Template talk:Violation
From SmashWiki, the Super Smash Bros. wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Edit
Punishment should depend on the severity of the action, like you wouldn't block a guy just for abusing the talk pages. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 03:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Feel free to edit it as you feel it should be. If it is agreed on, it will stay, if not, there will continuing edits.
UP/T/O 03:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- I would suggest that we remove the part saying they'll get a second warning; if they continue to violate the same policy after one warning, the assumtion is that they have read it and ignored it, and I trust the sysops will use personal discretion on whether or not the offense is bannable. --Shadowcrest 03:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
My first idea on this subject was to create warnings based on certain types of violations, but I realized that that would require lots of templates. This template idea necessary, as the only warning template we have (mainspace vandalism) wouldn't be appropriate if a user continuously PA's other users. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 03:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)- Yeah forget what I said, SC hit the nail on the head, but we need to figure out which actions qualify for blocks, and how long those blocks are. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 03:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- I would advise against setting in stone "violations of policy X are bannable, violations of policy Y are depending on circumstances, violations of policy Z..." as a way to determine whether or not a user's actions are unacceptable. Sysop discretion is very important; since policy cannot possibly cover every eventuality, binding administrative action to a policy is not a wise move. In general, sysops are promoted under the premises that they can reason and will not misuse their powers; assuming that premise is true, sysops will typically not make spectacularly poor decisions regarding bans etc., so there is no reason to constrain their usage of sysop tools. --Shadowcrest 03:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- There shouldn't be '"laws," if you will, but rather guidelines. This mostly falls under common sense (massive vandalism = ban), but these guidelines would dispel some thoughts of "OMG teh admins are mean and they haet me!" Then again, the regular whiners would do that anyway. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 03:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- I would advise against setting in stone "violations of policy X are bannable, violations of policy Y are depending on circumstances, violations of policy Z..." as a way to determine whether or not a user's actions are unacceptable. Sysop discretion is very important; since policy cannot possibly cover every eventuality, binding administrative action to a policy is not a wise move. In general, sysops are promoted under the premises that they can reason and will not misuse their powers; assuming that premise is true, sysops will typically not make spectacularly poor decisions regarding bans etc., so there is no reason to constrain their usage of sysop tools. --Shadowcrest 03:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- I would suggest that we remove the part saying they'll get a second warning; if they continue to violate the same policy after one warning, the assumtion is that they have read it and ignored it, and I trust the sysops will use personal discretion on whether or not the offense is bannable. --Shadowcrest 03:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
