Rule punishment reform

[Necromancer24]

Auth trading rule - Should be increased from an infraction to a 3 day ban. I mean, you guys have put up like a hundred stickies all warning everyone that you don't tolerate the trade of auth codes. But do people listen to you? No. They continue posting despite the warning. What's going through their minds is this "Oh it's only an infraction". If we increase it to a 3 day ban, the amount of auth trading threads would be reduced.

Referral rule - Increase punishment from an infraction to a 7 day ban. Most of these fuckers join Sythe for the sole reason of advertising and referrals. Why not ban their account for a longer time, so they'd be bothered to make another account just to advertise and get referrals. It's troublesome and therefore makes their job harder. Now I'm not saying all of them will give up, but a lot of them would.

 

[Gimme a Sec]

I support this but other than the fact they only think it is a fraction they also post because even if it does get locked in say 12hrs the amount of people that have seen it, know its against the rules but still add them on msn or pm them is quite large. So increasing this to a three day ban will also stop them from posting knowingly of it being closed.

 

[Brendan]

I'd be happy with an infraction first, then afterwards an automatic 3 day ban.

 

[FireZ]

I'd be happy with an infraction first, then afterwards an automatic 3 day ban.

Agreed. Whenever I see a 'flooder", someone who posts a thread more then 5 times I automatically temp ban them with no hesitation to stop the flooding.

 

[Necromancer24]

If they honestly did not know that it was against the rules (They're a leecher), then I'd suggest an infraction. However, if they're a member rank +, I'd suggest a 3 day ban.

"I didn't know it was against the rules" is not a valid excuse. It can be replied with "Read the stickies next time".

 

[Travis]

yea i support the auth selling has got to stop.

 

[ChrisCol]

I'd be happy with an infraction first, then afterwards an automatic 3 day ban.

This as some people don't know.

 

[Transfer]

Support.

 

If they honestly did not know that it was against the rules (They're a leecher), then I'd suggest an infraction. However, if they're a member rank +, I'd suggest a 3 day ban.

"I didn't know it was against the rules" is not a valid excuse. It can be replied with "Read the stickies next time".

The thing is, these people have to agree to the rules before they join. It's their own fault that they didn't, and pleading ignorance is unacceptable.

 

[bizness]

The thing is, these people have to agree to the rules before they join. It's their own fault that they didn't, and pleading ignorance is unacceptable.

Exactly. And that's the reason why I support both suggestions

 

[SuF]

The thing is, these people have to agree to the rules before they join. It's their own fault that they didn't, and pleading ignorance is unacceptable.

It may be their own fault, but there is a distinct difference between a new user not reading the rules and someone purposely breaking the rules for their own gain. The new user shouldn't be punished heavily for being not so smart, which is why there should still be a warning at first. However, I know its always been a policy that if you continuously break a certain rule the moderators have the right to ban the user as they see fit. Even add another clause to the rules that says breaking infractable rules more than once can result in a ban. Obviously, its up to the moderators to choose what to do and the ability to choose to ban instead of infract should be limited to globals, and not sectionals. Something like this could work a lot better for everyone instead of just saying "Its their fault", we can try and make it work so that everyone is happy.