.John. Posted June 26, 2005 Share Posted June 26, 2005 This is one thing I think HAS to be in 2.1 The ability for Moderators to set the warning level amount, instead of only Admins. For example, per my Rules - if someone posts something offensive/illegal - that warrants a warning level increase of generally between 25%-75%. This makes it tough work for the Mod to click increase like 10 times, to get it up to 50% - and have an explaination for each time. It'd be MUCH better if the mod could just put in 50 and an explaination - and have it over with. Likewise when decreasing it, you could erase the 50 and put 25 - and an explaination. Hopefully everyone gets my drift. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Falling Down Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 toally agree... it's really anoying pressing the + button twice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rοb Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 I agree :) +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John IV Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 Great Suggestion +1!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.John. Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 Can we be expecting this in 2.1, Matt? Just today a member had a warning level increase of 50%, and the Mod had to click the increase button 10 times. In addition, an explaination had to be typed up 10 times. Also, anyone else in support of this idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Nuke Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 Yes im in for this so +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.John. Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 Matt, what are your opinions on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antony Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 Disagree. Moderators should only warn once per offence. Im sure thats Matts thinking too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.John. Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 Disagree. Moderators should only warn once per offence. Im sure thats Matts thinking too. What's the point of having a 5% warning level? On my board, if you get a warning level of 75% you are suspended or 100% you are banned. If someone does something serious, like post porn or something - they don't deserve a 5% warning level increase, they deserve like 50%-75%, and that'd take forever for a Mod to get up to that level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfie Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 Why have it set so big? Use a 1 to 10 scale. If someone hits 8 (80%), suspend. 10(100%), ban. Then when warning someone, warn them once, and let an admin adjust it properly, ie, up it more if needed. Gets it done and makes sure that it's not being abused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.John. Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 But it makes better sense to go from 0 to 100 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfie Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 Makes less sense. Not only a wider range before someones account gets suspended or banned, but then having to say, "gee, how many warning points should I give? 10? 11? 12? If you go by 5's, (5, 10, 15, etc), then you may as well go on a 1 to 20 scale, because you're only using 20 out of the 100 points. Oops, they cussed, that's 2 (out of 10) points or 3 (out of 10). Oh they came back and cussed again. 3 more points (at 6). Oh look, came back, didn't cuss, but were rude in a couple of posts. 2 more points. (bam, at 8 (80%), account suspended). Keep it simple. I can't see any reason to have a 100 point system, unless you have a specific number of points for difference offenses. But then that gets tedious and complicated. 10 point system. Something minor, 1 pt. Major(first time) or minor(repeated), 2pts, Major(repeated) 3pts. Drastic situations, 4 or 5 pts. Poof, simple. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.John. Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 Keep it simple. I can't see any reason to have a 100 point system, unless you have a specific number of points for difference offenses. Exactly. Spamming is like 10% Illegal Activities is like 50% and so on... And, I know I'm not the only board that runs like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfie Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 Exactly. Spamming is like 10% Illegal Activities is like 50% and so on... And, I know I'm not the only board that runs like this. If everything is in 5's or 10's, then you're making it excessive and tedious. Spamming - 1 point Illegal acts - 5 points Same ratio, just yours is larger in numbers and more difficult. If you use a 10 pt system, and someone gets a 1 pt warning for spamming, then how is it better to use a 100 pt system and give them a 10 pt warning? When you get right down to it, hey it's your board, do as you please.. But still, if you're smallest offense is a 10 pt warning and other warnings are 20, 30, 40 or 50. Then that's making it more difficult than it needs to be. If you're not using at least 100% of those points, then at least 50% of it is just an inflated warning system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Falling Down Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 Ten make it an Admin option: "Moderattors can choose increase of warnlevel" Yes or No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.John. Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 You and other people do it that way. Myself, and other people do it our way. The suggestion is to give moderators the ability to raise it to x level, and could be an Admin Option for the mods. There are MANY boards that run it like I do, and it'd be nice to see this feature supported. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfie Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 I've never seen a request or circumstance such as yours before. I just honestly think that a 100 pt system is a waste, and if you're not using all 100 pts, then you've got at least a 50% waste on there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliottalex2 Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 I personally think that the 100pt system is pointless and waste of time. My board system is slightly different as I use rating mode. -5 to +5 On our system, if someone does something quite bad, they go -1 on rating. If they do something really bad, -2, something serious -3. I sometimes use normal warn mode. My mods found it annoying when having to click 6 times to get warn level from 0% to 60%. It should be an added feature - doesn't matter if some don't like it - the admin of every board should be able to decide whether to use it or not. Great idea - should be inserted! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.John. Posted July 4, 2005 Share Posted July 4, 2005 Agreed, not all boards run their warning system the same way - but they all do it differently. Support for my model (which many others use) should be supported as well. And, this should be an Admin option - so it can suit everyone all around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfie Posted July 4, 2005 Share Posted July 4, 2005 I'm all for customization and flexibility, so don't get me wrong. I just think that 100 pts is a bit of overkill, because unless you have something as small as 1 pt warnings, then the scale is stretched too far. That's why I say that if you're not using all 100 pts, then at least 50% of it is waste. Because if the lowest warning is 2pts, then at most you would be using 99 pts (never pt #1), but that's presuming that you're using 3,4,5,etc. In which case, you could cut all the pts in half and have a 50pt system. But lets also say that you're using 2, 4, 6, etc. The odds make up 50% right there. 5, 10, 15, etc, and you could scale down to a 20 pt system. The whole idea from where I'm coming from is that unless you have some massive set of rules with 1pt warnings for so minor offenses along with the massive activity and problem users to match it, then it might be a bit inflated as it is. Do note that at no time did I ever say that this idea shouldn't be considered or anything. Only that it's being made more difficult than it needs to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.John. Posted July 4, 2005 Share Posted July 4, 2005 Well, you think my 100 point system (and everyone elses) is stupid, and I think your 10 point system is stupid as well. This is all about personal preference, and how the forums are ran. I know I'm not alone on this, and reality is every boards warning level system is different, and IPB should be designed as such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfie Posted July 4, 2005 Share Posted July 4, 2005 Well, you think my 100 point system (and everyone elses) is stupid, and I think your 10 point system is stupid as well. This is all about personal preference, and how the forums are ran. I know I'm not alone on this, and reality is every boards warning level system is different, and IPB should be designed as such. Dude chill, I never said your method was stupid, and I would appreciate the same respect. I said that I think a 100 pt system would be overkill. I've seen a couple of comments from others that would suggest that they would agree that a 100 pt system is a bit much (but still not "stupid"), but haven't seen anyone saying "yeah 100 pt systems are the best, anything less isn't enough". Look through the thread again, all I've done is tried to offer you a logical point of view that would indicate that perhaps you have stretched the point system to an unneeded excess, and that is, in fact, being more of a problem to you than a help. As I said before, hey they're your forums, run them as you please. I was offering my opinion on the matter for you to consider in hopes that it may help you. If you wish to take offense to it, that's your choice, but please don't get nasty about it all ok? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.John. Posted July 4, 2005 Share Posted July 4, 2005 I understand that, as every board is ran differently. To accomidate all the different boards, this option should be made available as an Admin option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.