename (Enfaru here). So instead of calling it unofficial call it a 'Newspaper Thwack'. It's friendly enough and less misleading. That is what I think north was alluding to by recommending the name change.

It's unofficial because it doesn't count but it's still recorded.

[Lestreic]

To bring this back on topic, a whole scale change was not what I was after, simply a rename (Enfaru here). So instead of calling it unofficial call it a 'Newspaper Thwack'. It's friendly enough and less misleading. That is what I think north was alluding to by recommending the name change.

It's unofficial because it doesn't count but it's still recorded.

Therefore it counts and various mods have also pointed to the fact that they do count, just on a lesser level.

Unofficial makes it sound as if they don't count even though the mods are acting in an official capacity when handing them out. Thus misleading players into thinking that such a warning was a stern glare with no further action taken. That's the crux of the matter, whether individuals know that they are now being monitored routinely or not.

A simple name change would make it clear that it is actually official, notes are taken and it will be an aggravating circumstance next time. Instead of fostering the current and incorrect perception. Also reply was correct unofficial warnings are treated exactly the same way as actual warnings with regards to information requests. I checked.

Edit.. I am puppeteering because I am on someone else's device and don't know my password...

[Mousebumples]

It's unofficial because it doesn't count but it's still recorded.

Therefore it counts and various mods have also pointed to the fact that they do count, just on a lesser level.

Unofficial makes it sound as if they don't count even though the mods are acting in an official capacity when handing them out. Thus misleading players into thinking that such a warning was a stern glare with no further action taken. That's the crux of the matter, whether individuals know that they are now being monitored routinely or not.

A simple name change would make it clear that it is actually official, notes are taken and it will be an aggravating circumstance next time. Instead of fostering the current and incorrect perception. Also reply was correct unofficial warnings are treated exactly the same way as actual warnings with regards to information requests. I checked.

Edit.. I am puppeteering because I am on someone else's device and don't know my password...

No further action is being taken. We're making a note that you were reminded of XYZ rule, through an unofficial warning. If you continue to do the thing that got you an unofficial, you then get an official warning. And that makes your warning meter go up and will then potentially lead to bans and DEAT, etc., if you refuse to modify your behavior.

It isn't official, no matter how much some people may want to make it seem as such. You will not be DEAT because you have X different unofficials on your file. But, if each of those officials in turn leads to official warning(s), ban(s), a DEAT may be forthcoming.

[Dushan]

No further action is being taken. We're making a note that you were reminded of XYZ rule, through an unofficial warning. If you continue to do the thing that got you an unofficial, you then get an official warning. And that makes your warning meter go up and will then potentially lead to bans and DEAT, etc., if you refuse to modify your behavior.

It isn't official, no matter how much some people may want to make it seem as such. You will not be DEAT because you have X different unofficials on your file. But, if each of those officials in turn leads to official warning(s), ban(s), a DEAT may be forthcoming.

Are official Warnings sanctioned and recorded on a basis of individual Nation or at a Player as a whole? (Assuming there are no severe infrictions)

[Mousebumples]

No further action is being taken. We're making a note that you were reminded of XYZ rule, through an unofficial warning. If you continue to do the thing that got you an unofficial, you then get an official warning. And that makes your warning meter go up[/b] and will then potentially lead to bans and DEAT, etc., if you refuse to modify your behavior.

It isn't official, no matter how much some people may want to make it seem as such. You will not be DEAT because you have X different unofficials on your file. But, if each of those officials in turn leads to official warning(s), ban(s), a DEAT may be forthcoming.

Are the official Warnings sanctioned and recorded on a basis of individual Nation or at a Player as a whole?*

(*assuming no severe or grave infrictions in this case which would likely lead a broader discussion among the Moderators)

What do you mean by "sanctioned" ? We record a number of things about our players, and while we will not reveal all of that information, it includes your warning history, yes - along with bans, etc.

[Enfaru]

Therefore it counts and various mods have also pointed to the fact that they do count, just on a lesser level.

Unofficial makes it sound as if they don't count even though the mods are acting in an official capacity when handing them out. Thus misleading players into thinking that such a warning was a stern glare with no further action taken. That's the crux of the matter, whether individuals know that they are now being monitored routinely or not.

A simple name change would make it clear that it is actually official, notes are taken and it will be an aggravating circumstance next time. Instead of fostering the current and incorrect perception. Also reply was correct unofficial warnings are treated exactly the same way as actual warnings with regards to information requests. I checked.

Edit.. I am puppeteering because I am on someone else's device and don't know my password...

No further action is being taken. We're making a note that you were reminded of XYZ rule, through an unofficial warning. If you continue to do the thing that got you an unofficial, you then get an official warning. And that makes your warning meter go up and will then potentially lead to bans and DEAT, etc., if you refuse to modify your behavior.

It isn't official, no matter how much some people may want to make it seem as such. You will not be DEAT because you have X different unofficials on your file. But, if each of those officials in turn leads to official warning(s), ban(s), a DEAT may be forthcoming.

But you won't be DEAT because you have X different officials on your file either, to paraphrase...even if you max out the warning bar (well, it's not a sure thing anyway). Plenty of mods have said this over the years and it's entirely reasonable, followed up with something along the lines of:

"If you keep getting warned, it's quite likely that your time on NS will be short". Mods have happily suggested that repeated unofficial warnings will lead to actual warnings even though the offence itself may have warranted only a tap on the shoulder. It is not inconceivable then that if they do something wrong that would warrant quite a severe warning, that because of their unofficial warnings that they would be given a short break from the site. (More likely given the election period coming up).

You're arguing that "it isn't official" simply on the basis that that the mods say it isn't official. Can we call a spade a spade?

I won't contradict the idea that an account could be DEAT'd for unofficial warnings, it's rare for an account to be Deat'd with actual warnings, bans are usually called for first and I'm pretty sure Mods don't take such drastic measures simply because someone was teetering on the edge of a warning for a while. (I'd be dead a loooong time ago).

My point here is that the distinction between official and unofficial has no bearing on whether it is counted. My only problem is that Unofficial implies that such matters do not count against you later...which is why I'm on a "Crusade" (allegedly *glares at Voice of Mod*, I'm not bitter about that at all) to put forwards the argument for a change in terminology.

No further action is being taken. We're making a note that you were reminded of XYZ rule, through an unofficial warning. If you continue to do the thing that got you an unofficial, you then get an official warning. And that makes your warning meter go up and will then potentially lead to bans and DEAT, etc., if you refuse to modify your behavior.

It isn't official, no matter how much some people may want to make it seem as such. You will not be DEAT because you have X different unofficials on your file. But, if each of those officials in turn leads to official warning(s), ban(s), a DEAT may be forthcoming.

Are official Warnings sanctioned and recorded on a basis of individual Nation or at a Player as a whole? (Assuming there are no severe infrictions)

Every time a mod "unofficially" warns you, the matter is recorded and held against you later. < Less likely to get a ban because of multiples than an official warning.
Every time a mod officially warns you (with big red warning), the matter is recorded and held against you later. < More likely to get a ban because of multiples than an unofficial warning.

All warnings apply to the player and not actually to the nation (otherwise Delete-on-Sight would not apply), doesn't matter how many puppets you have. If you gain a warning with CharlieHazANation and promptly decide to break a rule with CharlieHazASecondNation... pretty sure your warning from your other account is going to apply.