(05-19-2015, 02:52 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: ....it places all infractions on the same scale, when I don't believe they are. I don't think I need to have a persecution complex to come to that decision.
I'm sure it's been suggested before, but there's a pretty simple solution to this, isn't there? Three tiers: warnings, infractions, and bans. <x> number of warnings in <x> number of weeks results in one infraction. <x> number of infractions in <x> number of months is a temp ban.Â
This way, minor violations like meme posting or overly aggressive behaviour go with warnings that, ultimately, don't contribute to bans, the idea being that a freakish number of total warnings (say, forty or fifty in the span of four months) are required to actually temp ban through them. This also allows moderators to curb certain hostile behaviours without that person actually feeling as if they'd been punished without due. If a person is consistently misbehaving then the system still allows for a ban with enough accumulation.
More severe violations result in direct infractions that would operate like our current system. Say for example, ten infractions in four weeks (as is the current policy). Or something similar.
Yes, no, maybe?
