Regarding Rule Violations

[Belumoth]

So i recently reported a member for giving out another members personal information. (this isn't directed at the mod but it's what gave me the idea to post this)

I checked my "Threads Started By" like i always do and noticed that the issue was "taken care of"

Curious to see if the user was in fact banned, per rules it's a 1 month ban.

Turns out the user wasn't banned, so i assued he was given a "warning"



My Suggestion

I suggest that there are no "warnings for breaking such rules, the member is supposed to read the rules before posting and therefor already knows that they can not do such things.


Thoughts? Suggestions?

 

[Clashfan]

Posting an imposter's IP isn't really giving out a member's personal information.

 

[SuF]

Let's read the rule:

Disclosure of Others' Personal Information: posting information such as private emails / MSNs, private Skype accounts, Facebook accounts, addresses, phone numbers, private photos, etc. of someone other than yourself without explicit consent of that person will result in up to a 1 month ban regardless of whether or not the information is publicly available.

 

[Belumoth]

Posting an imposter's IP isn't really giving out a member's personal information.

they clearly stated the users account name and IP (if you went and read the reported post), even if it was an impostor they are still giving out personal information.

Let's read the rule:

Users will be banned for 1 month for the following:

so according to what you highlighted the rule should be moved under a different sub section. It is listed under One Month

 

[Belumoth]

i still don't think there should be warnings...

 

[SuF]

so according to what you highlighted the rule should be moved under a different sub section. It is listed under One Month

In what one then? It is in the one that relates to the maximum penalty allowed. That makes the most sense.

 

[n4n0]

The rule's fine where it is, and we punish users based on the severity of the offense. As SuF pointed out, the punishment can be UP TO 1 month, but doesn't strictly have to be a ban at all if the offense is minor as it is in this case.

 

[Belumoth]

The rule's fine where it is, and we punish users based on the severity of the offense. As SuF pointed out, the punishment can be UP TO 1 month, but doesn't strictly have to be a ban at all if the offense is minor as it is in this case.

so then a change to the rules? Stating that it is a ban UP TO X amount of time?

 

[Clashfan]

so then a change to the rules? Stating that it is a ban UP TO X amount of time?

That's exactly what the rule regarding personal information already says.

 

[Belumoth]

so why is it under the 1 month ban

 

[I_DONT_BOT]

The moderators use the ban at their own discretion, if they think the offence it too minor to warrant a ban then obviously they won't give one. At the end of the day while they run the site it's their rules, and I know that they will make the right decision on the evidence shown and their own personal judgement.

 

[Heeatz]

What Belumoth is trying to say is: why is it then the 'Users will be banned for 1 month for the following:' Section, instead of a new section being made called: 'Users will be banned for UP TO 1 month for the following:'.

 

[SuF]

so why is it under the 1 month ban

Because that's how the rules are laid out and I didn't feel like trying to get a layout changed pushed through because it would be annoying. If you read the rule it clearly states that it is up to one month. It is VERY clear.

Locked.