Explanation of warning points? Also moderator question...

Hello there. Sorry if this question has already been answered elsewhere.

I've recieved two infractions over my times in Linuxquestions.org... One was worth 35 points, the other 10 points. Oh, boy! That was a wild ride. I've learned not to repeat such behaviours now. Heh heh heh.
What is the meaning of the points? I assume that more points means a more serious offense. But I'd like to know more about it...

At the same time, how does one become a moderator? Do you apply for the job and get interviewed, or what? I was thinking of applying for a job as a moderator of the General forum. I would make informed decisions while maintaining a friendly and businesslike character.

The warning point system is used by moderators to help keep LQ a nice place to be for everybody. LQ Rule violations trigger usage (and usage is bound by rules as well) but only after contacting the LQ member to make him or her understand *why* he or she should mend his or her ways. The explanation of the warnings given is the task of the moderator. This should only be done in private e-mail conversation. If an offender is not willing to cooperate they unfortunately will find that protecting the LQ community outweighs protecting the individual. This can be temporary or permanent. In any case appeal is *always* possible. The single exception are spammers who are thrown into that timeless place where wailing and gnashing of teeth awaits them.

Only Jeremy can grant one the privilege of being a moderator.
Applying sort of instantly triggers maximum demerits ;-p

That all makes sense, but it raises two questions:

1) What is the maximum number of points one can receive before being "banished"?

2) Do the points have an expiration date (i.e. after two years, the points are emancipated)?

Cheers

I would hope that they wouldn't ... that you would have to "earn your way back," because this sort of action is intended to be a social-reprimand. A sharp, yet harmless, slap.

Moderators, of course, are humans ... they can get pissed-off too ... but just look at any blog or forum that doesn't have a good, always-on-the-job moderator team. Of course you won't spend much time on those places, because you tire of listening to babies whining endlessly at each other and soiling each others' pants. (Which, believe me, they do. Just pick any politics-site. )

I'm not "brown nosin'" when I say that moderators, like editors, are one of the main reasons why a web-site is worth visiting, and why it stays that way over time.

We only tend to permanently ban clear mass spammers and obvious trolls. For our member size, the number of permanent bans we have in place is surprisingly low. That's because we consider it an absolute last resort. Warning points can be temporary or permanent and don't necessarily even work up to a ban. It's meant to be a flexible system that enables the mods to do their job better.

--jeremy

sundialsvcs~

I know you're right. I used to visit Yahoo News Message Boards on occasion. What a mess! Removing them was the best move Yahoo has ever made.
---------------------------
Jeremy~

Seems to be a well-balanced system, and it appears to be working quite well, too, I might add. I didn't realize you had a point system, and was just curious about some of the details.

Cheers