Increase the last suspension.

[Joshua C]

SUGGESTION #1-

So upon receiving 75 warning points, its said that you'll get banned which is bad however.
I think the number should be increased to at least 100 points or 150 points.

SUGGESTION #2-

And a chance to appeal back into the community, so if someone is banned for excessive violations of the terms, they should be able to appeal to be back in the community with there warnings lifted (like dropped to only 25 points etc)


If you disagree please state why.
If you agree please state which you've agreed to.

 

[Aelin]

Honestly, 75 warning points is, in my opinion, a fine amount of points to warrant a ban. Increasing it would provide extra unneeded opportunity to break our rules. If you think about it, let's take a warning for something like NSFW content, which is 10 points-- you'd need to break that rule over and over again 7 or 8 times in order to get banned. At that point, I don't think the person should be on the site anymore. It's not hard to follow the rules.

It's important to remember also that especially for smaller infringements, such as Shoutbox Violations, non-english content, wrong forum/section, and miscategorized resources, verbal warnings are almost always given on the first offense. I know for sure that in shoutbox, you'll sometimes even get two warnings (depending on your offense), one paired with a kick/temporary ban from the chat. Not to mention that even if you do get warning points for one of those things, it's less than 3 points. You'd need to violate it 4 times (5 times if you include your verbal warning) just to get a 4 day suspension, leaving you at 12 warning points.

That being said, miscategorized thread warnings probably shouldn't be issued often. I think intent plays a big part of that; if someone posted something intentionally in the wrong category, perhaps to troll, then yes, a warning for 2 points is probably called for. If it was an honest mistake, though, then yeah, I agree it should only be a verbal warning.

 

[MarkElf]

I remember being told that 75 was an 'execisive' number already and that most people wouldn't reach it very easily. I don't know or honestly care what you do on here, but my two cents are: "don't do anything stupid and you won't get warning points."

I'm not for allowing appeals either. I feel like some exceptions should be possible i.e you're a very reputable user that's been on the site for years and you somehow can't pay someone back with clearly no intention of scamming them. The issue being, if you allow one exception, you tend to make more than one with a bit of time till it's stretched out to a point of abuse.

For suggestion 3, I would read the first part again. A bit harsh but I stand by my logic. If I'm not wrong, and I wouldn't know, but I assume staff are friendly enough to give you a warning your first time. Actually, Aelin sort of confirmed this as I was taking my time writing.

verbal warnings are almost always given on the first offense

 

[DarkKnights22]

Apart from the 75 points increase, the other suggestions I think should be implemented, especially the wrong category ones.

 

[Justis]

I disagree with your statements that we should have rules which are only enforced through verbal warnings. If there is no punishment behind them, then they cannot be enforced. A user could continue to violate the rule repeatedly every day without any repercussions.

Quick expiries to warnings which aren’t too serious is the best way of ensuring that constant violations of these rules will result in a suspension, but that the warnings won’t last so long that they’ll accumulate over the years to result in a permanent ban.

I’d like to get expiries added for all of our warnings, even if the more serious warnings require lengthly expiries spanning several years.

 

[Joshua C]

I disagree with your statements that we should have rules which are only enforced through verbal warnings. If there is no punishment behind them, then they cannot be enforced. A user could continue to violate the rule repeatedly every day without any repercussions.

Quick expiries to warnings which aren’t too serious is the best way of ensuring that constant violations of these rules will result in a suspension, but that the warnings won’t last so long that they’ll accumulate over the years to result in a permanent ban.

I’d like to get expiries added for all of our warnings, even if the more serious warnings require lengthly expiries spanning several years.

Several years are much, a few months probably 3 or 6 months works better in this case.
And having a increase of the 75 points is a defo thing

Mostly the 2 suggestions I included in the same thread.
Increase of the perma banned point, and allowing users to join back.
I'm pretty sure people like remibarna are some good people to have the chance to appeal.

 

[Asodey]

Don't break the rules, simple.

 

[Zyger]

Honestly, 75 warning points is, in my opinion, a fine amount of points to warrant a ban. Increasing it would provide extra unneeded opportunity to break our rules. If you think about it, let's take a warning for something like NSFW content, which is 10 points-- you'd need to break that rule over and over again 7 or 8 times in order to get banned. At that point, I don't think the person should be on the site anymore. It's not hard to follow the rules.

It's important to remember also that especially for smaller infringements, such as Shoutbox Violations, non-english content, wrong forum/section, and miscategorized resources, verbal warnings are almost always given on the first offense. I know for sure that in shoutbox, you'll sometimes even get two warnings (depending on your offense), one paired with a kick/temporary ban from the chat. Not to mention that even if you do get warning points for one of those things, it's less than 3 points. You'd need to violate it 4 times (5 times if you include your verbal warning) just to get a 4 day suspension, leaving you at 12 warning points.

That being said, miscategorized thread warnings probably shouldn't be issued often. I think intent plays a big part of that; if someone posted something intentionally in the wrong category, perhaps to troll, then yes, a warning for 2 points is probably called for. If it was an honest mistake, though, then yeah, I agree it should only be a verbal warning.

In the past you got a lot more warning points for things, e.g. I got 35 warning points for "breaking" one rule (which was iffy) which makes up almost 50% of the 75 warning points.

 

[Mick]

Honestly, 75 warning points is, in my opinion, a fine amount of points to warrant a ban. Increasing it would provide extra unneeded opportunity to break our rules. If you think about it, let's take a warning for something like NSFW content, which is 10 points-- you'd need to break that rule over and over again 7 or 8 times in order to get banned. At that point, I don't think the person should be on the site anymore. It's not hard to follow the rules.

It's important to remember also that especially for smaller infringements, such as Shoutbox Violations, non-english content, wrong forum/section, and miscategorized resources, verbal warnings are almost always given on the first offense. I know for sure that in shoutbox, you'll sometimes even get two warnings (depending on your offense), one paired with a kick/temporary ban from the chat. Not to mention that even if you do get warning points for one of those things, it's less than 3 points. You'd need to violate it 4 times (5 times if you include your verbal warning) just to get a 4 day suspension, leaving you at 12 warning points.

That being said, miscategorized thread warnings probably shouldn't be issued often. I think intent plays a big part of that; if someone posted something intentionally in the wrong category, perhaps to troll, then yes, a warning for 2 points is probably called for. If it was an honest mistake, though, then yeah, I agree it should only be a verbal warning.

Denied, thanks for the suggestion