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

there should be no insta-kills really, unless its an obvious troll. that's unfair.

This is just a small idea, but how about if verbal warnings from mods are added to their warnlog, without actually counting against them. If it's an honest mistake, they probably won't do it again. That way, the next time they do something, the mod can look up and see if/when they were warned on the same subject.


Combine that with the current system and a general guideline for ban times (not chart or anything) and it should work pretty well.



Oh, and don't count situations where the member does something several times, but isn't corrected until later. Banning someone for, say, bumping 8 old topics without warning them first would seem unfair to the person as they didn't know as nobody corrected them.

MODERATOR used Warn
Super-effective!
Critical hit!
USER fainted
USER is out of usable accounts! USER whited out...

This post has been edited by Nova on Sep 10 2007, 12:54 AM

strikes are more organized than HP system.

plus it always depends on the mod how much hp he wants to cut off


plus they would have to go through the pain of coding an hp system.

Not really, as the 3-strikes is based on a % system already, if I remember correctly.
There might be some additions, but I don't know.

It really wouldn't be that hard to code.

HP would work better on a 5-strike system as Xgoff pointed out earlier.

With the ancient 5 rather than going back to the more recent 3, there'd be more leeway in scratching up the numbers for warns, bans, etc.

oh trust me mariana will cook up a lot more than 6 accounts

it's like he's godmoding Pokemon


somehow

personally i don't care but a lot of people seem to be getting banned and irritated regardless so it'd probably be for the best to switch back and use stricter guidelines

I'd say we use this legendary 5 strike system of old that some have been talking about. Strikes seem to be better to verbally warn then just a verbal warning anyways. also allows new members to adjust. also on a strike system if someone accidentally ****s up (I.E.: I put the word **** in large text by accidentally repeating the f to make it seem like yelling thinking it would get filtered. I went off to watch something and come back to a ban screen. Some **** like that.) They're not banned on the spot. also reminds other mods/admins that weren't here for a verbal warning and just log on quick that the user has been bad in the past. 5 strikes also makes it for more accurate warnings.

As far as the length and how many warns it really does depend on the staff no matter how many charts you make. I swear there are too many variables in breaking the rules that you just got to go with a punishment that is not strict and not loose. I look at this board and see a bunch of 15 year olds so we DO goof of now and then and some of us ARE here to have fun. Just make a decision, discus the decision, and wait for members to complain. after all of that THEN make a final desission. Needs moar mods that knows the leniency and strictnesses of MFGG bettar as well as the PPP inside and out ;O;

What if we went to a system where you'd get 3 to 5 strikes, then once you used them all up you wouldn't get them back and would be on insta-ban mode. That way it'd be fair to new members, but it wouldn't let them keep getting away with the same things over and over.

or a progressive decline.

Say you have been warned 5 times and got a ban.
After that it would only take 4 warnings to instigate a ban.
then 3, then 2, ect.

And of course if you've never been warned the five times, you could regenerate the full thing back.

Something like that might work too. If the end result is that new members are treated leniently at first and then ruthlessly if they continue to not learn their lessons, I think it would be better than letting them earn back points that they can use to get away with breaking the rules.

The problem is that the people who get warned over and over and over typically never learn, and do it again. It's better the way it is frankly. We used it for a while and it never worked out.

Instead, just keep a track on the types of bans. If someone bumps a 3 year old thread, the first time it's minor. If they happen to do it more, the mods should look at their record and see they've been doing this, then the bantime increases.

But above all else, MAKE THE USER SEE WHY THEY WERE BANNED WHEN THEY TRY TO GO BACK!

This post has been edited by Parakarry on Sep 10 2007, 04:12 PM

It's like using continues :D

Your initial credit gets you 3-5 lives, and each time you use a continue you only get one life back. >:D

I like this also.

Well, so many people have gotten banned at least 3 times, and the 3 strike system is very confusing.

thats more or less the same thing as the 3 strike system...