A Warning PM before users are banned?

I know there's a thread with Banning as the title but this isn't the same topic, but if I'm wrong to post this then I'll move it to the other thread.

However I think Mods really should out of formality (if not curtousy)send a warning PM warning the user in question that their behavior is leading to a ban, and possible discuss the problem before a ban is placed.
Many users if given a PM would gladly discontinue the behavior in question if warned first. A ban without warning give the vibe of "Mods are our enemies not our friends".

They mean well I know, but it'd be a very kind thing to warn users they are leading to a ban. Perhaps they've infringed on a rule they weren't aware of.

I'm just asking for this to be heard and taken into consideration, for the sake of the users so that they don't feel like they weren't given a chance.
A way to imrpove the boards even further is to use a ban as the absolute last measure.

 

I haven't seen a single edit so far informing the user they are leading to a ban.

And I'm asking this so that it is required, it should be an act of kindness towards the user.
Mod's should be there to look out for us and help us, not just throw a ban at us without giving us a chance to know we're leading to the ban.

 

kindness. I don't think so. if the user gets stupid they can ban them.

 

Well, the mods always explain why they edited a certain post, and it can lead to the ban if a user doesn't heed that as a warning and continues doing whatever was against the TOS.

 

You would do well to realize that this is the sort of thing that has been discussed more than once in the JC's 10 year existence. Most stuff that goes back this far has long since been set virtually in stone (mostly through initial trial and error, and sometimes just through the normal evolution of things).

In this case, it's up to the moderators. That's really all there is to it. Always has been, always will be.

 

Just because an edit doesn't explicitly say "do this again and you will be banned" doesn't mean a warning isn't given. I'd say that if you post something, and it gets edited out, there's a good chance you might get banned if you post it again. That's common sense to me.

The edit need not contain a warning. The edit is the warning.

 

Also, if you send someone a PM and then ban them, they won't be able to read the PM, and then they'll see the 1 new thing at the top and just get totally frustrated that they can't read their PM.

 

I think this should be the new MS policy on bannings.

When mods attack...

 

Well, considering that the user in question probably has a good idea who and where the PM came from, I doubt they'll be losing that much sleep.

 

But there's no guarantee the user will see the edit, even if they click on that thread again. When I open a thread I've posted in before, I only look at the new entries, not the older ones. So if my post were edited, for example, I wouldn't necessarily see it because I'd simply scroll to the posts I haven't seen yet.

With a PM, you can tell if the user has read the message or not.

 

Then you should pay more attention to what you post. I think most people that post here are able to tell whether something they posted here might have possibly gone a little over the top in what is excepted here. Users here have a bit of responsibility here when it comes to the content they add to the site, and making sure that they didn't overstep their boundaries is on them as much as it should be on the mods.

Having a mod PM a user every time that a user may have stepped over the line is an unpractical, and unfair thing to expect. As it is, most mods will make the extra effort to personally warn, if it's something way over the top, but it still shouldn't be something that's expected. You as a user have the responsibility of knowing where to draw the line.

 

Very rarely do users get banned without some form of initial warning. I used to send a lot of PMs telling users they were on edge of a ban. Furthermore, I still routinely see mods posting in threads telling people to keep the debate friendly, and typically in a blod font so users can clearly see it.

The bottomline is that you agree to the TOS/ROC everytime you post, so the mods have already given you your warning before you post.

Besides, what does it honestly matter if you get a 24hour spank without knowing its coming? You sit in the naughty corner for your 24hours then come back to play, hopefully being a better poster.

However, 99.9% of banned users know exactly what they've done, although I appreciate that 99.9% of that 99.9% probably feel the ban was unnecessary.

 

*agrees with malkie*

I've only ever had the warning, and it was in the thread and I knew what it was for.

 

There are times (myself included), when there was no warning - part of the issue is differences of interpretation of the TOS/ROC. I posted what I posted expecting a warning and editing (considering the comment was mild), and got demoted and banned instead (to my genuine surprise). Just chalk these experiences up to the human factor of moderation.

 

I was demoted and banned without any warning, and in the absence of any edits to any of the posts I made.

Guess thats the rub........

 

We really do try to warn people before we ban. We usually try to warn someone either in a public thread or through a PM. Banning is typically our last resort.

Now, warnings are recorded in your user notes so if you were warned for something and do the same thing a week or two from that last warning, we'll usually ban. We won't send warnings out every single time, especially if we see you've recently been warned for the same thing.