Can someone please give me a simple explanation of the card system?

You're still not awesome

What's the reference?

Because I don't like a certain user?


Jay Z and Kanye West - "paris" or Blades of Glory.
I shall not mention the full name of the song.

can arguing with a troll result in a card even if the troll is banned

But my rule breaking is so minor and undeserving of such punishment
Plz don't ruin my Christmas

How old from the time of reporting?

2 Issues with the TSR

1) We should be able to talk about why we are banned/received cards-this will prevent other users falling into the traps for getting a blue card for something they didn't think they get a card for.
2) The inbox looks very old and needs a revamp +When you get a 'letter' the letter is opened and when you have read it it is then closed? Surely when you received a letter it should be closed and then when you look at the message the letter should then be 'open'

This is what an unopened message should look like-
This is what a read message should not like-

Not the other way around it's illogical!?!

Does anyone agree????

Why did they get rid of the points system? This card malarkey is just baffling.

That would depend on what you say exactly. A rule-breaking post does not somehow become acceptable just because the person it's directed at happens to be banned. Their status does not affect the rules.



Minor rule-breaking... is rule-breaking



Time of reporting is irrelevant for giving warnings - we're interested in the time the post was made.

Obvious follow up question: "How long after a post is made will you no longer warn for it". Can't really say






1. Disagreed. Rule-breaking posts by their nature have to be removed from the site. Obviously this somewhat complicates the process of people holding an informed debate about a post people cannot see.

2. Well that's somewhat off-topic Feel free to make a new thread for it though

1. Disagreed. Rule-breaking posts by their nature have to be removed from the site. Obviously this somewhat complicates the process of people holding an informed debate about a post people cannot see.

2. Well that's somewhat off-topic Feel free to make a new thread for it though

So you keep saying.

To be honest, I'm the same. I fell into a rut of exclusions for various offences (all of which, in hindsight, were deserved) but have now gone through a period when I've been posting more often than before but without the sanctions.

Why can't you say?

This is like an autocratic regime.

I have made a new thread in the 'Feedback' thingy

I would also like you opinion on my second point

Minor rule-breaking... is rule-breaking

We don't tend to go into specifics about policies like that. I'm not really sure what good would come of telling the whole site how long they need to get away with breaking the rules for before it becomes sufficiently old that we'll overlook it.

You mean one person has all the power? I'm sure there's better types of regime you could compare us to.

Why can't you say?

This is like an autocratic regime.

But if I poke some gently in RL 10 times or so, that doesn't become equivalent to a full on punch on the 10th time, does it?
A punch would put you in jail (a ban) but lots of poking wouldn't. So why do lots of minor offences = a ban (jail) on here?

If you poke someone nine times and after each time they politely ask you not to poke them again, on the 10th time would you expect them to continue ask politely, or would you be more likely to be told to **** off already?

But if I poke some gently in RL 10 times or so, that doesn't become equivalent to a full on punch on the 10th time, does it?
A punch would put you in jail (a ban) but lots of poking wouldn't. So why do lots of minor offences = a ban (jail) on here?

No.

The only effect that comes out of you telling us, the users, of when the time runs past the specified time is to make sure that people aren't reporting old posts for no reason. Rather, this rule does not tell us when potential rule breaking is potentially warn worthy. If one is reported for an old post, one can safely say that the rule breaking was simply not odious enough, or picked up at the time of posting, and the proceeding few hours.

Oh Are the mods really telling me to "**** off" then? I feel desperately unwanted ...

Its like a driving test so many 'minors' equates to a 'major'.

There is a reason regardless of warnings. The point is to remove rule-breaking posts from the site. That still stands regardless of how old the post is; warnings (or lack thereof) are totally irrelevant to anyone except the user in question and the mod team.

If someone reported an overlooked rule-breaking post you made last year it would still be removed, but you wouldn't be warned, as it simply wouldn't be reasonable to do so after so much time has passed.

Not at all, I was borrowing your analogy

No one knows how the card system works, but it's provocative. It gets the people going.