I'm about to be banned, and I seriously don't care at this point. F.Quist has done nothing, and said he would do something about all these warnings. Now I'm going to post a fun poll, hoping for the right answer.

This is what I'm talking about.

Would you like it, if your warnings and subwarnings that you got a long time ago, would eventually be erased from your slate, and that you would only carry a warning and subwarning for a certain period of time before they were going away?

Well, I would. And I've already talked to the administration about this countless, they don't want to do anything, well I need your guys help. This isn't just about me, It's about everyone, I'm not the only one on this board with old warnings.

Why would I want to vote this poll? I don't have any warnings neither has I sub-warnings.

Originally Posted by The Blaziken Master

Why would I want to vote this poll? I don't have any warnings neither has I sub-warnings.

Maybe because you could share your opinion and care about others, but well maybe you don't.

Lol, Razz, vote! Every opinion matters!

"and/org subwarnings"

How about get rid of warnings completely? They are handed out unfairly.

I don't give a crap if I have warnings. And I would be banned from here for the exact same reason as #jj2.

We need to draw the line between rules and personal feelings.

Originally Posted by ConkerHS

How about get rid of warnings completely? They are handed out unfairly.

Just because you're on the recieving end of the hand of justice doesn't change your opinion into fact. (Odin's Book of Proverbs (noteworthy of being the home of the immortal 'It's easier to judge others when behind a leather chair."))

Anyway, I believe that after a while, warnings/subwarnings should dissolve, the time it takes to do so depends on the severity of the warning. However, I think this system is already put into practice.

Spammers should be banned, there is no reason of allowing them!

I'm not talking about spamming. People are getting warnings over stupid things. There's a difference between giving out warez or warez links, and talking about warez but not giving out links at all, little things like this are corrupt. Conker is pretty much right, vote in the poll Odin!

I see no reason of getting rid of this, spammers aren't allowed here. They should be banned from this board! I think people that makes fun of me to love pokémon should stop flaming me for that! That really sucks!

Originally Posted by Derivative

I'm not talking about spamming. People are getting warnings over stupid things. There's a difference between giving out warez or warez links, and talking about warez but not giving out links at all, little things like this are corrupt. Conker is pretty much right, vote in the poll Odin!

Oops, forgot about the poll.

Anyways, I believe that since Fquist is trying to run a family-safe board, you should talk about warez elsewhere. I'm sure there are a few boards around the Internet that allow for such discussion. If there aren't, start your own. Just don't talk about warez here. That's all FQuist asks for, and to be quite frank, I don't think that's too much.

Originally Posted by Bjarni

I see no reason of getting rid of this, spammers aren't allowed here. They should be banned from this board! I think people that makes fun of me to love pokémon should stop flaming me for that! That really sucks!

Your post is ironic, inasmuch as that it's spam (doesn't really contribute to the discussion).

Originally Posted by Derivative

I'm about to be banned, and I seriously don't care at this point. F.Quist has done nothing, and said he would do something about all these warnings. Now I'm going to post a fun poll, hoping for the right answer.

Have you remotely considered the possibility I have not been able to do this yet?

You make more than 400 posts a month. Are you seriously saying that you don't care if you are not allowed to anymore?

If I were you I would change my ways instead of nagging about these things. It's not just the minor warning count you have inherited from (possibly) a while ago. It's that your behaviour is totally wrong and that you will be banned either way, old warnings or not, if you do not work on changing your behaviour. You're close to the limit, and seeing how you do not take the rules seriously at all I do not know if the ban would be a short one.

Well, I would. And I've already talked to the administration about this countless, they don't want to do anything, well I need your guys help. This isn't just about me, It's about everyone, I'm not the only one on this board with old warnings.

You are one of the only people on this board with old warnings (according to you they are old, at least). Mostly everyone's warnings are fairly recent (due to bans sometimes or not), and if they are not these people are usually the ones that changed their behaviour so it is not a problem for them anymore. You however, have not done this. In this regards you have to wonder if you deserve to get old warnings removed for misbehaving in a way you still are.

