Forums / Maintenance / Suggest Ideas

There should be a strike system set into place. When a person violates the rules he receives a strike and once he or she gets three strikes they get suspended for a day or so. If it's a repeat offender then they get suspended for a week. If the person constantly breaks multiple rules over a large period of time then they get removed from the site.
-
Example 1:

MemeManXD constantly keeps posting pictures which contain nuditiy or gore then they get a removed after getting three strikes for a day.

Example 2:

xdddddddddd keeps spamming in the forums and comments then they get removed after getting warned multiple times.

Example 3:

JoeyBigDong keeps harassing the users who he considers a no life and tells them to get a life. He then gets removed after constantly being suspended by the users.

What are your guys thoughts on the idea.

This is what we currently do with the warning system :|

Also I think three is much too little.

Consider that the current system suspends over 3 warnings on the same infraction, not different ones. I think it's a fair ammount.

Thats already in place, when someone gets a certain amount of suspensions/warnings, the mods tend to ban them.
Also I think three is much too little.

Three was too little, so we upped it to 4 or 5.

But in the end it differs per person. Getting suspended for the same heavy offense 3 times gets you to the ban rather quick, while small offenses on different areas and for different reasons each time can keep going quite for some time.

I'll throw in that this is a pretty subjective system on the way to a ban, but mods always discuss the user's offenses before banning an actual user. I can't see a situation where any mod frequenting the mod forum wouldn't know when a real user is pressing their luck.

If anything, we're lenient, but I prefer it. If a user needs to be banned, then they'll keep up their junk and will get banned eventually anyway. But if we prematurely ban a user, that's a lot harder to correct and forgive.

Somebody please tell me why we'd assume somebody who repeats the same offense over 3 times after being warned each time somehow isn't intentionally/knowingly breaking the rules?

4-5 rule breaks is a lot prior to a suspension. If somebody has to be warned for even half that I'd say they are clearly disregarding the rules.

Honest people chin up pretty fast. And we've experienced rule breakers continue to break the rules under the presumption that we'd never actually punish them.

Not that I'm saying leniency shouldn't be given to people who don't break the rules all that often and we should be hard bound to it, but I more think that type of leniency should be given per-case rather than automatically.

I will do have to agree with Natasuru. Warning a person like four or five times is quite a lot for suspension not to mention it's way too lenient. At that point, it's clear the person isn't willing listen and deserves a suspension at that point. I think we need to be more strict about our rules if you guys want to reduce the amount of rule breakers here.

I think suspending or banning a person really depends on these four factors.

1. How many times has this person been warned or suspended within six months or a year?

2. How long ago was this person's last offense? Was this person's last offense recent or a while ago?

3. How serious is this offense? For example, did the person attempted to ban evade or did the person just simply violated the media meta guidelines?

4. Did the person break the same rule every time this person gets warned/suspended?

When considering for a suspension, Warnings should only be considered if the warnings were given within a six month period.

When considering for a ban, Suspensions should only be considered if the suspensions were given within a year period.

To warrant a suspension, the person has been warned three times for the same offense or a person has accumulated five warnings within six months

To warrant a ban, which IIRC functions as a permanent ban here, I think after the person has three suspensions for the same offense or the person has five suspensions accumulated within a year, the person should be banned. (Less if the offense is more serious like trying to ban evade.)

That's my suggestion on how a strike system would work. If anyone else wants suggest improvements on this idea, feel free to do so.

Wait, people warn 3 times for the same stuff? I just warn once and if they make the same offense again, I suspend. Most mods work by that. I'm only willing to warn for the same offense again if some time has passed (say, 3 months) or they're folks I know aren't frequent rule breakers.

What I meant with 3 times is that I suspend for the same stuff 3 times (with increasing lengths of the suspension) and then ban on the 4th time.

Then again, outside of the clear and obvious bans, I believe we bring up all bans in the mod forum before handing them out. So the per-case type of bans is already what we're doing.

@Lopunny

That's already most of what we role with when discussion suspensions and/or bans. Give or take some difference in how far we look back.

For about 6 or so months the official moderator policies said 3 Warnings then Suspension for breaking the same rule, and 4 warnings then suspension for different rules. (Both types had been bumped up by 1)

I didn't notice it was changed a month ago, but in my defense when I raised my original complaint I was greeted with echoey silence. Glad it was changed.