1st time offenders should be given chance in my opinion

It may be an accident when they spewed out some profanities

Verbal warning maight me helpful here as they will be given chances, therefore, new members will dare to chat instead of just looking at post inorder to avoid getting warnings

Thanks

Warnings don't do anything. They're just warnings. There's no reason to do a verbal warning when there's a warning system that was made just for that.

Plus, warnings well...warn people that if they continue, their gone.

It also seperates the people who read/follow the guidelines from the people who didnt read or wont follow it.

"@LeXer- if you dont have something to add about the topic, then dont post. stop trying to milk posts by posting off-topic things, thats called spamming and we have a section for that >.> just a reminder."

uhh this is quoted from another topic after I have posted something that was ON topic, if you follow the guidelines you should be fine, and a fellow poster already reminded you with the quote above.

Somehow, I thought the warning level as a "criminal records"...

Most member will like to have it at 0%, like how normal humans don't want to have a criminal records...
Only the member him/herself and mods/admins can see his/her warning level [like U and the police for criminal records]...

Which is why I thought that usually a verbal warning is enough for the first time...
But if s/he still doesn't do it right, s/he'll get his/her warning level raised...

What? is that how it is?

My 1st time should have been caught by f3rd1 then. Cause I got 20% and 2 day suspend on my 1st and only time as till present.

Nope, I didn't raised yours...
I believe it's raised 2 times at once because U do 2 different things...

Sorry, but i realli can't remember some one saying that to me Oo

Going a bit off topic there.

I think warning or not warning should depend on how bad your mistakes really are. ie. profanities compared to telling someone to be quiet. Of course, thats my opinion. Mods/Admin have thier own.

Again, warning levels do NOTHING by themselves. There's no rule that if you get 100% warning, you're banned, or if you get 30%, you're suspended.

The only real difference between warnings on record and warnings sent on the board are that the mods can check the log to see if you've done something before. This makes it a TRUE warning, and doesn't allow the case where one mod "verbally" warns you in one forum and another mod "verbally" warns you in another forum later for the same thing. This allows the mods to work as a team. I promote detailed warn logs so that each mod can decide for himself or herself about each warning, instead of judging solely by another mod's word. This makes things more fair.

hmm, i thought the warning level was when you do ANYTHING wrong on this forum, ull get a raise, guess i was wrong xD

well back to this topic, if your given a warning, wouldent people just think its nothing or some other thing?i really dont think people would actually care if theyre suspended =/ but this is just words from a person who was angry that he got suspended from another forum. so dont know much at all.