The "General" Section - Warning Policies.

[RestLess-BoTics]

The "General" Section - Warning Policies.

 

---

 

This thread is referring to the rules that can be found here: The "General" Section - Guidelines.

 

Lately, I've been noticing that this section has been receiving an extremely large amount of spam. I've been very lenient with many of you, and I've let quite a number of things "slide". I was able to tolerate your unnecessary messages for a while, but now, you've forced me to introduce a stricter way of moderating.

 

As you may know, YCMaker implemented a warning system to help ensure that spam would be tightly monitored, and that bans would be given less frequently. Depending on your act of misconduct, warnings would vary, and because of this, a moderator may have a difficult time remembering the exact warning percentage for the punishment. To make it less confusing for the staff and the members, I have made a list that states the punishment I will give you if you violate one or more of the "General" section rules. Remember, the following list is what I use to determine your punishment - administrators, super moderators, and other staff members will have different and more likely, stricter punishments.

 

---

 

[Rule #1] - Posting inappropriate material/content is forbidden.

 

>Any violation of this rule will result in a 50% warning that will expire in 4 weeks.

 

[Rule #2] - Posting illegal content is forbidden.

 

>Any violation of this rule will result in a 50% warning that will expire in 4 weeks.

 

[Rule #3] - Harassing and/or abusing others is forbidden.

 

>Any violation of this rule will result in a 30% warning that will expire in 2 weeks.

 

[Rule #4] - Flaming [inflammatory Speech] is forbidden.

 

>A minor violation of this rule will result in a 10% warning that will expire in 1 week.

>Any other violation of this rule will result in a 30% warning that will expire in 2 weeks.

 

[Rule #5] - Spamming will never be tolerated.

 

>A minor violation of this rule will result in a 10% warning that will expire in 1 week.

>Any other violation of this rule will result in a 20% warning that will expire in 2 weeks.

 

[Rule #6] - Whining is forbidden.

 

>Any violation of this rule will result in a 10% warning that will expire in 2 weeks.

 

[Rule #7] - Begging is forbidden.

 

>Any violation of this rule will result in a 10% warning that will expire in 2 weeks.

 

[Rule #8] - Signature Restrictions and Guidelines.

 

>Any violation of this rule will result in a 10% warning that will expire in 1 week.

 

[Rule #9] - Account Responsibility.

 

>A single violation of this rule [hacking] will result in a ban that will expire in 1 month.

>A second violation of this rule [hacking] will result in a ban that will expire in 2 months.

>A third violation of this rule [hacking] will result in a permanent ban.

 

[Rule #10] - Duplicate Accounts are forbidden.

 

>For a single violation of this rule, all other accounts will be permanently banned, and the main account will receive a 50% warning that will expire in 2 weeks.

>For a second violation of this rule, all other accounts will be permanently banned, and the main account will receive a 50% warning that will expire in 4 weeks.

>For a third violation of this rule, all accounts, including the main account, will be permanently banned.

 

[Rule #11] - Plagiarism is forbidden.

 

>A single violation of this rule will result in a 50% warning that will expire in 3 weeks.

>A second violation of this rule will result in a 50% warning that will expire in 4 weeks.

>A third violation of this rule will result in ban that will expire in 2 months.

>A fourth violation of this rule will result in a permanent ban.

 

[Rule #12] - Always read and follow staff messages.

 

>Any violation of this rule will result in a 10% warning that will expire in 2 weeks.

 

[Rule #13] - Backseat/Mini-Moderating is forbidden.

 

>Any violation of this rule will result in a 10% warning that will expire in 2 weeks.

 

[Rule #14] - Release of other user’s information or communications.

 

>Any violation of this rule will result in a 20% warning that will expire in 2 weeks.

 

[Rule #15] - Staff have final say.

 

>Any violation of this rule will result in a 10% warning that will expire in 2 weeks.

 

[Rule #16] - Advertising on this website is forbidden.

 

>Any violation of this rule will result in a 10% warning that will expire in 2 weeks.

 

[Rule #17] - The Reputation System.

 

>Any violation of this rule will result in a 20% warning that will expire in 2 weeks.

 

[Rule #18] - Flooding is forbidden.

 

>Any violation of this rule will result in a 30% warning that will expire in 2 weeks.

 

[Rule #19] - No ego-centered and attention-seeking threads.

 

>Any violation of this rule will result in a 20% warning that will expire in 2 weeks.

 

[Rule #20] - The "Other" Rule.

 

>Any violation of this rule will result in a 20% warning that will expire in 2 weeks.

