Return to Answer

I fully support this rule, and it's awesome that it's now in action.

But let's think of the following example:

I am user x, and me and a few other users vote to delete a post. Then some users succesfully undelete the post, and I feel that the post should stay deleted. So I cast my delete vote, and it succesfully gets deleted again.

Then, a user moderator flags explaining that I broke the rules. What do the mods punish me with? Is it a straight-up suspension, or is it a warning based system? IMO if we're going to enforce a rule without the help of the system we need to have an official process for "punishing".

Have the moderator team thought of an official process? If not, here is what I suggest:

1. A mod message is sent, explaining the new rule. This is a warning, and most 10kers would probably stop here.

2. A mod message is sent again, this time explaining that if the rule is broken again, they will be suspended. Again, lots of people would stop here.

And after that, suspensions of increasing time legnth.

Also, how will the moderator team keep track of how many times a user has broken this rule? I understand if that's information that won't be revealed publicly, but I thought it was worth asking.

I fully support this rule, and it's awesome that it's now in action.

But let's think of the following example:

I am user x, and I and a few other users vote to delete a post. Then some users successfully undelete the post, and I feel that the post should stay deleted. So I cast my delete vote, and it successfully gets deleted again.

Then, a user moderator flags explaining that I broke the rules. What do the mods punish me with? Is it a straight-up suspension, or is it a warning-based system? In my opinion, if we're going to enforce a rule without the help of the system we need to have an official process for "punishing".

Have the moderator team thought of an official process? If not, here is what I suggest:

1. A mod message is sent, explaining the new rule. This is a warning, and most 10kers would probably stop here.

2. A mod message is sent again, this time explaining that if the rule is broken again, they will be suspended. Again, lots of people would stop here.

And after that, suspensions of increasing time length.

Also, how will the moderator team keep track of how many times a user has broken this rule? I understand if that's information that won't be revealed publicly, but I thought it was worth asking.

I fully support this rule, and it's awesome that it's now in action.

But let's think of the following example:

I am user x, and me and a few other users vote to delete a post. Then some users succesfully undelete the post, and I feel that the post should stay deleted. So I cast my delete vote, and it succesfully gets deleted again.

Then, a user moderator flags explaining that I broke the rules. What do the mods punish me with? Is it a straight-up suspension, or is it a warning based system? IMO if we're going to enforce a rule without the help of the system we need to have an official process for "punishing".

Have the moderator team thought of an official process? If not, here is what I suggest:

1. A mod message is sent, explaining the new rule. This is a warning, and most 10kers would probably stop here.

2. A mod message is sent again, this time explaining that if the rule is broken again, they will be suspended. Again, lots of people would stop here.

And after that, suspensions of increasing time legnth.

Also, since these battles happen a lot, how will the moderator team keep track of how many times a user has broken this rule? I understand if that's information that won't be revealed publicly, but I thought it was worth asking.

I fully support this rule, and it's awesome that it's now in action.

But let's think of the following example:

I am user x, and me and a few other users vote to delete a post. Then some users succesfully undelete the post, and I feel that the post should stay deleted. So I cast my delete vote, and it succesfully gets deleted again.

Then, a user moderator flags explaining that I broke the rules. What do the mods punish me with? Is it a straight-up suspension, or is it a warning based system? IMO if we're going to enforce a rule without the help of the system we need to have an official process for "punishing".

Have the moderator team thought of an official process? If not, here is what I suggest:

1. A mod message is sent, explaining the new rule. This is a warning, and most 10kers would probably stop here.

2. A mod message is sent again, this time explaining that if the rule is broken again, they will be suspended. Again, lots of people would stop here.

And after that, suspensions of increasing time legnth.

Also, how will the moderator team keep track of how many times a user has broken this rule? I understand if that's information that won't be revealed publicly, but I thought it was worth asking.

I fully support this rule, and it's awesome that it's now in action.

But let's think of the following example:

I am user x, and me and a few other users vote to delete a post. Then some users succesfully undelete the post, and I feel that the post should stay deleted. So I cast my delete vote, and it succesfully gets deleted again.

Then, a user moderator flags explaining that I broke the rules. What do the mods punish me with? Is it a straight-up suspension, or is it a warning based system? IMO if we're going to enforce a rule without the help of the system we need to have an official process for "punishing". Especially since there are a lot of delete/undelete battles that go on everyday.

Have the moderator team thought of an official process? If not, here is what I suggest:

1. A mod message is sent, explaining the new rule. This is a warning, and most 10kers would probably stop here.

2. A mod message is sent again, this time explaining that if the rule is broken again, they will be suspended. Again, lots of people would stop here.

And after that, suspensions of increasing time legnth.

Also, since these battles happen a lot, how will the moderator team keep track of how many times a user has broken this rule? I understand if that's information that won't be revealed publicly, but I thought it was worth asking.

I fully support this rule, and it's awesome that it's now in action.

But let's think of the following example:

I am user x, and me and a few other users vote to delete a post. Then some users succesfully undelete the post, and I feel that the post should stay deleted. So I cast my delete vote, and it succesfully gets deleted again.

Then, a user moderator flags explaining that I broke the rules. What do the mods punish me with? Is it a straight-up suspension, or is it a warning based system? IMO if we're going to enforce a rule without the help of the system we need to have an official process for "punishing".

Have the moderator team thought of an official process? If not, here is what I suggest:

1. A mod message is sent, explaining the new rule. This is a warning, and most 10kers would probably stop here.

2. A mod message is sent again, this time explaining that if the rule is broken again, they will be suspended. Again, lots of people would stop here.

And after that, suspensions of increasing time legnth.

Also, since these battles happen a lot, how will the moderator team keep track of how many times a user has broken this rule? I understand if that's information that won't be revealed publicly, but I thought it was worth asking.