Forum disciplinary policy (Rough Draft)

[Logos]

Where a community member (henceforth "member(s)") is found to be in breach of forum rules, the following disciplinary action should be taken. Depending on the severity of the breach, a moderator may choose to skip lesser actions in favour of stronger ones.

Dealing with bad behaviour:

• Minor incidents: Where a member is found to be in breach of the spirit of a law, if not the actual letter of the law, a moderator may choose to intervene in an unofficial capacity. Where a moderator intervenes publicly, care should be taken not to single out any member by name or by specific reference. Where a moderator intervenes privately, it should be directly to the member in question, where two or members are involved in an incident, each member individually.
• Obvious infractions: Where a member has knowingly and unapologetically broken a forum rule, in spirit or in letter, a moderator should take officially recorded action. Moderators should send an official warning from the offending post (not the open report, should the post have been reported) in order to ensure a correct and working link back to the offending behaviour. The official warning should use the appropriate template, and the users warning level should be set to 15%, which will place them on the 'watched' list. That an official warning has been given out should then be listed in any relevant open reports. Preferred terminology: Official warning.
• Repeat or serious infractions: Where a member has grievously and gratuitously broken a forum rule, or has continued to break forum rules after being given an official warning, moderators should institute a one week ban, called a suspension. ***** Moderator should create a ban called "One Week: USERNAME", set to expire after seven days. A warning should then be set, and the users warning level should be set to 45%. This will mean that all of that members posts will need to be approved by a moderator before they are made public.
• Ongoing or unforgivable infractions: Where a member commits an unforgivable offence against the forum community (or an obvious spam account), or has displayed an ongoing commitment to causing unrest within the community, even after a suspension, a moderator will need to remove that member from the community. The moderator should create a ban called "Final: USERNAME", that is not set to expire, and that includes the members username and email address as a trigger.

Cooling off periods:

• Post suspension: One week. Where a member has gone a full week under moderation without incurring further penalties, their warning level should be set from 45% down to 30%.
• Post moderation: Three months. Where a member has been at 30% for a full three months without incurring further penalties, their warning level should be set from 30% down to 15%.
• Post warning: Three months. Where a member has been at 15% for a full three months without incurring further penalties, their warning level should be set from 15% back to 0%.
• Extending a cooling off period: If a member has been sent one or more informal warnings during a cooling off period, a moderator may choose to extend that period. If so, they should create a warning, but not adjust that members warning level, and not send that member a warning. When doing so, they should include a note for the record as to why the cooling off period is being extended.

[Logos]

***** Should we create new templates that include bans?

Also, this is a technical version. Once we're all happy with this, I'll rewrite a user friendly version without all the numbers and jargon. For now, we should probably focus on standardising our methods.

[Ethos]

***** Should we create new templates that include bans?

i.e. "You have been suspended/banned [as opposed to "warned"] for such and such an offence for such and such a period?"

I could whip something up.

[Logos]

That extra applaud to your name just now was from me.

[Ethos]

That extra applaud to your name just now was from me.

I'll get around to it eventually. lol