Posts from [Suggestion] Modify the violation control system.

Recently, I came across a case where a user was banned for "addressing other users using nicknames different from their original ones, if the user does not like this type of address." At the moment, even the validity of this accusation is questionable, but that's not the point. "Since he was banned," you might reasonably say, "he must have committed so many violations that the ban was fully deserved." But the fact is that almost all the violations were committed two years ago or earlier. Thus, a completely "law-abiding" user at the moment, who communicates with everyone politely and without insults, gets banned because of a trivial matter. I find this wrong. Many offenders mature over time, many simply become smarter, and many received penalty points during the time when Xaker was coordinating, and he was very strict and handed out points left and right. But a lot of time passes, a person changes, but the points remain. And, as in the case of the user from the story above, this can turn out badly. In this regard, I propose to change the system of monitoring violations as follows: remove penalty points for violations after a certain period, say, after a year. (the period is, in principle, debatable, but for now, let it be a year). What if someone violates the rules, then leaves, returns a year later, and starts doing the same things again? Yes, this is possible, but I think we can tolerate it once a year. But thanks to this innovation, many honest people will not be under the threat of a ban. These are my thoughts. Please post your criticism and counter-suggestions in this thread; I will be happy to hear them.

And what if it's a spam bot? One was recently banned here after receiving 100 penalty points. A week later, it had 95 points and immediately continued to spread spam. This system prevents the possibility of a permanent ban, but sometimes it is necessary. However, if it is supplemented with a clause stating that "if an account is already blocked, the system for deducting penalty points does not work," then everything will be fine. Also, I think it would be better to make this system a little more mathematical. For example, you could deduct 5 points each month. It's a pity that there is no "my own interpretation" option in the poll, but, choosing from what is available, I would prefer the "agree" option. But it means that with amendments.

By the way, the violation system is rarely used specifically for strict "articles" within it. The articles on violations are generally fair, although the points about off-topic discussions, flooding, and repetitive topics should be removed – this is exclusively the job of moderators. Many other points (including those about using non-original nicknames) should be made less strict. Regarding spam bots, I agree with Ment's suggestion.

In the section about the third game, we once discussed similar issues.
/topic/7658/
The most fair punishment, in my opinion, would be a ban with an increasing duration. For example, 1 ban = 1 week, 2 bans = 2 weeks, 3 bans = 1 month, and so on.

It also wouldn't hurt to introduce a system where points expire after a certain period of time, for example, around New Year.

For instance, a couple of years ago, I received points for using a font larger than 3 in my signature (I was advertising a Tournament). Isn't it ridiculous to get banned for something like that? :D

Ment, can't spam bots be banned manually? And immediately – permanently?

Couldn't spam bots be banned manually? And immediately - permanently?

Only coordinators can ban manually. Moderators don't seem to have that authority.

when a user was banned for "Addressing other users using nicknames that are not their original ones, in cases where the user does not like this type of address." Currently, even the validity of this accusation is questionable,

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with this, as some users really enjoy distorting nicknames. I even think that the penalty for this should be increased and that it should be considered an offense against the user.

I think the system is poorly designed, cumbersome, and inconvenient. Users with three hundred and fifty points are allowed to roam freely, while a moderator might, out of spite, penalize someone once every six months for something trivial.

Only coordinators can ban manually. Moderators don't seem to have such authority.

Absolutely correct, and bothering the Creator every time is too much.

I think the system is ill-conceived, cumbersome, and inconvenient. