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

I agree with this post. I've seen members that have blown up a whole page worth of warns within one month's time frame, every time to just come back and do it again. Here there would only be three chances, which would make you much more cautious, but if this system was re-established, some of the rules would have to be loosened up on (at another forum, people get permabanned for only committing minor offenses such as bumping two month old topics, as they only get three chances).

simple solution is to NOT DO SOMETHING WRONG. Seriously, just take the time to look over your post and think "Will this get me banned?".

Some people lack that common sense, they DO deserve discipline, but a perma ban won't help them, and an incredibly long ban will only make them angry at the moderation!

The other thing is that I think it gives new members more time to learn the ins and outs of things. Not that ignorance of the rules should be an excuse but I know I feel like a jerk for banning someone over making a simple mistake.

long ban will give them time to calm down, and if they come back still stupid, ban them again

I wonder how it would work out if a system like this were devised:

• Individual bannable offenses are given set amounts of time for bans.
• If an offense is a repeat of an offense that the same member already committed in the past, his ban could be multiplied by a fixed amount depending on the time elapsed since his return from his last ban for a similar offense (not just his last ban, period).

For example, if someone flames, gets suspended, and then flames again within a mere week of his return, his ban time should probably be his previous time doubled (multiplied by 2). If he does it again more than a week after his last flaming ban but less than a month after it, his previous time could be multiplied by 1.5. Elapsed time of more than a month but less than 3 months could result in a ban 1.25 times as long as before, and elapsed time of more than 6 whole months could result in a ban with no added time beyond that of the last ban for the same offense. All these numbers are only examples, of course, but hopefully you get the picture.

For a more concrete version of the example above, let's just imagine that the default time for flaming is 3 days. All the bans below were supposed to have been given for flaming - other bans unrelated to flaming would not factor into the determination of flaming bans in the proposed system, since other kinds of bans wouldn't be repeat offenses of flaming. This tallying system would apply to each kind of offense independently, however.

• First flaming ban: 3 days
• Second flaming ban, less than a week after last: 6 days (last one doubled)
• Third flaming ban, this time 2 weeks after last: 9 days (last one multiplied by 1.5)
• Fourth flaming ban, this time a whole 2 months after the last: 11 days (last one multiplied by 1.25, rounded)
• Fifth flaming ban, 7 entire months after the last: 11 days (last one with nothing added, since this ban is so long after the last one for flaming)

In short, the system I'm suggesting is basically a changed version of the current one. What do you think of the basic concept of it (i.e., with any necessary adjustments of the numbers and time periods given as examples)?

Imagine if after the third strike you got a permaban!

If they do nothing for say, a month, their old offenses should be pardoned.

Oh yeah, forgot to talk about permabans in my description of my proposed system above. Well, I guess that in any system they would be more discretionary than anything, so discretionary I suppose they would stay in that system as well.

No one would post here within a few months

No, I like the current ban system. The old ban system was alright, but didn't really give any real consequences except for loss of HH/SHH badge until the third ban. And the current ban system gives them time to cool down and/or think about their actions. It's pretty much ensured that there are real consequences to actions.

space

That's the way the old 3 strike system worked so if it's brought back that's the way I would want it to work again

I think it was something like 2 or 3 months the last time, I can't remember

From what I've seen, Joey isn't the harshest moderator. He just bans most often. Many of the longest bans weren't by Joey.

But otherwise, I can't say I prefer either. Both could go fine.

Anyone have an opinion on the system I proposed? Good or bad idea?

Just asking because I took a while to type it up. :X

That's a whole month of them not doing anything though.

The first forum I went to did that. After I found out that wasn't the case here I was surprised because I didn't know it was posible for forums to be like that.

I mean like nothing offensive .-.

Well, duh. That's not hard to do either.

Would setting it up as tis be too harsh:
First Warn: 5 days
Second Warn: 10 days
Third Warn: Perm heck yeah!

Yeah, I wouldn't mind going back to the three strikes system.

Longer ban periods following three warnings seemed to be more effective than banning X member for two days for spamming, and returning only to do it again.