not every mod does this, because it's not required. If you want to be the equivalent of the stupid guy who stands around at a crime scene and just holds his phone up to film while everyone else clears up the situation, just go on Jack's profile and look at his recent posts.

The public record topic was meant exactly for mentioning everything regarding warnings and bans. It shouldn't be outdated and the most important would be to mention all the informations regarding a warning or a ban. Following post 2's philosophy, we don't even need an extra topic for this purpose, because everyone can search for "moderation" right? It's fun that people are expecting others to do this instead of asking the moderators to do so, but when it comes to check pms every week, it's too hard to click on a single link.

@StormProductions: Perhaps, I should have made my wording clearer. I didn't exactly meant to say the topic is not needed, I mean in case the admins do not post a link, we can search for moderation.

@Destranis: What if a person receives 2 warnings, will you search for moderation again? Imagine you are a mod, what if you forget that you gave person X a warning 20 days before? It's a different story if you are reminded by somebody or the other. Admins try to post the link to a topic in which a user got a warning, they post so that forumites can have an idea why the user got a warning like @6 quoted.

Regarding checking private messages, I can do it well within 5 seconds. If the user who gets the warning, or any other person have a problem regarding that warning, they can discuss it. In order to put forward arguments, one is expected to read the entire topic to have a clear understanding. And it takes less time to search for moderation. I do have around 67 private messages, because I check them everyday and reply whenever I get one.

@Zarvox, you should have put a colon instead of a period.

The fact is, Aaron made that topic on his own. I am absolutely not trying to throw Aaron under the bus here, but this particular stance - the first post being updated, the linking back - was never agreed to by the mod panel overall. i.e., he set it up, worded it the way he wanted to, and while we all agreed that the topic should be there, there was also no official discussion on whether or not linking back was vital or not. And because the core info is there (i.e., it's possible to search back, and the thread itself is updated appropriately), it's just something we've never sat down and hammered out one way or the other, because it has never seemed as if it were necessary.

This has sorta been adjudicated before in these terms, I'm afraid. Sometimes we do link back, sometimes we don't. I don't really see a super-strong argument to do it one way or the other, but I also don't see enough of an issue that this needs to be decided one way or the other, either by the forum itself or by us.

Cautions aren't official punishments so it doesn't matter