Updated Chatbox rules and Disciplinary system

yes, but do warnings reset after a ban? i would say yes, but you may want to ask hutch.

It says in the OP the second three so I think it means you have to get three more warnings.

Well, Agent broke 3 Rules.
Does that warrant 9 warnings?
Or simply 1?

I've PMed Hutch.

Signing off,
3DBlenderRender

how about this.. after one ban, you then have a tentitive warning that sticks with you. if your next one is small, it just counts as one, but if it's bigger, then th tentitive one can be counted. to be decided by admins only.

Agent, to be blunt. I'm disgusted. I am aware they're some lose ends in the rules, and I should correct them. But from what I've heard, your behavior was terrible. And that does warrant multiple warnings, because you continuously made major breaches in the chatbox rules.

If I'm correct, you've already been banned once. And I'm seriously considering a second ban, I'll address you later once I can look into the subject.

As for Camel, I actually think that's a pretty good idea. I'll edit the rules to remove loopholes and make the warning policy a bit more clear tomorrow.

-Hutch

Great, more rules for the chatbox.
(No Sarcasm there)

Stricter banning. Needed.

Hutch wrote:

5: Be polite, be efficient, have a plan to make friends with everyone you meet: (You get a cookie if you understand the reference.)

*tries to steal cookie*

now, I think his mate saw me....

.....

YES, YES HE DID

Drew980 wrote:

Stricter banning. Needed.

I totally agree. People shouldn't hesitate to ban on the chatbox. It can be undone at least as easily as it can be done. But also, the chat isn't the main focus of GAC, so being banned from the chat shouldn't be that big of a deal anyway. (Most people are only on the chat less than 5% of the day anyway)

1) I'm on chat for almost all of my GAC day.
2) I don't think we should be THAT strict
3) That rule only applies to chatmods, which most people aren't, so you can't go BAN! BAN! BAN!
4) BUT even if you AREN'T a chatmod, you SHOULD contact a mod if you see bad chat activity

I think these rules are fine, and that they are working smoothly. Chat-mods are doing great, but we could use a few more, as of most mods are either not on lately, or aren't mods at all.

They were a mess when Hutch was gone. Gamer was not kicked until I asked 3D to. That shows you that you guys cant put up with crap like that. Therefor getting the problem taken care of before it becomes a shitsotrm is much easier.

Thats smooth, not a prolonged existence of a nuisance.

Lazernugget wrote:

1) I'm on chat for almost all of my GAC day.
2) I don't think we should be THAT strict
3) That rule only applies to chatmods, which most people aren't, so you can't go BAN! BAN! BAN!
4) BUT even if you AREN'T a chatmod, you SHOULD contact a mod if you see bad chat activity

I think these rules are fine, and that they are working smoothly. Chat-mods are doing great, but we could use a few more, as of most mods are either not on lately, or aren't mods at all.

1: That doesn't apply to anything at all
2: We do need more chatmods, and we do need to get stricter about chatbox bans. It will be explained once I re edit the rules
3:Yes, that would be nice. But rarely anyone does it

They aren't, at all. Users abuse others when moderators are gone, which means that we either need some more chatmods, or the users need to step up and regulate the chat, sadly. Both would be VERY hard to implement.

hutch, i cant, but if you could find the thingy that alows admins and mods to watch the chat when not logged on, we may be quicker to issue a worning or se bad behavior. it's a little.... like evesdropping, but we could use it to keep an eye on a user in question.

That sounds like a good idea camle, but it may interfear with "privet" discussions in the chat, as in if something is going on in their life. I don't think they would want anyone to else to see.

i know, but it may be nessisary at times. you know... if there's someone who has warnings, and is close to a ban, to be watched... it may be too much, but we dont' have to use it much.

I really don't have much of a problem with the idea other than what I said earleir. But if it is nessisary than you should go ahead.

Or... get rid of the chat?


No thats a stupid idea, isn't it?

Its not a stupid idea, its just not a good one.

Dark Star wrote:

Its not a stupid idea, its just not a good one.

I doubt anyone would go with it, though...

ok, so i know this feature EXISTS cuz eurospore had it, but i cant figure out WHERE it is or HOW to use it...

Hutch wrote:

Lazernugget wrote:

1) I'm on chat for almost all of my GAC day.
2) I don't think we should be THAT strict
3) That rule only applies to chatmods, which most people aren't, so you can't go BAN! BAN! BAN!
4) BUT even if you AREN'T a chatmod, you SHOULD contact a mod if you see bad chat activity

I think these rules are fine, and that they are working smoothly. Chat-mods are doing great, but we could use a few more, as of most mods are either not on lately, or aren't mods at all.

1: That doesn't apply to anything at all
2: We do need more chatmods, and we do need to get stricter about chatbox bans. It will be explained once I re edit the rules
3:Yes, that would be nice. But rarely anyone does it

They aren't, at all. Users abuse others when moderators are gone, which means that we either need some more chatmods, or the users need to step up and regulate the chat, sadly. Both would be VERY hard to implement.

I agree with Hutch and with Camel, we need more chatmods to patrol the chat, and we need to enforce the rules a bit more.

camelfox wrote:

hutch, i cant, but if you could find the thingy that alows admins and mods to watch the chat when not logged on, we may be quicker to issue a worning or se bad behavior. it's a little.... like evesdropping, but we could use it to keep an eye on a user in question.

I'll see what I can do.