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

3 months, then?

I'm not sure what you're implying based off of those few words, but that's not hard to do either.

I think the current one is better to be honest.

I don't like it because I would have to do strenuous amounts of math and back-logging just to do one simple suspension.

the problem with the old system is i don't remember very many (in fact i don't remember any) double-warns; you either lost one heart or all of them

a better way to be to "weight" certain offenses by making them take away more than one heart at a time depending on how serious the infraction is

though going back to the five heart system would be better for that

Are you trying to say that people could get permabanned for a single, simple offense?

when did i say anything about permabanning

My main problem with the current system is that I think it's overly harsh on new members. Most people don't join a board expecting to be banned in the first day or two over a minor issue. But for everyone else, the warn system was just extra paper work and acted similarly as it does now (most people either had all strikes or no strikes remaining). The cumulative ban periods however were a bad paradigm and that's ultimately what led to the breakdown of that system.

I'm sure we've tried creating a chart of ban times before but it didn't work out.

Never. Strict is good, keeps people in their place.


About what RII just said, we should still issue verbal warnings to members who have broken minor rules however. For example, if a new member posts a question in the wrong forum, instead of banning them for, say, 12 hours, simply tell them to stop, instead.

I like the current one, but...


I think that a hybrid between the current one and the old one could work as well. Basically it's just the three strike system but every time someone gets a warn, that warn adds to a cumulative bantime that is hidden from a user, much how ban times are set now. When the user reaches three strikes, they get banned for the cumulative time, which is then also reset to 0. That way, they get the chance to change their ways, but they also get banned for an amount of time proportionate to their accumulated wrongdoings if they go too far.



discuss pls

This post has been edited by MikeL on Sep 8 2007, 09:15 PM

Why not just verbally warn new members instead of flat out banning them and/or giving them an unremovable record from their log?

This post has been edited by artee on Sep 8 2007, 09:22 PM

Well, the unremovable record really doesn't mean anything unless they push towards getting three warns, and after that it gets wiped clean for when they get unbanned.

This post has been edited by MikeL on Sep 8 2007, 09:24 PM

Ah, so this problem is known.

Sorry, I haven't bothered to read past the first post, so this may be outdated or whatever.

I like the current system much better. The only improvement I can think of would be to have some general guidelines like a chart of some kind... and maybe some leniency/verbal warnings for the new members.

If I may say so, it doesn't seem very complex to me. Just a glance at the user's warn log, a check of how long it's been since the last similar ban (assuming that the different pre-defined times between warns that determine their severity - a week, a month, etc. - were simple and easy to add with), a look at a pre-existing table perhaps, and a simple multiplication calculation.

I do see your point, however. It certainly takes more calculation than the average warning system. I just mentioned it because many people want a system that is less "arbitrary" and more systematic.

We need to examine each offense individually, and decide the ban based on that particular situation.

Hello, I am here to explain why the 3 strikes system, and why it is superior.

There are a few things however that need to be done for this system to work smoothly

First, a log of warned and banned members in a thread all mods can update the list on top to edit the warn/ban list, with this keeping track of whos banned and warned is much more simple. (it also doesn't move every month, it stays there forever)

Secondly, It is also essential for the removal of warns after a period of time where the member respects the rules correctly, this encourages the members to behave.

Also, think about it many of you say "Oh I don't want to be banned for a long time for nothing"

You know how the system works now no warnings, you are banned for a day or two just like that. Think about the warnings, they teach you how to be cautious with being so aggravating.

Speaking of aggrivation that what this system makes me feel when I got banned, and i'm sure this happened to many people., The second time I got banned unfairly, I lost my patience and I made a dupe (only to increase my punishment), Do you know why i made this dupe? It was because I enjoyed the forums, but I just couldn't stand the ban system. I'm sure it's the case for other banned dupes.

Also another thing is, a pardon system should be made, If somebody gets banned for a long time lets say a mouth, if the person writes in essay form a good apology about what he did, and what he should have done and what he can do to make it stop in the future, or if he was banned unfairly, he would give an explanation. (Be sure for pardons they wont remove the ban completely, but shorten then)

Now the problem with this system going with the mods right now is that they tend to nitpick at every small thing. (no offense, these is merely my observations.) I can understand getting banned for making huge flame wars but not to say things like, "shut up" or "you are stupid" just isn't right. I check the ban list daily and there are more bans than members joining usually. Most of the bans you see are really small things. If you know, you could lax for small things like these, this system would work smoothly.

Thank you for you time for reading this, and I hope I enlightened you on why This system is superior.

That (or any other reason) is no valid reason to be making dupes.

Plus, telling people to "shut up" or calling them "stupid" is tantamount to, or in many cases, actually IS flaming, so a one or two day ban for that is justified.

I honestly tried to read through your post (it was well-written) to try and find some positive points, but it just looks more like you're trying to find excuses and loopholes for justified bans.

Edit: If it's any consolation, I DO agree with members having to politely lobby with the administration regarding their bans. Just from being on the mainsite alone, there isn't enough of this and instead we get a lot of members yelling at us (thereby lengthening their bans), demanding to have their mute or ban time shortened or removed completely.

This post has been edited by Nicholas Ainsworth on Sep 9 2007, 12:21 PM

But that's happening WITHOUT the 3-strike system. Someone even got banned for 3 months bumping a topic.

This post has been edited by Spoon on Sep 9 2007, 12:24 PM

Well, thats you, but I am saying that system is more noob friendly and lets you have more member rather than banning them, also. My reason is valid being banned long for nothing is very aggravating. I'm sure you didn't experience it.