Infraction update.

[GmT]

I feel like when you reach a certain point of infraction in a lifetime, lets say 50.
You should get a 6 month or 1 year ban.
(a DNT would be acceptable aswell.)

This post from Azie + my input would be completly fine with me aswell;
Infraction update.

If you somehow mass up 50 infractions (even if they expire) you clearly don't understand how the rules work or are intentionally wasting staff time.

(This could be implemented in a layer system, 20 Gets you 1 month, 40 Gets you 3, etc etc.

Any support or just me? only serious opinions!

Like if you support but can't add anything to the conversation!

 

Heavly support this (for 1 year) ,
there wasting staff time and this should be dealt with.
I would lve to see this implemented and I'd like to see anyone currently with 50 infractions to see the punishment as well.
but I do think it should go from the date this is implemented not from the start of sythe

 

I'm actually shocked that it's possible for anyone to get that many. Clearly they don't accept the rules and don't wish to follow it. I may be biased cos I have no infractions or intentions on breaking rules, but wow that's pushing it and is clearly a headache for staff over years..

We shouldn't be allowing people like that into the community.

 

@Bus369 Any opinion on this seeing as you have 50 infractions?

 

if this isn't already a thing, it should be - should be harsher punishments for repeat offenders

 

[b1b]

there's no reason to permanently ban someone from the community unless they're an actual convicted criminal, a scammer, or a danger to the community

this shit is dumb but the mall cop mods would eat it up

 

[GmT]

there's no reason to permanently ban someone from the community unless they're an actual convicted criminal, a scammer, or a danger to the community

this shit is dumb but the mall cop mods would eat it up

By wasting staff's valuable time, scammers have more time to do malicious deeds. therefor wasting staff time should have serious consequences if done multiple times. Anyone with more then 30ish infractions obviously doesn't care about staff and their time. and are therefor enabling scammers. Albeit only a little.

I've also suggest a DNT, you're hammering too hard on one aspect of it. I mostly suggest period bans/dnt's.

 

[Azie]

I agree on the principle of having longer and more harsh punishments. We sometimes give extended bans for continuous rule breaking but don't have anything for people who have had so many infractions.

We've always had a system where an expired infraction means nothing. We would be changing the system by implementing this idea. Currently if you have 20 expired infractions it's considered the same as having 0 infractions.

I would support adding to the current system we have which is..

• A user who receives 5 infractions will receive a 3 day ban
• A user who receives 7 infractions will receive a 7 day ban

We could add something like this..

• A user who receives 10 infractions will receive a 14 day ban
• A user who receives 12 infractions will receive a 30 day ban

I'd support adding to the current rule rather than having a long term ban for those who have 30, 40 or 50+ infractions because it wouldn't occur that often. You mention Bus but it took him over 2 years to acquire the number of infractions he has. If we implemented this rule and started to ban members for a longer duration of time we'd be waiting a year before the rule is actually used lol.

 

[GmT]

I agree on the principle of having longer and more harsh punishments. We sometimes give extended bans for continuous rule breaking but don't have anything for people who have had so many infractions.

We've always had a system where an expired infraction means nothing. We would be changing the system by implementing this idea. Currently if you have 20 expired infractions it's considered the same as having 0 infractions.

I would support adding to the current system we have which is..

• A user who receives 5 infractions will receive a 3 day ban
• A user who receives 7 infractions will receive a 7 day ban

We could add something like this..

• A user who receives 10 infractions will receive a 14 day ban
• A user who receives 12 infractions will receive a 30 day ban

I'd support adding to the current rule rather than having a long term ban for those who have 30, 40 or 50+ infractions because it wouldn't occur that often. You mention Bus but it took him over 2 years to acquire the number of infractions he has. If we implemented this rule and started to ban members for a longer duration of time we'd be waiting a year before the rule is actually used lol.

This seems fair to me though you're also saying the infraction system doesn't work. If you put a way harsher punisment on more infractions you'll have people think twice before breaking a rule. In return you'll have less wasted staff time. I feel like every 10th infraction should be add a month. Meaning 10 Would give you 1 months, 20 2 months, 30 3 months etc.

 

[Sebast]

This is ridiculous. No support.

50 infractions is not something to perm ban someone.

 

[GmT]

This is ridiculous. No support.

50 infractions is not something to perm ban someone.

By wasting staff's valuable time, scammers have more time to do malicious deeds. therefor wasting staff time should have serious consequences if done multiple times. Anyone with more then 30ish infractions obviously doesn't care about staff and their time. and are therefor enabling scammers. Albeit only a little.

I've also suggest a DNT, you're hammering too hard on one aspect of it. I mostly suggest period bans/dnt's.

 

i support if one of their infractions is market orientated

 

if this isn't already a thing, it should be - should be harsher punishments for repeat offenders

you mean for retarded fucks like @Gun? I agree.

 

@Sebast @b1b idk if he edited it but there is no mention of a perm ban. That being said, would that sway your opinions?

Also to add, I think the current system should be over a 2 month period instead of 1, and @Azie suggestion has my support

 

@Sebast @b1b idk if he edited it but there is no mention of a perm ban. That being said, would that sway your opinions?

Also to add, I think the current system should be over a 2 month period instead of 1, and @Azie suggestion has my support

He deffo editeid it probably because people were looking only at the "perm" ban even tho he only mentioned it once in 8 or so options

 

I'm not sure if I should support this anymore, I stated I had no infractions and it may be biased.. I now think a lot of infractions are handed out for no reason so am not sure, maybe we should focus on staff handing out infractions or the reasons as to why people are receiving them. And whether or not infractions are given for right reasons.

 

Support ignorant people who have 50 infractions need to be taught a lesson, like they were in the old country. It's become too much of a meme to be infracted nowadays let's put a stop to this stupidity. ~~~

 

[b1b]

there are literal scammers roaming free on this site

innocent good guys have been banned

infractions literally mean nothing. there's no significant amount of "staff wasting time" in a world where market mods do their job, globals actually do something, etc.

I'm not focusing on the permanent ban thing for no reason. Excessive punishment doesn't deter shitposting and doesn't serve the community nearly as well as having people devoted to catching vaders like yousuck and mods that respond to reports in a timely manner.

get your fucken priorities straight dude

 

I agree on the principle of having longer and more harsh punishments. We sometimes give extended bans for continuous rule breaking but don't have anything for people who have had so many infractions.

We've always had a system where an expired infraction means nothing. We would be changing the system by implementing this idea. Currently if you have 20 expired infractions it's considered the same as having 0 infractions.

I would support adding to the current system we have which is..

• A user who receives 5 infractions will receive a 3 day ban
• A user who receives 7 infractions will receive a 7 day ban

We could add something like this..

• A user who receives 10 infractions will receive a 14 day ban
• A user who receives 12 infractions will receive a 30 day ban

I'd support adding to the current rule rather than having a long term ban for those who have 30, 40 or 50+ infractions because it wouldn't occur that often. You mention Bus but it took him over 2 years to acquire the number of infractions he has. If we implemented this rule and started to ban members for a longer duration of time we'd be waiting a year before the rule is actually used lol.

I honestly do agree. We can't keep warning people over and over for the same thing if they are aware they are doing wrong.

 

I honestly do agree. We can't keep warning people over and over for the same thing if they are aware they are doing wrong.

If you still think you're not in the wrong after 30+ infractions you've obviously got issues