Because if things are not likely to happen or get denied on a regular basis, then they are clearly not good or necessary for the site, and most likely have a huge flaw which would prevent them from working.

Sure, this reason may not be disclosed, but if a suggestion was actually going to help out the site, we would have it already. "Warn suggestions" are posted daily and are always denied, so it would appear that the ones who actually enforce the warn system feel a change is not needed.

Seeing as we both have no experience in their job, how they want the system to run clearly is more important than how we think it should be run.

This post was edited by Razzattack on Sep 19 2010 08:14am

Sorry but this is terrible logic. By your reasoning, if a serial killer doesn't want to stop killing, then that means not killing people is clearly bad for him. If China doesn't want a democracy, then a democracy is not good for the country, etc...


I disagree. There are many other factors that could be involved whether a suggestion is implemented or not. Time constraints is one example.


I've seen staff members support these type of suggestions as well.

No it doesn't. It means that you have absolutely no idea about how the interiors of the system work, as the moderators do not disclose such information, so there is no way that you could argue that you know what is best for the site or whatnot. You have no idea how this would affect the current system, you have no idea on whether this would work or not, you're honestly just proposing to change something you don't understand. Therefore, we leave it up to these people who do understand to run the system fairly and justly and in a way that works; and it does work, doesn't it? Don't feel I'm patronising you; we arn't told how the warning or report system works, so we can only surmise.

Perhaps for small, innovative changes, but this really is neither; this is a proposed big change, many variants of which are posted every day and, as stated, are always denied.

I havn't. I've never seen a moderator support a suggestion to change the warning system. Feel free to prove me wrong, but I really don't believe it.

So, if one has never worked inside government, one cannot argue what how to improve government?
If I've never developed a video game, I can't argue improvements that could be made?

I suppose you never voice your opinion on any subject you've never personally been involved in, correct? Or are you being hypocritical?

This post was edited by Aurorae on Sep 19 2010 05:15pm

I agree giving warns out more often.

But sometimes people get warns accidentally or on off days.

You are already punished enough for getting warns.

I Think med should be more strict, however I disagree with you when it comes to make warns last longer, it's fine the way it is

I like the way it is, I would rather not get warned every time when I feel like spamming once in a while

I would suggest more junior moderators who would be able to issue warnings, and if not, report to someone who can.

repeat offenders should get temp ban ( from hours to days )

I voted for number one personally, I have to agree that the enforcement of this sites rules seems completely arbitrary, and they need to do a better job of multi removal there are a quite a few people I know who have been banned and are back with impunity.

This post was edited by Xanhast on Sep 21 2010 08:54pm