61 replies to this topic

[Toxic`]

it seems as though a lot of you have been going at each others throats for reasons i can't even fathom. i don't know if it's for your ego, you hate the people on this site, or you even hate this site, but it all needs to stop. i'm pretty sure a lot of us are get tired of looking into every thread and seeing two or more members flame one another over absolutely nothing. so this is why the warning system has been changed to "no tolerance". the new warning system is as follows:

• 1st offense: Block Warn + In Thread Verbal
• 2nd offense: 24 hour suspension.
• 3rd offense: 3 day suspension.
• 4th offense: 1 week suspension.
• 5th offesne: 2 month ban.
• 6th offesne: perma-ban.

thank you,
~etcforums staff.

[Cloud954]

How far does this go? Like if I said, "Stuff it, punk," would I get a verbal even though it is clearly in jest, or does this only apply to serious hate wars?

[Nomad]

Well to be honest, I probaly wouldn't care about something like that, especially if it wasn't in a serious section, and especially because I was raised to treat fictional women with fictional respect. I'd probaly suggest that you say something more pertinent to the topic if you posted that in somebody's discussion thread (oppose to OT where you can pretty much get away with anything short of porn), but we're not nazis.

The reason for this is to be able to keep better track of the initial warnings (they'll be documented in the warn bar instead of just being readable), and to let people who're legitimately causing trouble to others know that repeated childishness will earn them a 24 hour suspension for the community's sake.

[Cloud954]

FICTIONAL respect? Sounds like a personal attack on me!

[Chief]

lol i believe sums it all up

[Cloud954]

Stuff it, punk.

[Skuff]

What if I have a block warn some stupid raspberry gave me a long time ago? If I slipped up and told Drew to gtfo my thread and suck my nuts, would I go straight to permaban??

[Love. Hate. Cherish.]

Wrong way to go about it in my opinion. There's acceptable flaming and there's unacceptable flaming. This rule lumps the two together.

[Nomad]

Well, if more people on here (or in general) understood how to argue without always falling into the 2nd group & making the community as a whole look bad, we wouldn't even need to have a warn matrix. However, since we don't live on the set of Cheers...

[Love. Hate. Cherish.]

Situation 1:
Player A: /random post
Player B: You're a orangegot

Not allowed. Warnings/suspensions.

Situation 2:
Player A: Well thought out post about something.
Player B: No I don't think so. (no justification)
Player A: Flames player B
Player B: Does not want to get flamed again and thus posts justification next time.

No warnings.

Still strongly believe situation 2 should go without warns.

[Nomad]

You've preached this before, but the really is that if Player A needs to be an asshole when opposed, what he said probaly doesn't even hold merit, and or he's verbally/literally incapable of conveying it properly. That's not something that we need to condone, let alone enforce.

Now, I'm not saying that warnings need to be handed out either to repair the state (I actually prefer not to pull the forum rank stuff when I have to get involved), but people who ruin it for others need to grow up, and that's what we're trying to move forward with, not backwards.

[Love. Hate. Cherish.]

Person A is the one who already presented it in a well-thought-out manner, person B is the one who dismissed it without justification. I think person A flaming person B is acceptable in that situation.

[Nomad]

Maybe in terms of misguided self justification, but not in terms of actually wanting to leave a positive impression, and not in terms of actually helping the person (Player B) who in all fairness, is part of the group that they're speaking to, and doesn't deserve to be talked down to. I mean, instead of starting a fire, one could just as easily ask them to explain there differing position for the sake of everyone's growth, or simply ignore them & keep with the relevant replies.

As in, you can still be just as effective & entertaining without flat out being Eric Cartman.

[Love. Hate. Cherish.]

It leaves a big positive though in them not wanting to get flamed again so next time they explain.

Edited by Love. Hate. Cherish., 08 December 2010 - 02:24 PM.

[Ira Aeterna]

This new system is overly harsh. All the input I'm giving.

[Ego]

You put 5th offense twice man.

I want your awesome new rules to be very clear and concise, so I know whom I wish to anger so they get perma banned.

[Love. Hate. Cherish.]

It's like getting tardies at school. 6th offense, go to Sharp!

[PowerCrazy]

Commenting on Pat's post

Player A should have the maturity to not stoop to a lower level than Player B, and should therefore ask for an explanation, like Val said.

If Player A flames Player B, than they're not only as bad as Player B, they're worse.

[Sage]

I'd love to see how this works out. I've never gotten as much as a block warn on etc in the time I've been here. That's not to say I haven't done my fair share of trolls/flames...

The site is hypocritical anyway, I think everyone knows that... Maybe this will fix it, maybe it won't. I personally doubt this will last...

[Mikhail]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Ok, mom.