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

Also another thing this like stupid oror shut up can be warned for not banned directly.

Well, you have a point about telling someone to "shut up" or calling them stupid, but if you enjoy being on the forums, why would you go through the trouble of breaking the rules to get back in only to get kicked out again and for even longer?

Because the wait was long and I lost my patience.

I think the warn system is fine as it is now.
Only thing I could see would be some kind of HP system, where you lose HP when you do something wrong depending on what you did.
The HP could recover monthly..

Something like this

-three strikes system.
-1 strike for one offense.
-3 strikes, you get banned for the combined total of time for each offense, depending on severity, like the first time accounts for 12 hours, the next 2 days, and the last 1 day.
-After a set time (like a week or so) the number of strikes you have go back down to zero.

That's actually a really cool idea O:

same thing as three strikes really

Here's another idea, a simpler one:

- The 3 strikes system could be brought back.
- If a person has enough repeats of a single type of offense, he could start getting 2 warns at once for that particular offense. If he is particularly notorious as far as that kind of offense is concerned, he could lose all 3 warns for it. The number of repeats necessary for starting to get 2 warns at once, as well as the number necessary for starting to get 3 warns at once, would be determined by the admins.

This way, repeat offenses would still be well accounted for.

what so you mean lets say i bump the third time and i get an insta ban


whoops

...No.

For example, if a user commits the same offense like 4 times total in his time on MFGG, and then does it again, he'd start getting 2 warns instead of one. If he commits the same offense, say, 9 times total and still does it again, he'd start getting insta-banned for it.

Those are pretty lenient numbers, though, in my opinion.

EDIT: In fact, replacing the 4 with a 3 and the 9 with a 7 would probably be a lot more suitable - or maybe even replacing the 4 with a 2 and the 9 with a 5.

This post has been edited by Grant on Sep 9 2007, 08:46 PM

That really just complicates everyones lives for what, nothing.

...It's not complicated in the least. My last idea was, but not this one.

There may well be a problem with the idea, but it's certainly not that it's too complicated. Repeat offenses should certainly be taken into account somehow, and that requires some additions to a mere "3 strikes, you're out" system, it seems to me.

So you agree that it should be more severe and not less

In my opinion, a 3-strike system might be on the lenient side if implemented in certain ways, or flawed in other ways if implemented in others.

If ban time tended to stay about the same for a while each time someone got 3 warns, and repeat offenses were not taken into account, that could mean the member could get away with too much regarding repeat offenses, which, of course, are more severe than normal offenses since the user should have learned from before.

If ban time increased steadily each time someone amassed 3 warns, they could possibly be having drastic increases in ban time even if they're committing little or no repeat offenses, and though that wouldn't be that bad, since people shouldn't be getting warned at all really, no matter what the reason, it still might make, say, someone who gets warned many times for something different each time, get the same amount of ban time as someone who gets the same number of warns for all repeat offenses.

If ban times are still discretionary with a 3-strike system, that wouldn't be all that different from the current system - just more lenient, which I don't think is a good thing in and of itself. Admittedly, though, I did realize earlier tonight that a 3-strike system might potentially make people somewhat more careful after they're missing 2 strikes than they would be in a system without strikes - in the current system, people seem to have less of a motive to be careful since they get banned every time they do something, but in a 3-strike system they know that if they've slipped up once or twice but still don't have all 3 strikes gone, they can just be good and then they will be allowed to escape being banned.

So it may be that a 3-strike system with something that accounts for repeat offenses would be a good thing. However, I did notice now that I forgot to account for ban times in the idea I suggested above. Perhaps discretionary ban times (with a tendency to either stay the same or increase as bans accumulate, but not decrease, of course) would still be a good thing if a plan similar to mine were put into use.

I liked the 3 strike thing.

well now that you gave me good explanation, I will agree.

Sorry not agreeing at start.

Isn't that a good thing, teaching a member to be good, if you mix your bigger warns for repeated offenses he can't just do it again and get way with it so fast.

This post has been edited by Backins on Sep 10 2007, 12:06 AM

yeah but HP could be different like instead of just 3 you lose a certain amount depending on the offense

Which is like the old system and the new combined.

I suppose that would work.

Hehe..

If it was HP.. and you were constantly warned for one thing.. would you technically.. become weak to that?

EDIT: And what about Critical hits?

This post has been edited by Nova on Sep 10 2007, 12:39 AM

Like a major ****up sending you straight to ZERO