So, I get it. You warn once. You once.

My question is, um. . . What if someone accidentally posts something that kind of fits the bill for what's allowed and what's not allowed at the same time?
I mean, I had to be warned repeatedly, and banned for good in Old Guild for being "Racist", "Bigoted", even though, I didn't really do anything to warrant such moderation. I'm a little confused on safe such a "warn once", "ban once" policy is. Such, "Zero Tolerance" policies are, IMHO stupid, whether or not anyone asked me for my opinion. It isn't a good idea to adopt zero tolerance policies. They eventually lead to zero reason and zero responsibility from those in moderation of a message board. I've seen it too many times, not that I"m talking about RolePlayer Guild, but many others.

They will be warned. Once. Simple as that.

We will make our warnings very clear. If you continue it anyways, then expect to be banned. It's no one's fault but your own. And as for the 'Racist' and 'Bigoted' topics. The idea is to attack the idea, but not the person(s). If you can't seem to control your own temper or what you say in such situations, then stay out of it. Each Mod has their own opinions on topics, but we have none when it comes to moderating. Flaming a person or group of people is against the rules, period. Same for Harassment, and advocating violence against a certain people, regardless of your beliefs.

Our members should not feel judged here, based on anything. Period.

If that something is against the law, then that will be dealt with accordingly. It is not the place for you as members to make those judgement calls, but allow us to so that we can make sure this site is safe and secure for all of us.

On top of this, we do not feel the need or significance to have to continuously warn users over the same behavior and attitude, being continuously displayed again and again. This is not Zero Tolerance. Your opinions are safe, but so are those of others. However, none may attack another person(s). You will be warned once of the issue, and after that, you will be expected to cease. If you do not, we will view it as being defiant to what we have asked, and will see it as an attack against this site and it's people and issue the ban. Period. We, as mods, should not have to waste any more time than that.

Now I have two questions about this zero tolerance thing and since it's on topic, I might as well add it here.

If a member breaks one rule and gets a warning, but then later on they break another completely different rule, both felonies being very minor, would these members be receiving another warning for that specific break in the rules or would they just receive a full ban for it instead?
IE: A member posts something like a biology picture about gentitles and is warned about not posting them but later on in that same day they get a little heated in an argument, nothing major but something that does need mod attention for them to stop. Second warning or full ban?
When it comes to warnings, are for all of time (or for as long as the mods remember) or after a certain/long amount of time would a member just received another warning?
IE: A member posts some small bigoted remark and is warned not to... after a few weeks to months to a year they do it again. Warning or full ban?

Drakel said
Now I have two question about this zero tolerance thing and since it's on topic, I might as well add it here. If a member posts something like a biology picture about genitals and is warned about not posting them but later on in that same day they get a little heated in an argument, nothing major but something that does need mod attention for them to stop, would they receive a ban or another warning since these are two completely separate cases?When it comes to warnings, are for all of time (or for as long as the mods remember) or after a certain/long amount of time would a member just received another warning? IE: A member posts some small bigoted remark and is warned not to... after a few weeks to months to a year they do it again. Warning or full ban?

I can't think of a scenario where anyone has ever posted a biology textbook picture of genitalia before, but we're warning once. We're not going down the road of warning people for every item on the list once, because that's a waste of our time.

As to the 'bigoted remark' thing, I think you guys need to read the standards more carefully. Advocacy of violence and repression against a group or calling them epithets is a long way from having a low opinion of them.

The last guy to get banned for advocating racial violence was posting pictures of genocide and saying it was a good thing. If you're going around saying, "Gay people should be killed" or "Christians should be executed for their beliefs" then yes, goodbye. Not liking homosexuals, Christians, communists or hippies? Well, I'd personally avoid giving so much attention to the things I dislike that much. If you deal with a person from the aforementioned groups, stick to poking holes in what they say. If you have a word for them you use at the dinner table, I highly recommend keeping it there.

Truthfully, considering that the last guy we banned for bigotry considered the SS to be an upright and moral organization whose mission (exterminating 'untermenschen') was a good one, I think that most people are going to be pretty safe from that rule. That's been the -one- ban we've given under that guideline. And yes, we have been generally practicing the one warn, one ban rule for a while. What we did was clarify it and put people on notice so there are no surprises.

