Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-6975131-20140705212431/@comment-24728342-20140705214645

Well, the first proposition is rather orderly. Unfortunately sometimes unexpected events such as a computer blowing up cannot be so easily fixed. It does help to also have evidence of said offenses as well in case the CM has issued warnings before hand and people ignore the warnings.

The second option seems to simmer down fires and does provide some explanation as to certain absences or events. For example, some might have gone to areas in which the internet is limited. Yet again, almost anyone can come up will excuses. The difference is whether or not people believe these things and if what they say is actually the truth.

So far these propositions sound reasonable. I'll be hard to decided which is more viable and resourceful and effective.