[Withano]

So is it like 9 points = 1 day
10 points 2 days
11 points 1 week
12 points 1 month
?

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Withano

So is it like 9 points = 1 day
10 points 2 days
11 points 1 week
12 points 1 month
?

9 points - 1 day
15 - 2 days
21 - 7 days
28 - 7 days
35 - 2 weeks
41 - 2 weeks
47 - 3 weeks
53 - 3 weeks
999 - Permaban

One month, three month and permabans are the only bans we choose to give out.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

9 points - 1 day
15 - 2 days
21 - 7 days
28 - 7 days
35 - 2 weeks
41 - 2 weeks
47 - 3 weeks
53 - 3 weeks
999 - Permaban

One month, three month and permabans are the only bans we choose to give out.

That seems fair tbh... Like it must take some doing to rack up that many

But then like if somebody had 25, finished their week ban, and then got a one-point-infraction for something silly - would that get them another week ban?

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Withano

That seems fair tbh... Like it must take some doing to rack up that many

But then like if somebody had 25, finished their week ban, and then got a one-point-infraction for something silly - would that get them another week ban?

Depends on how long the Infraction lasts for, if an infraction expires before they commit their next rule break then their next infraction may not knock them into a ban otherwise they would just be banned again.

The system is basically meant to deter someone from repeated offences, I believe.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Depends on how long the Infraction lasts for, if an infraction expires before they commit their next rule break then their next infraction may not knock them into a ban otherwise they would just be banned again.

The system is basically meant to deter someone from repeated offences, I believe.

Probably about to piss a load of people off, but it seems like a good system to me tbh.
I’d imagine people hate it because some probably have on occaision received a lengthy ban for what looks like something silly, when actually they just have several in-date infractions

[Rob!]

Originally Posted by Withano

Probably about to piss a load of people off, but it seems like a good system to me tbh.
I’d imagine people hate it because some probably have on occaision received a lengthy ban for what looks like something silly, when actually they just have several in-date infractions

Exactly, which seems ridiculous to me. Especially when two people are in an argument and one is behaving far worse than the other.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Rob!

Exactly, which seems ridiculous to me. Especially when two people are in an argument and one is behaving far worse than the other.

If they behave worse than the other, they should get more points than the other I agree, I missed the whole drama of it all, but it did seem hastily dealt with perhaps if every single person just got a default 3 points for being there


- but I mean, surely people can correctly assume whether they’re over 9 points or coming close to it, and they should use that hunch as a way to detain themselves somewhat?! maybe a notification or warning sign could be added for them? as a way to remind them to wait until a few infractions expire before they seek justice.

I know that discussions been had before - about how we dont show points anymore because people would wait until they were in the clear before breaking rules... but it would make tibb seem nicer, even if it was all fake!

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Rob!

Exactly, which seems ridiculous to me. Especially when two people are in an argument and one is behaving far worse than the other.

If someone is behaving noticeably worse then they probably will get a bigger infraction but whether they get banned or not is dependant on their points. The system is based on individual actions and consequences.

Say, if someone reports someone else for baiting in SD and I'm online to read the report thread, I'll go into the topic, look at the post in question and then I tend to go back and forth to understand the context, more often than not I'll find that both sides broke the rules and I infract both, it doesn't matter if you're right or wrong in the argument itself, I have to base it on rule breaks if I want to be impartial.

With all the transphobia stuff in the last CBB, I came up with a rule of thumb. I think it's okay to accuse someone of, in this example, being transphobic as long as you explain why in a reasonable manner IE 'I think you're transphobic because of this and that.' I think that's perfectly fine, the problem occurs if someone goes like 'YOU'RE A TRANSPHOBIC TROUT! GO CHOKE!'. When faced with bigotry, you've got to preferably report or, if you want to discuss, do so in a way that doesn't reduce the discussion to people insulting each other.

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Rob!

Exactly, which seems ridiculous to me. Especially when two people are in an argument and one is behaving far worse than the other.

There are always 2 sides to a story and an argument,one person may say outright their part while the other one is sneaky to avoid the radar ,but BOTH should be infracted ,it shouldn't save your neck by being the slyest

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Withano

Probably about to piss a load of people off, but it seems like a good system to me tbh.
I’d imagine people hate it because some probably have on occaision received a lengthy ban for what looks like something silly, when actually they just have several in-date infractions

That's why we get a lot of complaints tbh, a lot of people think we've chosen to ban them for one thing when it's the system that bans them for going over the threshold.

If people break rules too often, any offense can send them into a ban.