VGC's stance on Thread Quality and Enforcement

[Zkuq]

RolStoppable said:

Zkuq said:
All of the points are excellent, and I'm here just to voice my support. At times, it's almost infuriating what kind of stuff is allowed. I don't think all of the 'crimes' are severe enough to warrant moderation (unless very small moderations can be handed out too, which I don't think is the case), but obviously repeat offenders should get moderated anyway, even if all the offenses are small.

Moderations start at warnings where people get officially told what they shouldn't do. Some of the poor conduct would still require repeat offenses to justify the first official warning, but the moderation tools in and of themselves are not a problem.

I know there's warnings, I'm mainly worried about all warnings being treated as equals. It's especially bad if there's a system for automatically banning users with enough warnings (I don't know if there's one here). It'd be quite flexible if each user had a warning level, from 0 too 100 for example, and they could be warned with any number of points from 0 to 100. Lesser offenses would be worth less points, bigger offenses worth more. It would be quite flexible. Of course I don't think it's going to happen here, but it's a thought anyway.

Ruler said:

Your rules sound like people are only allowed to start threads if they have nothing else to do in their life, looking at rule 1, 2 and 5 espacially

Don't you think you're exaggerating by quite a bit? The first point doesn't require all that much effort, the second point takes almost no extra effort at all, and the fifth point is there to ensure that if you're going to make wild claims, you're also going to defend them. In normal situations, the fifth point wouldn't have much use.