Originally Posted by ConkerHS

How about get rid of warnings completely? They are handed out unfairly.

I don't give a crap if I have warnings. And I would be banned from here for the exact same reason as #jj2.

All of your warnings have been for flaming and swearing, even after being told not to. There is no way you can spin this into "political suppression", especially since Derby is the one who gave you your warnings. Any bans or warnings you will get here will be for breaking the rules, not for a political standpoint.

I do not see why we need to get rid of warnings completely, since they are the best way to try to get people to change. And those who don't learn, are banned. As simple as that.

We need to draw the line between rules and personal feelings.

I might also suggest drawing a line between paranoia and reality. There is no political suppression by the admins on this forum and accusing them for it is unfair.

Originally Posted by Derivative

I'm not talking about spamming. People are getting warnings over stupid things. There's a difference between giving out warez or warez links, and talking about warez but not giving out links at all, little things like this are corrupt. Conker is pretty much right, vote in the poll Odin!

You were telling a user how to get warez. You were not 'talking about warez', you were pointing to ways to get them. You know full well this is against the rules and yet you did it. What you did deserved sanction.

And now please start thinking of how to change your behaviour, instead of always laying the blame on others.

I don't know how the warning system is worked (fortuantly I've yet to find out the hard way - only one edit to date and that was for stupid quoting), but I'd have thought that a good way to do it would be to store the date any warnings were given. That way, should I have hypothetically upset an admin and get a warning a year ago, and then get another warning today, the admin will be able to see that the one before was a year ago. Then again, if I suddenly went on a crusade against the admins and got a whole bunch of warnings, they would see that the warnings were all given out within a short time and have a better idea of what's happened.

Hope that makes sense. Quick translation: old warnings should not dissolve, but the date should be stored.

Originally Posted by Odin

That's all FQuist asks for, and to be quite frank...

Unintended pun! =D

Originally Posted by FQuist

I might also suggest drawing a line between paranoia and reality. There is no political suppression by the admins on this forum and accusing them for it is unfair.

^_^

And to contribute to the topic, I think warnings should dissolve... after a really long time, and possibly depending on the behaviour of the one warned. I think I got... one warning now. Maybe two. I remember I got my first one several years ago for using the word "hell" in my signature. It's not even against the rules anymore. =P

I'm not quite sure I'm seeing the purpose in BoggyB's suggestion.

Originally Posted by Derivative

I'm not quite sure I'm seeing the purpose in BoggyB's suggestion.

I think what he's saying is that past incidents of misbehavior should be noted, but they should be disgarded as time passes.

QuickPhrase™: Forgive, but do not forget.

In that case, I would modify his suggestion to be, that they keep note of past misbehavior in order to be able to improve on the system.

Originally Posted by Odin

I think what he's saying is that past incidents of misbehavior should be noted, but they should be disgarded as time passes.

QuickPhrase™: Forgive, but do not forget.

QuickPhrase™ correct!

(I completely failed to make sense in my previous post. )

(edited to add in the all-important ™)

Originally Posted by BoggyB

QuickPhrase correct!

(I completely failed to make sense in my previous post. )

You forgot the little ™. >

Let's start a new pool called "Do you want Tubs banned?".

...

obviously people are targetted unfairly here...

honestly Moonblaze... what was the point of saying that other than to start trouble?

No comment to MoonBlaze.

Eh. Our SUNSHINE BOY Moonblaze... never really has anything good to say.

Well, we are going to get rid of you at the end of the day, so goodbye!

(I hope we will )

Hey, who ae you referring to TBM? Trying to pick a fight? Just stop.

And even if you're not referring to me, that's still wrong to say.

Yes, I was talking to you!

AHEM *COUGH* Back to the topic please. It would be quite ironic if you got warnings from a fight in a thread about the warnings system.

