Thank you for making a suggestion like this lady! I am also tired of seeing this, where some users are warned for dropping the f-bomb, and when they log off a new staff member logs on and warns them for the same thing. Cussing is clearly against the rules, so I don't know why people are getting warnings over and over. Something as serious enough as a ban would make them think about what kind of language they user here on ECC.
+1

 

Great idea! These warns should be on a record and after a certain amount, there should be an auto tempban or something. People are getting off way too easy for this.

 

+1 as more substantial punishments should be given instead of a lame "please don't use that language" over and over.

 

Lady, I have the exact same concerns as what you have expressed here. It is sad that my nieces and nephews (I have 10 of them total that play minecraft and do not play on ECC because of the language, trolling and scams tolerated here.
I totally understand slip ups when talking (such as on TS) but it is just uncalled for when typing. There are clearly better ways to make a point in my humble opinion.
One problem that I see is that there are moderators who cuss on here as well and so it is difficult to enforce something like what you have suggested here as they are obviously biased and more tolerant.
I think you have presented a workable solution (if it would be enforced) to this growing problem.

 

+1 The slip ups that you mentioned are okay, but someone shouldn't be "slipping-up" multiple times per day.


I also think @jffsprs would strongly agree with this suggestion.

 

I remember phys saying that she wanted to drift away from using the /warn system. In my opinion it's one of the only ways of effectively keeping track of misdemeanors. However, phys thought that the /warp system didn't allow the staff team to work together or something along the lines of that.

 

Agree with you completely.
+1

 

Yes!!! +3

 

I disagree with this suggestion mainly due to the recommended course of action suggested on how to implement it. Encouraging the /warn system is not something that should be continued anymore. That system -- in its current implantation -- is a very "public humiliation" approach to solving problems, and increases the distance between the staff and the users. In addition, there is no effective difference between typing a warning in chat and using the /warn system for the suggested implementation of this suggestion, as the suggestion explicitly states only one /warn to be used, and the inter-staff communication and staff protocol can easily handle that.

Secondly, you use the term "gentle /kick" which is a massive understatement of what a /kick is suppose to be. A kick is a serious moderation action to take, and the use of the term "gentle" shows that there is an extreme downplay of that system, to make it seem appropriate to use as a warning-level measure. Overreacting to a situation is just as bad, if not worse, to under-reacting to it from a moderation perspective.

Lastly, the change to the procedure seems redundant to changing the rule. All the steps suggested are to help prevent skirting around the rule in its current implementation, and then it is also suggested to change the rule to remove the problem. All that is required to solve the issue is to review the rule -- and amend it, if necessary -- to fit with the current view of the server's community. If it is determined that the community wants nothing to do with vulgar language, then the slip-up clause can be removed, and that would solve the problem in its entirety. Changing both the rule and the procedure staff handles this rule, is a complete over reaction that will more-than-likely cause over-reaching effects.

So in short, I support the concept of the suggestion, as-in, reviewing the rule and changing it to meet what the server community views as acceptable with the current user-base. However, I strongly disagree with using any of the recommend changes proposed in this suggestion, as they are trying to fix an issue that the rule change would solve, and runs the risk of causing more issues.

Edit: tl;dr +1 to concept and reviewing the rule, -1 to suggested implantation.

 

Lady, you are such a mom:p
That said, I agree that something needs to be done as it has just plain got out of hand. Are we not all tired of seeing the run of cursing at times. And I know we are all getting tired of seeing the same players constantly post on bans/complaints. It will never stop if there is no punishment. Warnings have no meaning if there is never any consequence.

 

The reason I say it is public humiliation is because one of the way the system is used by the staff has a giant red [WARN] next to their message, drawing the attention of everyone, even those who aren't paying that much attention to chat. The other option, which you are referring to, is to send a warning to them over private means, however this has the unintended side of effect of it looking like the staff are ignoring someone breaking the rules, or that what that user did was within the bounds of the rules. Both of those side effects cause the problem to continue so that would only leave the method of a public warning. The old method of warning them in the global channel has proven that it is the perfect middle ground between the two methods the /warn provide. Sadly, it comes at the cost of the back-end features that staff get from /warn, such as it keeping track of the times used, there are ways around that.

Now, the reason I say the warnings in the global channel don't fall under the "public humiliation" category as the /warn system, is that it doesn't draw the eye of anyone that isn't already in the discussion. If people are watching chat, they will be able to see the staff member handling the situation, and if they are doing something other than participating in the discussion, it will blend in the the normal conversation/noise of global chat. While it may bring in some comments from the bystanders, those are bound to happen when someone breaks a rule in a public channel. If they are warned via private means, they will all go on about how no one is warning the user for the rule break, instead of any comments about how just the warning is.

While what you stated is true, in that it is lighter than a ban, a kick still is a disruptive to a user, and should only be used when it is needed. A kick has always been used as a user's last warning, and if it becomes used too often, it is going to lose the effect that it has. A kick always sends the same message when it is issued, regardless of the rule it is being used to enforce, while the warning is meant to be more of a reminder that that what they are doing isn't allowed, which is why they are issued more than once in varying degrees of tones. If we move kicks directly to the second step in the process, it will make kicks seem like they only serve as a reminder the rule exists, than it being their last chance before they are banned. In addition, if we make the kick the second step in the process, and keep a ban directly after it, we go into a three strike system for handling this rule, which is a flawed system. The system the staff use to deal with people need to be fluid, to handle situations that appear, and forcing the amount of steps ties the hands of the staff member responding to a situation.

Yes, I know that is an issue, and that has been an issue since I have been on Staff. The issue with that is the punishment for doing breaking that rule is generally perceived nothing, as it is all on the forums. They do it three times within a month, and get a three day temp ban of their forum account, with no in-game punishment in any shape or form. They have no rule justification for doing it, as they can claim they have with the vulgarity rule, it is just the forum punishment is not something that effects the users that do it.

The case with in-game vulgarity is because they have -- or can claim they have -- a reason to do it from the rules, and that all staff do not enforce the rule the same with borderline words, as "slip-up" is written in a vague sense, and the rules that are or aren't allowed aren't explicitly stated. Removing the safety net of the "slip-up" clause, and making sure the staff still consistently follow the standardized list of words that are or are not allowed, will solve the issue.

Having an official thread where the community can vote and speak their opinions on where the line should be drawn would be a decent solution to this problem. As the vulgarity rule hasn't changed much over the last four years, while the enforcement of the rule, and the public opinion of it has. As long as a rule rewrite happens, that will remove the ability for people who skirt the rule to claim they are in the right for their actions, and make the enforcement of this rule much more uniform.

 

You do know if a user is warned from the warn system, no other member see's the warn apart from the user who is warned?

 

While I did not explicitly state that in my post, that section is directed to that function of /warn, and not using /msg or similar commands.