 

---

 

If anyone has any questions, comments, or concerns, feel free to post them in this thread. Also, if you wish to propose a change in any of the listed warning policies, feel free to post here as well.

 

Thanks.

 

-glassberry [:

[~Emo~]

The Release of other user’s information or communications include me posting from my friend's and gf's VF or just members on the site? Also what if they give me permission?

[RestLess-BoTics]

The Release of other user’s information or communications include me posting from my friend's and gf's VF or just members on the site? Also what if they give me permission?

 

Regarding rule #14:

 

>It is unacceptable to post another member’s private/personal/public information, including email address, location of residency, contact information, or other information without express permission from that user.

 

In other words, you may only post the personal details of another member of YCM if they have given you the authority/permission to do so.

 

-glassberry

[Phantom Roxas]

Don't you think 50% is a bit too harsh even for the first violation? If you're going to give out warnings of that level for posts like "Cool story bra", then how come Father Wolf isn't banned?

[Skuldur]

So if I spam 4 times, even accidentally, over a 5 month period. I will get banned for 2 months.

 

That's way too harsh.

[Brushfire]

Don't you think 50% is a bit too harsh even for the first violation? If you're going to give out warnings of that level for posts like "Cool story bra"' date=' then how come Father Wolf isn't banned?

[/quote']

 

This.

 

Honesty Glasstin, your system is funked. Isn't it like, 20% for spamming at the most? Why don't you just use MyBB's set guidelines instead of attempting to make people think that you're harsh?

[Guest JoshIcy]

Rule 5 is flexible.

Rule 6-8, 12-15 is just funny. Do it case-by-case.

Rule 19 isn't applicable if the thread is done properly.

Rule 20 is a safeguard when things get out of hand. Don't even have that up there.

[Mehmani]

I've seen a few people advertising "The Glowing Forums" in their sig for months. How come when I advertised my forum, it was removed within 3 days?

[Amethyst Phoenix]

Wait, how do we even break rule 15?

That sounds more like a disclaimer or terms rather than a rule.

 

 

The following is meant to be in a calm, respectful tone and is in no way intended to be inflammatory to you or other moderators.

 

Also, don't moderators have to approve your posts at 50%?

 

I'm sorry, but that would essentially be a ban from general altogether.

You're simply not online enough to handle approving someone's every post, let alone a whole group of offenders. Unless we have at least one mod online at any given time, it'd be like a silly "YCM Curfew". Plus it adds extra work for the mods, and it'd probably wind up in a huge pile of posts awaiting approval that are being procrastinated on.

 

Simply stated, you don't have the ability to successfully run this system, unless you spend every waking moment in front of your computer. I don't think you want to do that.

 

Furthermore, you should try intermediate steps before going straight from "not doing anything" to "you sneeze at someone, you're funked".

 

I don't want to offend you or bring any punishment crashing down upon myself, but if you cannot handle general without resorting to such drastic measures as this, perhaps you should step down and a new, more capable, moderator should be appointed.

[Mehmani]

Wait' date=' how do we even break rule 15?

That sounds more like a disclaimer or terms rather than a rule.

 

 

The following is meant to be in a calm, respectful tone and is in no way intended to be inflammatory to you or other moderators.

 

Also, don't moderators have to approve your posts at 50%?

 

I'm sorry, but that would essentially be a ban from general altogether.

You're simply not online enough to handle approving someone's every post, let alone a whole group of offenders. Unless we have at least one mod online at any given time, it'd be like a silly "YCM Curfew". Plus it adds extra work for the mods, and it'd probably wind up in a huge pile of posts awaiting approval that are being procrastinated on.

 

Simply stated, you don't have the ability to successfully run this system, unless you spend every waking moment in front of your computer. I don't think you want to do that.

 

Furthermore, you should try intermediate steps before going straight from "not doing anything" to "you sneeze at someone, you're f***ed".

 

I don't want to offend you or bring any punishment crashing down upon myself, but if you cannot handle general without resorting to such drastic measures as this, perhaps you should step down and a new, more capable, moderator should be appointed.

[/quote']

 

This is what quite a few people have been wanting to say for a long time, but have been to afraid to do so.

[Umbra]

How to: Breaking Rule #15

 

By making a second account when you're banned. Seriously, not that hard to figure out.

[Skyfi]

50% is way to much Glassy lower it to like 30.

[Amethyst Phoenix]

How to: Breaking Rule #15

 

By making a second account when you're banned. Seriously' date=' not that hard to figure out.

