Warning for discussing warnings

Original post by Clip

Two questions:

1. When did the "warnings for discussing warnings" come in, and is it tied to the new card system (i.e. is it retrospective to the points system)?

It's been around for quite some time. Long before the new carding system came in (pretty much as long as I can remember)

2. If the point of the card system is to discourage inapt behaviour; surely this achieves the opposite? If people advertise the fact that they have received warnings for spamming or offensiveness or whatever, that would serve as deterrence. Keeping it secret just means that people know that there are disciplinary measures in effect - but not what for.

There's always going to be pro's and con's to allowing discussion of warnings (cards). At the end of the day the cards and the reasons behind receiving a card are between the user and the mods who are involved only (and other moderators if you wish for second opinions/section leader and or community team opinions too) and we ask for members to not discuss their warnings outside of the moderation queries forums to make sure that users get decent and fair explanations if required without the potentially incorrect opinions from other members.

Reply 2

OP

Original post by Loz17

It's been around for quite some time. Long before the new carding system came in (pretty much as long as I can remember)

I don't see it anywhere in the ToS, and I have never seen any mention of it until the card system came in.

There's always going to be pro's and con's to allowing discussion of warnings (cards). At the end of the day the cards and the reasons behind receiving a card are between the user and the mods who are involved only (and other moderators if you wish for second opinions/section leader and or community team opinions too) and we ask for members to not discuss their warnings outside of the moderation queries forums to make sure that users get decent and fair explanations if required without the potentially incorrect opinions from other members.

Case in point - if there are obscure rules (and the warning for warning one was obscure) how does anyone know that certain behaviour is being clamped down upon? With the demise of the points display - they don't even know that.

My concern is that the forum infraction system has just turned into a virtual minefield. Before, it wasn't perfect, but at least it was open. Now, it's completely invisible.

Reply 3

College_Dropout

21

Original post by Clip

Two questions:

1. When did the "warnings for discussing warnings" come in, and is it tied to the new card system (i.e. is it retrospective to the points system)?

2. If the point of the card system is to discourage inapt behaviour; surely this achieves the opposite? If people advertise the fact that they have received warnings for spamming or offensiveness or whatever, that would serve as deterrence. Keeping it secret just means that people know that there are disciplinary measures in effect - but not what for.

I got a warning for discussing a warning on a thread about warnings. :yep:

Reply 4

Original post by Clip

I don't see it anywhere in the ToS, and I have never seen any mention of it until the card system came in.

This is the relevant passage from the rules, pre-dating the introduction of the new card system:

We spend a lot of time trying to make TSR’s rules and guidelines fair and we’re always happy to discuss the way moderation works. If you have any questions about any moderation action taken towards you, please post in the appropriate subforum of Moderation Queries, where we aim to reply to questions within 24 hours wherever possible. But please don’t discuss any specific moderation action to any extent on the public forums or through visitor messages, private messages or similar. We can only discuss warnings with the member receiving them, so please do not ask about other members' warnings.

I think it's worth reinforcing that there has been no change whatsoever to the rules with the new card system coming in, merely to the mechanism for 'warnings' in response to rule-breaking posts.

Case in point - if there are obscure rules (and the warning for warning one was obscure) how does anyone know that certain behaviour is being clamped down upon? With the demise of the points display - they don't even know that.

My concern is that the forum infraction system has just turned into a virtual minefield. Before, it wasn't perfect, but at least it was open. Now, it's completely invisible.

It was never intended that members should be able to see others' warning points - this has been a fairly long-standing bug, which arose with the upgrade of the forum software to vBulletin 4. Just report any rule-breaking posts that you come across and action will be taken, with the report being closed with a comment to confirm the action taken in relation to the post (e.g., its removal or editing). The report response shouldn't reference warnings/cards, though, as those are between the recipient and the moderation team only.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 5

chocolatesauce

18

someone tell me what a yellow card means...

Reply 6

Original post by chocolatesauce

someone tell me what a yellow card means...

Take a look here: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2529493 :smile:

Reply 7

OP

Original post by Illusionary

This is the relevant passage from the rules, pre-dating the introduction of the new card system:

I think it's worth reinforcing that there has been no change whatsoever to the rules with the new card system coming in, merely to the mechanism for 'warnings' in response to rule-breaking posts.

Are you serious? Forgive me, but that is in no way a substantive rule with authority to apply penalties. That's polite advice on behaviour.

I do not question that rules should exist - but if they do then they should be framed as rules. This is the vaguest of the vague. Nowhere does it say or even imply that discussing warnings is in if itself warn-able, which is a line that has been trotted out lately. It would seem it has absolutely no basis in the forum rules.

Reply 8

chocolatesauce

18

Original post by Illusionary

Take a look here: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2529493 :smile:

thanks

Reply 9

Original post by Clip

Are you serious? Forgive me, but that is in no way a substantive rule with authority to apply penalties. That's polite advice on behaviour.

I do not question that rules should exist - but if they do then they should be framed as rules. This is the vaguest of the vague. Nowhere does it say or even imply that discussing warnings is in if itself warn-able, which is a line that has been trotted out lately. It would seem it has absolutely no basis in the forum rules.

It's written politely, but is still part of the rules - hence its inclusion on that page.

Reply 10

LadySmythe

Original post by Clip

I don't see it anywhere in the ToS, and I have never seen any mention of it until the card system came in.

