Talk:Policy:Violations of policy: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "==General Comments== '''Please keep discussion on this issue to the specific topic of the page title. Other Policy subjects can be discussed on the other a...") |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==General Comments== |
==General Comments== |
||
'''Please keep discussion on this issue to the specific topic of the page title. Other [[Policy command|Policy]] subjects can be discussed on the other appropriate policy pages. ''' |
'''Please keep discussion on this issue to the specific topic of the page title. Other [[Policy command|Policy]] subjects can be discussed on the other appropriate policy pages. ''' |
||
ANYONE CONTRIBUTING TO THE POLICY DISCUSSION PLEASE READ: |
|||
Do NOT edit or delete anyone else's contribution. |
|||
Do NOT hold debates or conversations. |
|||
You CAN edit your own contribution if you think of more to say. |
|||
Make sure to add a signature to your contribution so it is easier to find. |
|||
Click the signature button, second from the right at the top of the editing window. |
|||
Finally... always make sure to preview BEFORE you save! |
|||
Thanks! --[[User:BLADEDBUTTERFLY|BLADEDBUTTERFLY]] ([[User talk:BLADEDBUTTERFLY|talk]]) 00:38, 31 August 2016 (CDT) |
|||
==Discussion== |
==Discussion== |
||
I do not know if this is accurate, however, I have heard that in some cases the consequences for violation may not follow this three strike path. In some instances, I have heard of stat or skill reductions, no offline drain, and other alternative penalties applied in place of lockouts/bans. This particular portion of policy may be a good candidate for being made slightly more ambiguous by simply saying something like: "Consequences for violaton of policy may include but are not limited to..." and then list out possible penalties that may be applied. |
|||
I think the language that states that the penalty need not follow an escalating path should stay, as for some egregious violations more harsh penalties may be warranted. --[[User:KLINESDR|KLINESDR]] ([[User talk:KLINESDR|talk]]) 13:56, 12 October 2016 (CDT) |
|||
Latest revision as of 12:56, 12 October 2016
General Comments
Please keep discussion on this issue to the specific topic of the page title. Other Policy subjects can be discussed on the other appropriate policy pages.
ANYONE CONTRIBUTING TO THE POLICY DISCUSSION PLEASE READ: Do NOT edit or delete anyone else's contribution. Do NOT hold debates or conversations. You CAN edit your own contribution if you think of more to say. Make sure to add a signature to your contribution so it is easier to find. Click the signature button, second from the right at the top of the editing window. Finally... always make sure to preview BEFORE you save! Thanks! --BLADEDBUTTERFLY (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2016 (CDT)
Discussion
I do not know if this is accurate, however, I have heard that in some cases the consequences for violation may not follow this three strike path. In some instances, I have heard of stat or skill reductions, no offline drain, and other alternative penalties applied in place of lockouts/bans. This particular portion of policy may be a good candidate for being made slightly more ambiguous by simply saying something like: "Consequences for violaton of policy may include but are not limited to..." and then list out possible penalties that may be applied.
I think the language that states that the penalty need not follow an escalating path should stay, as for some egregious violations more harsh penalties may be warranted. --KLINESDR (talk) 13:56, 12 October 2016 (CDT)