[/quote']

 

Thank you for clearing that up. I merely thought it was a disclaimer about decisions regarding updates/changes to the site.

 

I'm not an idiot; I read the guidelines and decided to ask about the rule, rather than posting what I thought was wrong with it. This was apparently a good decision, considering the way I interpreted it initially was different from what you said. An honest mistake on my part, because one would assume that the reason you stated would fall under the "No double accounts" rule.

[Umbra]

How to: Breaking Rule #15

 

By making a second account when you're banned. Seriously' date=' not that hard to figure out.

[/quote']

 

Thank you for clearing that up. I merely thought it was a disclaimer about decisions regarding updates/changes to the site.

 

I'm not an idiot; I read the guidelines and decided to ask about the rule, rather than posting what I thought was wrong with it. This was apparently a good decision, considering the way I interpreted it initially was different from what you said. An honest mistake on my part, because one would assume that the reason you stated would fall under the "No double accounts" rule.

 

Either way, Rule 15 is basically this: When you're banned, be cool with it. Sit your time, and then come back to the forums.

[JG.]

Glassy... Some these rules you can't even break, they are merely... Well, you just can't really break them. #15 is a prime example. I know you mean argueing with the staff after they have made a desicion, but isn't that a bit too harsh? I mean, if you think that you have recieved an unfair warning, shouldn't you be allowed to argue and provide reasons to why you should not have it? And you should try giving different warnings and different ban times, some violations are more serious than others, yet you give same ban/warning for both. I know that the minor ones are a 30%, but still... And seriously, just making your sig too large, it doesn't deserve a ban... Even if you've done it like 10 times. But that's just my opinion.

 

Oh, and something regarding #19. I think I know what you mean by it, but if we post a thread about one of our friends/relatives/etc. dying, shouldn't we be allowed to do that if we also raise a discussion like how you would react if that happened to you?

 

Oh, and in my opinion, the punishment for spamming is too harsh, I would suggest making it 30% instead. But as said, that's just my opinion.

 

Oh, and #6, doesn't that kinda fall under #15? I mean, how would you whine to anyone exept staff for locking your thread or warning you? I know how you would though, I was just pointing out that it would be kinda hard to do so.

 

 

Thank you for reading, have a nice day.

[Larxene]

You're simply not online enough to handle approving someone's every post' date=' let alone a whole group of offenders. Unless we have at least one mod online at any given time, it'd be like a silly "YCM Curfew". Plus it adds extra work for the mods, and it'd probably wind up in a huge pile of posts awaiting approval that are being procrastinated on.

 

Simply stated, you don't have the ability to successfully run this system, unless you spend every waking moment in front of your computer. I don't think you want to do that.

[/quote']

 

The posts are still being ignored anyway. No one ever approves them, even when mods are online.

 

My warning level has gone up to 50% twice. None of the posts I made in that time were EVER approved by a moderator. (Except 1, but that was because I PMed a mod about it.)

[Guest JoshIcy]

^: If I saw them, I would check Approved Posts.

But sadly, it's more of a hassle than not. Seeing as we don't get a cue like normal reports.

But if YCMaker could make that. It wouldn't be a problem.

[Zexaeon]

I'm going to jump on the boat and say this system is far too harsh. It's true; this system is basically like saying "Blink at me, and you're screwed."

 

It's too extreme to jump right up to 50% for even a minor offense, especially since posts really do get ignored for the most part during that period of mod-approval, essentially making a 50% Warn similar to a ban.

 

Making one Spammy post should not initiate the equivilant of a temporary ban on a user, Glass.

[Umbra]

I'm going to jump on the boat and say this system is far too harsh. It's true; this system is basically like saying "Blink at me' date=' and you're screwed."

 

It's too extreme to jump right up to 50% for even a minor offense, especially since posts really do get ignored for the most part during that period of mod-approval, essentially making a 50% Warn similar to a ban.

 

Making one Spammy post should not initiate the equivilant of a temporary ban on a user, Glass.

[/quote']

 

Given that the "temporary ban" lasts for three hours only.

[Guest Star]

I'm going to jump on the boat and say this system is far too harsh. It's true; this system is basically like saying "Blink at me' date=' and you're screwed."

 

It's too extreme to jump right up to 50% for even a minor offense, especially since posts really do get ignored for the most part during that period of mod-approval, essentially making a 50% Warn similar to a ban.

 

Making one Spammy post should not initiate the equivilant of a temporary ban on a user, Glass.