I'm not going to say anything about Tublear's and Conker's cases, since I'm not following every single topic in which people get (sub)warnings. I'll leave that to the admins/mods, who in my opinion have been doing a rather good job over the years. I think warnings shouldn't be erased, but the time between them should perhaps taken into consideration when deciding on a ban. By this I mean very old warnings (2+ years or so), for mild offences (not things such as racism or violent PAs, or obvious warez linking). And the person's record for the period between that old warning and his more recent ones should be clean (so not getting a warning every three months, in the hope that the older ones will just be erased).

Which is a lot of rubbish to just say: it really varies from case to case. One should take into account what the old warning and the recent ones were for. But eventually, it's really up to the admins. Those who own (and, mind you: pay for) the forums have the right to appoint people they trust as admins/mods. From what I could tell, these people are not monsters who hand out warnings for fun. Seems to me that they are trying to be as unbiased as possible (which may never be 100% unbiased, but hey, if you want that, get a computer to moderate the forums =P), and using their best judgement when handing out warnings.

TBM, I'm done with you before I even started.

Engima, I think there's a good reason, somewhere, out there, that everyone tries to go after Derby. No one goes after any of the admin or mods, when they edit something out like a PA, or their not gone after as much as Derby is.

Originally Posted by Derivative

Engima, I think there's a good reason, somewhere, out there, that everyone tries to go after Derby. No one goes after any of the admin or mods, when they edit something out like a PA, or their not gone after as much as Derby is.

It does look like Derby makes the most edits (from my limited experience of JCF), so it's unsuprising that he gets most of the flak. Having never been a mod or admin of anything this scale, I respect them for the effort they put in to this site. They do a good job (from my viewpoint - other's may differ in their view).

Originally Posted by ConkerHS

honestly Moonblaze... what was the point of saying that other than to start trouble?

Because this topic is so ironic and ignorant that it's irresistible. Do you honestly think you can talk your way out of warnings? The best way is just prove yourself worthy to stay. I may not be the most posetive member around, but I neither flood misc. and annoy everyone at once with insanely biased opinions.

How can you check how many (sub-)warnings you currently have, btw?

Do some searches.

What I did was put my name in the User search box and told it to search for the phrase "warning" and "subwarning" (two seperate searches).

It will get most of them for sure. And for remaining ones search for the phrase "fl@sh warning" and "fl@sh subwarning" (two seperate searches). Though in your case you might have to type "flash warning" and "flash subwarning" because sometimes the @ is just 'a'.

Or you could always ask Derby in PM. He must keep a massive list of those.

But I'm lazy

Anyway I think I have 1,5 or 2,5 warnings atm. gg

Warnings are kept in the J2O Admins and JCF Admins/Mods forums in a thread. JCF warnings are removed as needed; J2O warnings are removed at a rate of one per month (i.e. if someone gets two warnings at once but does nothing after that, one will expire after a month, and the next will expire a month after that one.) I prefer the latter system, but the JCF administration likes this one. That's pretty much how it works.

Originally Posted by MoonBlazE

I may not be the most posetive member around, but I neither flood misc. and annoy everyone at once with insanely biased opinions.

Do you really think so? Are you sure about that?

Originally Posted by Derivative

Do you really think so? Are you sure about that?

Go away, you're a spammer!

Originally Posted by The Blaziken Master

Go away, you're a spammer!

Go away, you're a spammer!

No, I'm not, I hate spammers! Why do you think I made the banning poll?

TBM, you're making a bunch of wrong moves on the forums that will cost you later. Why don't you ever take anyone's advice. Seriously, you need to rethink your decisions.

OM gosh, btw, I can't believe that you don't realize you're spamming.

At least, I'm thinking about what people like Conker and F.Quist are telling me.

Originally Posted by Derivative

Do you really think so? Are you sure about that?

Yes. I am.