HeySeuss said
I can't think of a scenario where anyone has ever posted a biology textbook picture of genitalia before, but we're warning once. We're not going down the road of warning people for every item on the list once, because that's a waste of our time.As to the 'bigoted remark' thing, I think you guys need to read the standards more carefully. Advocacy of violence and repression against a group or calling them epithets is a long way from having a low opinion of them.The last guy to get banned for advocating racial violence was posting pictures of genocide and saying it was a good thing. If you're going around saying, "Gay people should be killed" or "Christians should be executed for their beliefs" then yes, goodbye. Not liking homosexuals, Christians, communists or hippies? Well, I'd personally avoid giving so much attention to the things I dislike that much. If you deal with a person from the aforementioned groups, stick to poking holes in what they say.

I understand that and just trying to bring up some scenarios for stupid things though the bigoted remark one was probably a bad one. In truth, what I'm asking is that, if someone breaks the rules once, is that once forever and then once they mess up again it's an instant ban or would members receive another warning if they messed up with minor things once in every blue moon?( A few months to a year later per say)

EDIT: I remember there being a slight issue once where there was an OT discussion about biology and one of the pictures that came up was such as a discussion starter... The OP poster was given an okay but apparently members didn't like it so he was asked to take it down and warned to not post it again.... Similar to the "Artistic nudes being okay" rule that was stated by Contra.

Drakel said
I understand that and just trying to bring up some scenarios for stupid things though the bigoted remark one was probably a bad one. In truth, what I'm asking is that, if someone breaks the rules once, is that once forever and then once they mess up again it's an instant ban or would members receive another warning if they messed up with minor things once in every blue moon?( A few months to a year later per say)

Well, considering that we are setting the bar pretty high for even a warning, it's safe to say that the warning is going to have a long shelf life. How long? I have no idea because it hasn't been discussed. It'll definitely have a longer life than a few months.

In most cases, if we find something that isn't that big a deal, we aren't going to be ringing people with warnings -- so far, we've only delivered less than ten so far since mahz brought NewGuild up (roughly five months). We're far more likely to just clear something out without comment and move on. But those guidelines are meant to explain where our no-go areas happen to be. And yes, if we find ourselves cleaning up after someone a lot, we're gonna shoot off a warning because that's a time-waster and thus a no-go.

If Spam goes about its business as it has up to four days ago, you can safely assume we'll probably not be doing much of anything, which is precisely how we like it. This is not a shift in policy, this is a clarification in policy.

Drakel said The OP poster was given an okay but apparently members didn't like it so he was asked to take it down and warned to not post it again.... Similar to the "Artistic nudes being okay" rule that was stated by Contra.

If a mod pre-approves it, they'll let the others know, because we're keeping the commo lines open these days. As to the artistic nudes, per Contra, that remains. Of course, we're going to have to make sure to go over what she said about artistic nudes to make sure we're on point with it...if it ever comes up. But the thing with artistic nudes is that they don't ping google. So long as we are talking art and not softcore pornography, which is often billed as art.

addendum: as with so many other things, though, if we start getting snarky 'artistic nudes' spam, we'll be forced to make a rule about it. We don't want to go there, we're relying on guild members to be responsible here.

HeySeuss said
Well, considering that we are setting the bar pretty high for even a warning, it's safe to say that the warning is going to have a long shelf life. How long? I have no idea because it hasn't been discussed. It'll definitely have a longer life than a few months.In most cases, if we find something that isn't that big a deal, we aren't going to be ringing people with warnings -- so far, we've only delivered less than ten so far since mahz brought NewGuild up (roughly five months). We're far more likely to just clear something out without comment and move on. But those guidelines are meant to explain where our no-go areas happen to be. And yes, if we find ourselves cleaning up after someone a lot, we're gonna shoot off a warning because that's a time-waster and thus a no-go. If Spam goes about its business as it has up to four days ago, you can safely assume we'll probably not be doing much of anything, which is precisely how we like it. This is not a shift in policy, this is a clarification in policy.

Alrighty, thank you for answering my questions. This was all I needed to know for the time being.

Thank you mods. I only hope that you will do what is the right thing and not just what is the orderly thing.