Make Resources with Malware Cause a Permanent Ban

[Lyfe]

As of now, this is the rule that prohibits resources with malware:
6.4 Do not submit resource files which contain malware, viruses, or any other malicious program or script.
This will get the user 35 warning points. That means that if someone uploads a virus to MCM that makes the downloaders computer unusable and 10 MCM users download it, the user who submitted that resource isn't even halfway to a ban. There's no reason this should be 35 warnings points; this should be an instant ban.
Let me know what you think,
Lyfe

 

[Justis]

If someone uploads software which is clearly intended specifically to cause harm to the downloader, they’re permanently banned.
For instance, a plugin which corrupts all of the server files, or specifically sends personal information to the creator, etc.

If someone uploads software which has the potential to be used in a harmful manner, but isn’t necessarily harmful in itself, then they get the 35 point warning.
For instance, some developer forgot to remove test code in their plugin which will give the user op if they type a specific command.
This is obviously still inexcusable and must be punished for, however, mistakes happen. I’ve nearly done something similar, myself. It should be a lesser punishment than a permanent ban. Hence the existence of the 35 point warning.

 

[Mick]

If someone uploads software which is clearly intended specifically to cause harm to the downloader, they’re permanently banned.
For instance, a plugin which corrupts all of the server files, or specifically sends personal information to the creator, etc.

If someone uploads software which has the potential to be used in a harmful manner, but isn’t necessarily harmful in itself, then they get the 35 point warning.
For instance, some developer forgot to remove test code in their plugin which will give the user op if they type a specific command.
This is obviously still inexcusable and must be punished for, however, mistakes happen. I’ve nearly done something similar, myself. It should be a lesser punishment than a permanent ban. Hence the existence of the 35 point warning.

Denied, thanks for the suggestion.