Creative Warn related, reducing the 6th month wait to 3 months for resetting them. Read for more.

[Brae]

Alright, hello! So as Ive learned from over the years of being on this server, if you're not warned for a span of 6 months, your warns get reset, I hope I am correct. However, I believe that because majority of the server is well, minors. From kids young to people around 18 or over. We're emotional, we have outbursts, yes I agree they are immature and deserve that warn 100%. Again, however I believe that waiting six months without being warned, is a bit hard, especially for those who are having issues and such, or come onto this server for an escape, as I do know a few. I'm sorry if this is an immature idea .

I would hope to be civil with anyone who agrees or disagrees, and if there are disagreements on this topic, please be gentle and civil .

 

[Pqndar]

If you get warned again in the space of 3 months that means you clearly are careless and don't follow the rules, 6 months proves you are now fully following the rules, if someone is having issues they should know better, they are still human and follow the rules and get warned and wait that six months like every one else.

 

[Liillii]

Warnings are not active once you have not been punished for six months, they simply become irrelevant and will no longer impact applications ectetra.

Now that is cleared up, I will elaborate on why I don’t believe this suggestion should be implemented:

• I believe six months is an accurate time span for when warnings should become irrelevant as, as previously stated, it shows that you are fully following the rules again.
• Your point in regards to ‘outburts’ isn’t very valid, if you only have one warning, most of the time it is ignored, if you’re having frequent outbreaks that lead to multiple warnings, your behaviour clearly isn’t suitable anyway.
• Clearing warnings from your record honestly shouldn’t be a priority: as long as leadership know that you’re bahaviour is adequate at the moment, previous infractions won’t be considered too much when applying for positions. Additionally, if were talking about being further punished due to previous infractions, you will not be punished if you only have a few recent warnings: it is deliberately difficult for this to happen.

In all honesty, I don’t see any valid positives to this suggestion, if any are brought up however I may reconsider this suggestion. I will be voting -1 for now.

 

[Jebb]

Warnings are not avtive once you have not been punished for six months, they simply become irrelevant and will no longer impact applications ectetra.

Now that is cleared up, I will elaborate on why I don’t believe this suggestion should be implemented:

• I believe six months is an accurate time span for when warnings should become irrelevant as, as previously stated, it shows that you are fully following the rules again.
• Your point in regards to ‘outburts’ isn’t very valid, if you only have one warning, most of the time it is ignored, if you’re having frequent outbreaks that lead to multiple warnings, your behaviour clearly isn’t suitable anyway.
• Clearing warnings from your record honestly shouldn’t be a priority: as long as leadership know that you’re bahaviour is adequate at the moment, previous infractions won’t be considered too much when applying for positions. Additionally, if were talking about being further punished due to previous infractions, you will not be punished if you only have a few recent warnings: it is deliberately difficult for this to happen.

In all honesty, I don’t see any valid positives to this suggestion, if any are brought up however I may reconsider this suggestion. I will be voting -1 for now.

warnings are never avtive!

 

[Tyler]

6 months is a good amount of time to know someones changed so...