Warning Points

[threegee]

I'm all for knowing where the boundaries lie but should I ever cross them then a P.M. from a moderator would suffice to point out my disdemeanour. Warning points that appear in the forums are clearly not needed. Accordng to threeg it's only himself who has ever had a warning point. You can't claim that the warning point system has acted as a deterrent to bad behaviour, as it hasn't been known that it existed until a few days ago.

Didn't say that at all. Said I had been moderated.

We have had some deliberately disruptive behaviour, and they have been used, but it was a fair while ago.

[Canny lass]

Probably a bit of both!

Everyone has a naughty step score. Someone even warned me, or heavily edited one of my posts, a few years back - if I could remember who it was I'd...

[Canny lass]

Threegee, I think you did say that, as I've posted above. You later said that you could "only remember one occasion that any were used." (July 18th, 8.59am)

I am not against your feeling the need to have a system for dealing with disruptive elements. I can even accept that any such system includes being given a warning before any other measures are taken - in fact I think it's only fair and adult to do so. What I am against is:

• my, and presumably many others being under some kind of secret surveillance. (Nobody seemed to know about this points system, not even Malcolm - a moderator, who had to ask me where Id seen these warning points mentioned)
  
• that these points are published on profiles and in forums. OK, I have no points but I may have had, and that doesn't feel very nice. I cannot see my profile or my input in the forums through the eyes of the reader, so I don't know what they see. It's a very uncanny feeling, if you'll pardon the pun.
  

[Malcolm Robinson]

Canny lass,

Last thing anyone wants to do is make anyone feel uncomfortable and I would be the first to rail against anything I thought was Big Brother or too censorious, irrespective of Sym's opinion!

I had to ask my question because I don't know what members see on the boards. As far as I was concerned everyone saw their warn status anyway……………?

You did say you had them 'mentioned', I just wondered how they had been 'mentioned'. I presumed someone had contacted you about them, that was all.

[threegee]

Threegee, I think you did say that, as I've posted above. You later said that you could "only remember one occasion that any were used." (July 18th, 8.59am)..

Not through the warning system you are talking about though - so I won't eat my words! The warning points system is part of many many many thousands of boards on the Internet now. Google on "IPB warning system" if you want to see what others say. If you do want it disabled then hold a poll!

Malcolm is right - the "views" depend on your membership status, and it's not always easy to work out exactly what other membership groups see. The warning status of other members is only seen by the moderator groups though.

[Canny lass]

Threegee, it's totally irrelevant through which warning system you recieved your warning and I am not asking you to eat your words - only to hear mine. As you have so rightly pointed out this is a democratic site. Neither have I askied you to disable the system or even to modify it - I've only pointed out that I felt my integrity to have been violated by certain aspects of it. I believe I have every right as a human being to do that here - this is a democratic site, is it not?

I feel no need to google IPB warningsystems. I have a layman's understanding of them which is sufficient for my needs. I am not against these systems, indeed I believe they have an important role to play in the world we live in. However, I am against not knowing that I am being monitored and having my 'warning status' recorded and published on the Internet.

[threegee]

"..having my 'warning status' recorded and published on the Internet."

It is not published, it's only visible to you! Log out then return to a publicly viewable forum you've posted in and you will see that it is no longer visible.

Just about everything recorded about you is editable by you in your profile at any time you choose, so you decide what you tell moderators and other members about yourself. No commercial enterprise will ever have access to your private data. We don't put a monetary value on your membership like US megacorps do - because we have no desire to make money out of you. We also provide a facility for you to easily delete all site cookies - that are only there for your convenience and smooth running, not to track your behaviour like others do.

If there is a problem I'm at a loss to see how this could be!

[Canny lass]

Just about everything recorded about you is editable by you in your profile at any time you choose, so you decide what you tell moderators and other members about yourself. No commercial enterprise will ever have access to your private data. We don't put a monetary value on your membership like US megacorps do - because we have no desire to make money out of you. We also provide a facility for you to easily delete all site cookies - that are only there for your convenience and smooth running, not to track your behaviour like others do.

Threegee, this is about the bit that's not editable by me, so all that is also totally irrelevant. Can't agree with you on the publishing aspect either, I'm afraid. Beleive me if its on the Internet its published, at least potentially. "It's only visible to you", you say. Now there's a sentence that must have echoed repeatedly around the walls of the Whitehouse at some point in the past! I myself can't really see the logic in having made visible to me something which I would already know. I'm presuming of course that these warning points won't just sneak up on me in the night - although now that I think about it, my warning status did just that!

You say that "If there is a problem I'm at a loss to see how this could be!" I guess I'd already worked that out for myself, so I don't really think there's any point in continuing the discussion. I'll just leave the last word to you.

[Andy Millne]

OK to clarify some obvious confusion on this point ...

This system has always been there but like others have said very rarely used. I upgraded the site to use the latest version of the software last week and the information is presented in a slightly different way than it was before which is why it is only now becoming obvious to you. Previously the information was only presented in the profile view (Only to you and other moderators). Now it is shown alongside posts again only to you and other moderators. That is the only difference to how it has worked for many years.

In summary it appeared where it does now because of the upgrade to the software as a whole. It was not something that was intentionally changed or added.

If anybody has any strong feelings it is a simple matter to turn off the warning system and a poll has already been suggested if anybody feels the need.

Can't agree with you on the publishing aspect either, I'm afraid. Beleive me if its on the Internet its published, at least potentially.

Speaking as somebody intimately familiar with the software having written part of it myself I believe I'm qualified in stating that the information is categorically not published as 3g has mentioned already.

I do, however, agree that showing "0 warning points" to a user with none is a little redundant and has potential to alarm those not familiar with how the system works. I will see about implementing that change for a future version.

[Brett]

Shame it's not a blog