Site Discipline Proposal

Keywords: Candidness, matter-of-fact, soft fatalism, black-and-white tolerance

Denzel's Law:

The severity and consistency of the offense is inversely proportioned to how many fucks we should care about reasoning/having tolerance with him, and directly proportioned to fucked he will be, disciplinary-wise.

Suyo's Clause:

If the user replies, and it's good, then groovy. If it's bad, that's where we escalate and apply Suyo's law, doing proper disciplinary1. Delete what he did, but keep a screenshot.

So, you might be wondering, "How do we determine whether the guy is being a minor ass, and being a serious ass?", which brings us to our next rule:

Diskarte Mo: That means that with these guidelines, it is up to the Staff Member to decide on how to treat the offending user. It may be reasonable, it may not be. If it is too extreme, one of us will point it out. Same if too lenient.

How to Apply (this is a rule of thumb guide):

If it's a really small issue like being a shit on the forums or on chat, then staffpost or kick him. Always warn before war.

If the offending user has a bit more of a minor offence, like an unnecessary edit, then tell him what he's doing wrong, and make him call it off. Tell him a reply is to be expected within the week.

First Offense (Minor)

We send a post or give him a PM to let him know that it's wrong. Hopefully, this is where it'll end. We don't want to scare away new members.

Second Offense (Recurring)

Now, this establishes a sign that the user hasn't learned anything. The time of an official warning calls. A user may be tempbanned on chat, if it happens there. If he calls it off afterwards, it's all good. A ban may suffice if, after this 2nd warning, he doesn't relent.

There won't be any tolerance for staff abuse. If you'd say that you had banned a member for saying something vaguely offensive, you're gonna get reviewed. Or outright revoked of staff title.

So, I'd like everyone to answer these scenarios at the page discussion (my answers below):

  • A new user has posted this:

lol This is actually better than anything <another author> wrote +1

What is he doing wrong?

- Malicious posting

  • A familiar user has posted something out of the line:

This article is completely shit.

- Malicious posting

See how both of the above examples get the same treatment?

  • A user with repeated minor offences, composing of mostly 'this is gay', links to porn/other unauthorized stuff, and racial statements has been banned. He continues to PM staff members.
Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License