Warning system

The warning system isn't really detaining everyone from spilling soykaf. Just look at the this thread: >>>/r/2519 I believe that every warning should come with some punishment, say, 2h or 6h ban from posting and sokaf posts should get removed, specially those that are in standing violation of the rules. If there is a worthwhile content in a post it could be granted a pass with just a 2h ban but there is no point in keeping green text one liners. "Don't feed the trolls." is a nice idea but in reality the red text only makes their trolling stand out and without any deterrent it just fuels terrible quality discussions. Knowing your soykaf quality post will get removed and only few hours of ban will remain might actuially stop some people from spaming. Getting nice red mod appreciation sticker wont.

I'm disappointed that he's stopped warning soykaf threads because of a few crybabies. It makes the soykafheads think it's okay to soykaf up the boards.

>>4229 Most other boards don't have this obnoxious feature.

>>4231 Most other boards don't have the level of quality Lainchan does. Most other boards don't attempt to maintain the level of quality Lainchan does.

>>4227 Actually, I live in eternal fear of heavy-handed moderation by anal autists I think that a way to publicly say "dunt du this", and then, no harm, no foul, the post isn't even deleted It's not like chronically warned users aren't going to get a ban; but it's also very good that you don't get a 6hr gag (there goes the rest of your evening) just because you got a bit caught up in the moment funposting with someone

>>4239(Me) Bleh, my thoughts don't come together today very well I just wanted to say that IMHO the mod team is doing a great job, and this is from someone who's normally wary of Internet Discourse Moderators If all these warns I've seen recently don't have bans attached; they're just gentle corrections, then I think that's really great! ^-^ It allows the situation to be resolved without ANYONE involved getting butthurt or stirring up a single fleck of drama.

>>4240 Handing out warnings as a "tone argument" to try to improve discourse is high-octane autism. Warnings should be reserved for _violation_ of standards. Not "you could have made a slightly better post if you had tried." I talked to Appleman a few days ago about this and this is how he intended the warnings to be taken. He did not seem to understand at first that most people would take them as "you did wrong, you committed a violation." In fact, he continued to defend his version of their use for quite a while - not using the argument that people would interpret them as soft proddings but simply stating how he _intended_ for them to be interpreted, completely ignoring the (to any other person) obvious fact that it's what other people think that matters and that people don't automatically share his view of things.

>>4245 Furthermore, even after asking at one point if another set of moderator warnings would be interpreted differently (for some reason) he then turned around and just said "yes, I am aware" the rest of the discussion as if the preceding admittance to not understanding had not taking place. I continue to iterate my view that Appleman consistently fails in perspective-taking and not-seeing-the-forest-for-the-trees and that people make excuses for his behavior because they can't believe that a person would function in such a manner. And also that Appleman, for some reason, does not want to admit this to himself on some very deep level.

>>4239 >there goes the rest of your evening You could go read a book or something.