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

or every rule has a number next to it, and these are day's you get for that such offense.
Doubles as person is banned more.

At the end of a 2 month period, everyone starts with a clean slate. Simple.

How does the current system work anyway?

the way it's supposed to work is that when someone breaks a rule mods look at the person's previous warn history and take into account how "bad" the rulebreaking is and then ban them for a reasonable amount of time based on those two factors

I'm going to read through this topic more thoroughly later, still working out a system

Um, hell yes!

We shouldn't have moved away from it in the first place.

And this, yes.

No. Personally, I don't want to work with a "well THIS specific offense will get you a warn but THIS specific offense will get you a ban, and here's the line between the two" system. That line will just become really fuzzy and things will just get complicated, again.

People want specifics instead of vague rules. Unfortunately, the more specific things get, the more loopholes there are. I don't want loopholes.

The old system wasn't like that unless somebody posted porn or something. You got warns until you ran out and then you were banned for a length of time depending on the final reason.

I'm completely aware of how the three warn system worked.

Yeah. You'd only get insta-banned for doing something really retarded like flooding the GC with goatse or something like that. Cases where people were obviously only joining to cause trouble.

Apparently not.

My question is how do we transition from this system to the old one? Would everyone who isn't currently banned have full hearts starting out or would you specifically warn each person that has been banned recently in the ban logs?

probably the best thing to do would be to just keep things simple and have everyone start with a clean slate. People currently banned would probably need to serve the remaining time though.

That makes sense.

Is it going to be difficult to put the old system back in?

oops shouldn't double post but curious

This post has been edited by Shining Ponyta on Sep 12 2007, 03:55 PM

On a forum code level? Probably not.

Was wondering because didn't know if the new system took a lot of modifying, so yeah.

If we are moving to a three warn system, then we have to be more strict on punishments. Otherwise it won't work.

If someone flames a big storm, they'd rightfully have to be banned for a few days. Under this system, they'd just get a warn and that's it, the same as if they did something small like a useless bump. That's a pretty terrible gauge...

Didn't we switch away from that system because it didn't work?

This post has been edited by Parakarry on Sep 12 2007, 04:16 PM

It's obvious that the warn log still exists whether the system is changed or not so one might assume that mods and admins would take that into account when banning someone who's out of warns.

Another idea that builds onto my previous post:


Warns would only really be for accidents/people who didn't know the rules. They wouldn't "add to the warn level", but would simply be notes in the warn log for future reference in case they do the same thing again. Deliberate disregard for the rules would still net some kind of ban.



As a consquence, some offences would tend to result in warns rather than bans, which would keep some of the newer members happy. Maybe...




Again, just thinking out loud...

That's why we're trying to improve the system. I also don't think BANNINATION is the solution to the problems this board has at the moment.

Yeah, instant bans only piss everybody off and scare away potential members.

This post has been edited by Shining Ponyta on Sep 12 2007, 05:00 PM