Suspension times modification

[Ally]

The latest announcement brought some cool and awesome things to MCM, but I'm not going to lie, one place where it falls is exactly the above picture.

As shown, 1 week suspensions become 4 days now, 2 weeks become 1 week, etc.

Mick's reasoning is that the longer the suspension, the longer the toxicity stays - which is fair enough. But we need a compromise and we need some consistent durations. Soo I propose:

1 week -> 4 days.
2 weeks -> 1 week
1 month -> 1.5 to 2 weeks
2 months -> 3 weeks to 1 month
3 months -> 1 month to 1.5 months
4 months -> 2 months.
1 year -> 4 months.

I'm not entirely sure of what better ones we need, I'm giving my thoughts on appropriate half-way estimates, given that these new durations are simply not strict enough in my opinion.

We don't want to give slaps on the wrists for leaking plugins or harassment or whatever the offense may be. I don't think we'll be able to get back the current durations but this'll at least be a little bit better than the ones we have since the latest announcement.

Thanks. Feel free to suggest better durations. (Imo 1 year -> 3 weeks is bs)

 

[Ally]

i already told you it helps people learn a lesson.

Warnings don't help anyone learn anything. Suspensions do.

 

[Gem]

Warnings don't help anyone learn anything. Suspensions do.

Bruh, I'm saying when you get suspended you learn a lesson, and say you just happen to not learn a lesson and you continue, then you'd get banned, it's as simple as that, there's no need to raise the times or anything like that. If people want to continuously break the rules after a suspension that obviously means they won't stop, and they will end up getting banned. Raising it is pointless.

 

[asa]

Agree Agree Agree
From suspending users for a year tops to lowering it to under a month, its such an inconsistent move.

it used to be like 30 points for a perm ban, if you don't allow change then nothing can change.

 

[Ally]

Bruh, I'm saying when you get suspended you learn a lesson, and say you just happen to not learn a lesson and you continue, then you'd get banned, it's as simple as that, there's no need to raise the times or anything like that. If people want to continuously break the rules after a suspension that obviously means they won't stop, and they will end up getting banned. Raising it is pointless.

It was significantly decreased from being high. I'm trying to at least find a suitable midpoint for both parties.

 

[Gem]

It was significantly decreased from being high. I'm trying to at least find a suitable midpoint for both parties.

Why would you need to find a suitable midpoint? If they purposely made it that low it means they wanted it that low, if they thought even the slightest it was a shit decision Mc Market wouldn't have done it.

 

[Ally]

Why would you need to find a suitable midpoint? If they purposely made it that low it means they wanted it that low, if they thought even the slightest it was a shit decision Mc Market wouldn't have done it.

LMAO

 

[Grace.]

Suspension system needs modification overall. For example, I got a 1 month suspension. For what you ask? .................. Simply retracting a bid , and mind you, this was after someone matched my bid for the same item. The point system just isn't the best way.

 

[Gem]

LMAO

Ya done now?






and still luv u btw dont h8 m3

 

[Ally]

Ya done now?






and still luv u btw dont h8 m3

No, forever memed :rofl:

 

[MTG]

I want the months that I was suspended at mcm to be back :shrug:

 

[Choo]

it used to be like 30 points for a perm ban, if you don't allow change then nothing can change.

You somewhat just proved my point. If back then you needed only 30 warning points for a perm ban, then why have they made consequences so lenient when it comes to breaking past 30+ warning points...
I did somewhat disagree with suspending people for over 4+ months, but getting 70 warning points now only gives you a 4 week suspension? That's kinda bogus if you ask me.

I want the months that I was suspended at mcm to be back ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

If you dont want to get a risk of being suspended for months on end again, then don't break the rules, simple as that.

 

[MTG]

If you dont want to get a risk of being suspended for months on end again, then don't break the rules, simple as that.

I haven't broken a single rule since October Last year, I don't think it's fair that someone like me [I have like 40 warning points] got banned for lots of months, then mick decides to change the rules and make it a couple weeks, even though I disagree with this suggestion.

 

[asa]

If you dont want to get a risk of being suspended for months on end again, then don't break the rules, simple as that.

This point is subjective, there are lots of people with lots of stupid warning points.

Example: I posted a shirtless picture of Golden [HE WAS OK WITH IT] and got a 5 point warning.

 

[Choo]

I haven't broken a single rule since October Last year, I don't think it's fair that someone like me [I have like 40 warning points] got banned for lots of months, then mick decides to change the rules and make it a couple weeks, even though I disagree with this suggestion.

I do agree there, I do not think if you were to break a rule now, that you would receive such a major suspension time (Not the case anymore with the new times though). Even if I do agree that the suspension times should be extended, I feel like they should examine what rules the user broke and how often the user breaks the rules to make a more accurate consequence, that's what they should've done. I've only been suspended once so I don't know if they did that.

This point is subjective, there are lots of people with lots of stupid warning points.

Example: I posted a shirtless picture of Golden [HE WAS OK WITH IT] and got a 5 point warning.

All I can say is, LOL! Those points better have been temporary

 

[asa]

All I can say is, LOL! Those points better have been temporary

No, they're not.

AND THAT'S THE POINT, don't argue for a point when the warnings system was broken enough.

 

[Choo]

No, they're not.

AND THAT'S THE POINT, don't argue for a point when the warnings system was broken enough.

My general opinion is that the rule system still needs some tweaks. Since we're getting off topic, all I can do is agree with this thread, hoping that the possible change of suspension times can cope with other suggestions that we have in mind.

 

[Mick]

It's been a few months since we significantly decreased the suspension times and I still think that it was a good change. In the past 6 months more users have been permanently banned for breaking too many rules than in the 4 years before that. The ultimate goal of the warning system is to get toxic users off of the site, and if it takes us 3 years to get them off of our site then it doesn't seem like a very good warning system.

It seems counterintuitive for shorter warning durations to be more effective for punishments, but it seems to be pretty successful so far so this is the way I intend on keeping it.

Denied, thanks for the suggestion.