Rejected - Inactive Require reasons for /warn and changing the popup

[epicsnorlax]

As it currently is, the /warn popup is extremely intrusive and jarring, and also very unhelpful. It's a giant box with hard to read red text at the top, and a long list of rules that don't really help at explaining why the warn happened (the equivalent of yelling at someone and shoving a book in their face).
This is made even worse when there's no reasoning put in for the warn, since now the warned user sits there for 5 seconds not even sure what they did

Requiring full reasoning for the warn command to be used will allow for no confusion and full transparency for why the user is being warned so they know not to make the same mistake again
Also making the message smaller like this will make it easier to read and understand:
---
"Please don't flood the chat"
Link to global rules:
Link to room rules:
---
Reason for the warn is clearly stated and easily seen, and there are links included for the user to look at if they need.
I'm not sure if it is possible to include a link to room rules through /warn, so if not I would suggest having a line of text saying "Type /rules in the chat to read global rules and room rules"

 

[Adeleine]

I agree that the popup is outdated and would probably support changing it to what you say.

I don’t agree that warns should require a reason. Yes, reasons are good and the majority of warns will have a reason, but I don’t see an option-removing tech solution fixing staff being ambiguous. If the chat is slow, a reason-less warn could be perfectly clear, and an unnecessarily forced reason will be a hindrance that could create confusion. If the chat is fast, a reason, especially a generalist one, may not help at all. Even if a reason accurately and specifically says why a comment is bad, the user may have thought the material was fair game. In any event, warning staff should be accountable to transparently explain their warns to confused users in PMs. If staff are being ambiguous or not explaining themselves well, a higher staff should explain these things on a personal or room level.

 

[epicsnorlax]

Im pretty sure most warn reasons can be summed up as "dont do blank" or "stop blank"
It doesnt take that long or require an in depth analysis
And how is it a hindrance? If theres a reason for the warn then it should be stated in the warn so the user can know what they did wrong. If you're having to strain yourself to find an "unnecessarily forced reason" then maybe you need to think to yourself if what they're doing is really warn worthy.
If someone disagrees with the warn reason then they can appeal to a higher ranking staff member, but no matter what you're going to need a reason for why that person was warned, so opting to not be fully transparent about it in the first place is extremely sketchy.

 

[Adeleine]

My biggest concern, more specifically, is that warn reasons aren’t automatically helpful. I already see reasons like “no”, “bad presence”, “stop that”, etc. Reasons like that don’t help users understand what they did and they don’t make staff more accountable. A “sketchy” or incompetent staff can just hide behind generalist reasons like I gave. There is no technical solution that can compel staff to be non-ambiguous and good. Or, if there is one, this is not it.

Specificity in warn reasons is not always good. Some example situations: temporarily flared-up users are liable to see more specificity as an accusation, and rules-lawyer users will use more specificity as an excuse for how they didn’t technically “troll” or “bait” or whatever.