why do mods still give out "warnings"? don't they know the first thing shitposters do is chuckle at their incompetence and naiveté, click out, and then continue on their reign of terror?
>>515174
Because the boards that do are actually good, as opposed to /a/ where mods suddenly decide to ban you because they decided that talking about things is no longer allowed. Then let entire threads go about doing it.
Warnings let people know the boundaries. Shitposters will shitpost, but the majority of people not in /b/ actually want to talk about things and get pissed when they're banned for no reason.
>>515315
This. When I'm not shitposting, if I actually get a warning for something I didn't realize was a problem, I'm fine with backing off.
warnings are completely fine, they're a good way of notifying someone of rulebreakage, but for small actions such as posting in a dubs thread or such that really wouldn't justify banning an individual. ifail to see the issue.
>>515174
I always take a warning as mods saying "hey, knock that shit off." It's like they're mostly ok with what you're doing but they can't really condone it and don't want to ban you for it.
Because the mods are supposed to be fairly light handed and let some things slide if it's not persistent breaking of rules.
Some mods and janitors don't follow that, but that's actually what their guidelines say to do.