From T&C's

please don’t discuss any specific moderation action to any extent on the public forums or through visitor messages, private messages or similar

Found under "moderation" section on: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/faq.php?faq=tsr_cat#faq_terms_and_conditions

The new system seems to have bought up the discussion of cards more for one reason or another which is why you've probably not heard of it before but it's been a part of the site rules for quite a long time (as I said before, as long as I can remember, but I know that's subjective)

Case in point - if there are obscure rules (and the warning for warning one was obscure) how does anyone know that certain behaviour is being clamped down upon? With the demise of the points display - they don't even know that.

My concern is that the forum infraction system has just turned into a virtual minefield. Before, it wasn't perfect, but at least it was open. Now, it's completely invisible.

Any rule breaks which are spotted or reported to the mod team are communicated to the user using the card system (and the warning system in the past) which is sufficient. Don't forget that not everyone would like to discuss warnings/cards on the public forums and like to keep it confidential which we have to respect. Not allowing discussion is the fairest way to achieve this and at the same time making sure the user gets the best explanation possible.

I'll pass that bit of feedback on too :yep:

it might be something worth discussing.

Edit: Tad slow but nonetheless :p:

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 11

OP

Original post by Illusionary

It's written politely, but is still part of the rules - hence its inclusion on that page.

It is framed so poorly as a rule that it is not clear what it refers to, and certainly not that it carries a penalty.

please don’t discuss any specific moderation action to any extent on the public forums or through visitor messages, private messages or similar

This could mean almost anything. If a moderator wants to interpret this to mean "Don't say what your points/cards are for", (s)he could just as easily interpret it to mean "Don't say how many points/cards you have" - yet it seems well established that there is no problem with doing so.

This leads to absurdity. Rules which are completely open to interpretation, but for which the subject matter is the rules themselves. This is exactly analogous to knowing that the prisons are full of people who have committed crimes, but no-one knows who they are or why they are in there, and they are not allowed to say after they have left - yet this is supposed to act as a deterrent.

Reply 12

Original post by Clip

It is framed so poorly as a rule that it is not clear what it refers to, and certainly not that it carries a penalty.

This could mean almost anything. If a moderator wants to interpret this to mean "Don't say what your points/cards are for", (s)he could just as easily interpret it to mean "Don't say how many points/cards you have" - yet it seems well established that there is no problem with doing so.I'd discourage this as well. It's fairly straightforward - "to any extent" meaning no discussion at all of any specifics of moderation actions or an individual's record.

Reply 13

OP

Original post by Illusionary

I'd discourage this as well. It's fairly straightforward - "to any extent" meaning no discussion at all of any specifics of moderation actions or an individual's record.

Not to be argumentative, but this makes the whole thing farcical.

If you believe this to be the case, there should be Rule #77 or whatever "Don't discuss how many points/card you have or what they are for. You may be penalised if you do so."

At the moment, you have members openly discussing how many cards they have (but not why) because they believe one to be allowable and the other not - yet you the Mod believe both to be rules violations, yet you act for one and not the other for no particular reason, and on the basis of a very woolly rule.

If you believe your above statement - then there is absolutely no reason why a Mod hit squad doesn't go through all the "Cards" threads and apply warnings to every member in them. This would be harsh in the extreme and cause real resentment - but is on exactly the same basis as moderators apply warnings for "warnings for warnings".

Reply 14

Original post by Clip

Not to be argumentative, but this makes the whole thing farcical.

If you believe this to be the case, there should be Rule #77 or whatever "Don't discuss how many points/card you have or what they are for. You may be penalised if you do so."

At the moment, you have members openly discussing how many cards they have (but not why) because they believe one to be allowable and the other not - yet you the Mod believe both to be rules violations, yet you act for one and not the other for no particular reason, and on the basis of a very woolly rule.

If you believe your above statement - then there is absolutely no reason why a Mod hit squad doesn't go through all the "Cards" threads and apply warnings to every member in them. This would be harsh in the extreme and cause real resentment - but is on exactly the same basis as moderators apply warnings for "warnings for warnings".

We can't take action in relation to posts that we're not aware of. As always, please report anything that you've seen that you think needs attention and we'll review it.

Reply 15

OP

Original post by Illusionary

We can't take action in relation to posts that we're not aware of. As always, please report anything that you've seen that you think needs attention and we'll review it.

That answer is unhelpful, disingenuous and against the entire ethos of a community forum. I'm pointing out an inherent absurdity in the moderation system, and you are replying by asking me to report members so that you can issue them warnings.

Reply 16

thunder_chunky

Original post by College_Dropout

I got a warning for discussing a warning on a thread about warnings. :yep:

I wonder if you'd getting a warning for mentioning a warning you received for discussing a warning in a thread about warnings.

Reply 17

username91207

16

This new card system is an absolute farce IMO - especially the whole "no discussing warnings or we'll slap another one on you" thing. It's almost enough to make me leave TSR, and I've been here since 2006...

Reply 18

Potally_Tissed

Original post by snowyowl

This new card system is an absolute farce IMO - especially the whole "no discussing warnings or we'll slap another one on you" thing. It's almost enough to make me leave TSR, and I've been here since 2006...

That rule is not a new one with the card system, it's been a rule for years. You can discuss warnings, in the appropriate place, ie. AAM or AASL.

Reply 19

OP