Yeah we have caught some flak for a few decisions lol
I agree with the one point insult warnings.
The most interesting issue to come up in this discussion (which I'm broadly for, by the way) probably regards how some members here want to proscribe exact situations which warrant 1, 3, or 6 point infractions.
That's obviously a noble idea. The only issue with it is that it doesn't really change anything, with regards to moderator discretion, if that was the intention. Any level of infraction is going to be followed by some sort of reference like 'includes, but is not limited to'; that's a fact of life, unless we want any offence that we can't explicitly think up right now to be allowable until we edit the ToS again. That, of course, wouldn't be the most efficient way to keep things running smoothly.
With that in mind, the idea of saying that X warrants a 1 point warning, while Y mandates a 3 point one, seems a little superfluous, if not flawed. Certainly it works very well, for offences X and Y. But in the end, who makes the call as to whether any novel offence is closer to X, or to Y; that is, whether it deserves a 1, 3, or 6 point warning?
The moderators, as is the case now. So would we really be gaining anything (except maybe to add even more inane technicalities to tribunal appeals, which I'm sure the judges could do without) by making the rules more precise in wording, yet by necessity keeping the same level of discretion?
Citizen under the patronage of Garb.
Ex Administrator, Senior Moderator, and Content Editor.
I agree almost completely with that. Added to that is the fact that the CoM as well as the Tribunal can and have adjusted points in the past. There are plenty of people who can provide a backstop, the moderator isnt out there by himself. Trying to set a hard limit on points awarded to awesome posting will only cause more problems than it is worth.
Leave it in the hand of the moderators. In the case of a junior moderator, they always have the option of asking a more senior moderator first if they are unsure, or comparing the current post in question to previous notes issued. I can also think of a recent case where a senior mod got involved after a junior moderator had issued points, another layer to make sure things are done properly.
After that there is the CoM appeal and finally the Tribunal. Thats plenty of protection and plenty of people to help make sure the points assessed are proper.
Having a third tier is probably useful for certain infractions where the range of offence can be quite large.