[/quote']

 

I received a 50% Warning yesterday for a "spam" post, and I went to bed around 12:00 (AM). When I woke up at like 6:30 (AM) and went on YCM, that's when I realized I had obtained the Warning. I could post perfectly fine, though, implying that the 50% Warning Level only takes away your ability to post for a certain amount of time, which is somewhere between zero minutes to six and a half hours.

 

I do believe these rules are a bit harsh, though. Especially if someone makes just an occasional "spam" post. I mean, Intentional Spamming, yes, but when it's just an attempt to be funny or something like a lot of Father Wolf's posts, I don't see why that can't be allowed.

 

Some of these rules make this place seem like a correctional facility rather than a forum where people are supposed to have fun.

[Chaotic Angel]

These are a bit harsh, you know, like everyone else has said. Maybe you could lower the Warning Level a lil' bit? Seriously, 50% warning level IS a a bit too harsh overall..

[Azmodius]

Some of these are kinda harsh &_&

[Guest JoshIcy]

I'm going to jump on the boat and say this system is far too harsh. It's true; this system is basically like saying "Blink at me' date=' and you're screwed."

 

It's too extreme to jump right up to 50% for even a minor offense, especially since posts really do get ignored for the most part during that period of mod-approval, essentially making a 50% Warn similar to a ban.

 

Making one Spammy post should not initiate the equivilant of a temporary ban on a user, Glass.

[/quote']

 

I received a 50% Warning yesterday for a "spam" post, and I went to bed around 12:00 (AM). When I woke up at like 6:30 (AM) and went on YCM, that's when I realized I had obtained the Warning. I could post perfectly fine, though, implying that the 50% Warning Level only takes away your ability to post for a certain amount of time, which is somewhere between zero minutes to six and a half hours.

 

I do believe these rules are a bit harsh, though. Especially if someone makes just an occasional "spam" post. I mean, Intentional Spamming, yes, but when it's just an attempt to be funny or something like a lot of Father Wolf's posts, I don't see why that can't be allowed.

 

Some of these rules make this place seem like a correctional facility rather than a forum where people are supposed to have fun.

 

[spoiler=Warnings]

 

 

Actually, some of these aren't quite as unreasonable. As there is default warning amounts as you can see. Not actually in-place by us. But by YCMaker himself.

 

But I do believe that the ones I mentioned here;

 

Rule 5 is flexible.

Rule 6-8' date=' 12-15 is just funny. Do it case-by-case.

Rule 19 isn't applicable if the thread is done properly.

Rule 20 is a safeguard when things get out of hand. Don't even have that up there.

[/quote']

 

Could be fixed to some degree.

[Guest Star]

I'm going to jump on the boat and say this system is far too harsh. It's true; this system is basically like saying "Blink at me' date=' and you're screwed."

 

It's too extreme to jump right up to 50% for even a minor offense, especially since posts really do get ignored for the most part during that period of mod-approval, essentially making a 50% Warn similar to a ban.

 

Making one Spammy post should not initiate the equivilant of a temporary ban on a user, Glass.

[/quote']

 

I received a 50% Warning yesterday for a "spam" post, and I went to bed around 12:00 (AM). When I woke up at like 6:30 (AM) and went on YCM, that's when I realized I had obtained the Warning. I could post perfectly fine, though, implying that the 50% Warning Level only takes away your ability to post for a certain amount of time, which is somewhere between zero minutes to six and a half hours.

 

I do believe these rules are a bit harsh, though. Especially if someone makes just an occasional "spam" post. I mean, Intentional Spamming, yes, but when it's just an attempt to be funny or something like a lot of Father Wolf's posts, I don't see why that can't be allowed.

 

Some of these rules make this place seem like a correctional facility rather than a forum where people are supposed to have fun.

 

[spoiler=Large Picture]

 

 

Actually, some of these aren't quite as unreasonable. As there is default warning amounts as you can see. Not actually in-place by us. But by YCMaker himself.

 

But I do believe that the ones I mentioned here;

 

Rule 5 is flexible.

Rule 6-8' date=' 12-15 is just funny. Do it case-by-case.

Rule 19 isn't applicable if the thread is done properly.

Rule 20 is a safeguard when things get out of hand. Don't even have that up there.

[/quote']

 

Could be fixed to some degree.

 

I realize that many are preset. I used to be a Mod, lol. Although I never warned anyone because I really don't like doing things like that.

 

Anyway, I didn't say they were all too harsh, but something like an attempt to be funny that is considered spam should not be considered Intentional Spamming.

[Guest JoshIcy]

^: Depends on how far out of proportion it gets.