Should we return to the "3 strikes" warn system?

We changed to the current system because under the old 3 strikes warn system (after 3 strikes, you get banned for 5 days, then 10 days, then so on and so forth), it really sucked to get banned for a long period of time for a minor offense.

However, the "new" warn system has some problems too. I'm starting to think if we should look into going back to the three strikes system, but improving it, either by writing up some general guidelines for how many days you'd be banned, or by letting mods give out strikes and then having admins decide the bantime. I'm just trying to think of ways to make things more organized here, because sometimes it does seem like when people get banned we might as well be rolling a dice to determine the bantime.

I would also like to give more time for a situation to be looked at before people are banned, to avoid rash bannings. And I think having a three strike system would allow for that.

Thoughts? Suggestions? Or am I crazy and is the system fine the way it is now.

I agree that the system needs to be more organized than what it is now. It really doesn't matter if you stay with the current system, or go to the 3 strike system. The ban time, in either system, should be determined by the severity of the offense, as well.

I see no flaws in the current system.

No, keep it like it is right now.

Like you said, it sucks being banned for a long time for something small.

I wasn't here for the 3 strikes system, but it sounds like a pretty cool idea. I say we give it a shot, and if it doesn't work out, go back to our current system.

That's why I said if we return to the 3 strikes system, there would need to be some kind of re-organization - I wouldn't want someone banned for upwards of 20 days for bumping a topic or something incredibly minor like that.

Or just have more set consequences. For example, 15 days for a dupe, 1 for flaming, ect.

The only reason I think we should is because that was the warning system I really liked.
When I was banned under the old system, the most I got was a week, and that was only because I bypassed a ban by changing an Image in my sig.

I haven't been banned under the new system yet, so I can't say how that works out.

I say that we should try out the "three strikes" system and see how it works out.

NO NO NO.
Only return if the banning times become much higher. Then what's the point?

I'm kinda leaning towards the current one honestly.

I'm just trying to think of a way to improve the current system because it seems too unbalanced to me.

So you listened to Cammy, eh Klobs? ;>

Who?

Oh, er, a friend of mine sent in a complaint about this to you guys earlier.

I just thought it was kind of odd that a few hours later a thread about it showed up.

I think I know who you're talking about, if it's the person I think it is, I heard about the letter he sent but I haven't read it yet. This is actually something I've been thinking about for a while though either way.

No, the current one is fine.

I say just come up with guide lines for how long people get suspended for what offence without switching to the "three strikes system". Maybe even write these guidelines into the rules page, adding to it as more offences are made.

This post has been edited by 123James on Sep 8 2007, 06:09 PM

*she


I can quote the application if you want.


She applied for mod as well, but doesnt care if she get's modded or not, she just wanted to get her point across because she unfairly got suspended.

This is a good idea