There was some criticism today regarding the "ban as a warning" system the mod team employ - specifically that it might be off putting for newer users, which might inturn impede "new blood" coming into the community.
Anyway how about a point system, akin to the UK driving license points. For those of you who may be unfamiliar with this it works that you gain "penalty points" for breaking the rules, once you reach 11 points you have your license taken from you.
We could have a similar thing - so a minor warning is say 1 point, a 1 day ban 2 points, 1 week ban 7 points etc. Once you reach some limit you are perma banned. Points slowly regenerate over time. Alternatively there could be some rule like whenever you pass an odd number of points you get a ban - allowing you to get bans for repeated minor warnings.
Thats the basics of it.
On top of that you might reward people with no penalty points with faster coin generation or levelling - carrot and stick incentivising good behaviour
There was criticism against this raised by a user (jinx?) who said it might be gamed. To that I say people already game the system to some degree, I did on oldpunch, if it had been a while since my last ban my conduct slipped, resulting in me getting a small ban every 3 months or so. Tudd was an expert at breaking the old system.
An advantage of this point system is such small infractions, things which aren't ban worthy but are a bit dickish, get a point. So if you do enough of them overtime you will get a ban. So people who previously gamed the system by loopholing the rules wouldnt get off scot free.
How many points someone is also on gives a decent representation of how misbehaved they have been recently - so its easy to identify frequent offenders.
I don't agree with this at all, warning systems are really ineffective and don't have the same repercussions than what the current norm is.
To give a view on it, warning systems always come across as a slap on the wrist with no real punishment for fucking up, a timed ban however gets the point across more directly and effectively.
I've seen and even managed forums that utilize warning systems, it doesn't work, the intent just doesn't get across to the user while actually punishing them with a ban does.
Additionally this sounds like you want to automate the entire process, this really should be down to moderator discretion on how punishment should be dealt out, not based off some arbitrary system.
I get the honest intent, just from experience these systems do not work as intended, especially when the board has broad, open rules that situate on the vague side as the entire forum is intended to be moderated on a 1 to 1 level where its at the moderators decision on what to do.
Yeah, and I think therein lies the problem. A lot of rules on Facepunch are (let's be honest) subjective. There's some steadfast rules but there's a huge gray line when it comes to some other ones (report don't reply, not an LMAO pic, and then the tons of subjective bans that don't pertain to a specific rule).
The reason points systems works is because the way to earn said points is completely concrete. But the ways to get banned on Facepunch aren't.
well it can still be discretion, like with uk points, someone decides how many you get for an infraction (i think?)
You'd never have repeat offenders (aka tudd) get rightfully banned because they will skirt around the danger zone on purpose. The system now is fine and has been fine for over 10 years.
imo the whole "ban are warnings" are rather effective, despite debates saying it being too hard on newcomers.
How about, work on the communication? Short-term bans should be renamed to something like, "time out" or "muted" with reason and duration clearly displayed to offender. It wouldn't be as harsh as "BAN" since it would often be interpreted as if they are no longer welcomed.
ban as warn is what keeps the fresh blood coming in AND staying. those who can't take it are often those who end up being shitposting its way into a perma ban eventually.
how about a community service punishment.
like you have to weed through old threads that have to go into subsections.
Hmm...smartness system?
Yeah, when I first started reading FP I got confused a few times because I'd see people "BANNED" but then be back the next day. I always thought of the word "ban" as at least semi-permanent.
Apparently Garry wants to move away from using bans as warning.
I, personally, would like a kind of ban that just keeps you from posting but not browsing threads/user profiles. That way if you are new you can still lurk and find out more about the forum.
Usually if I do something wrong, I would want to find out exactly what it was and it might be hard to get that if you arent seeing how the community interacts.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
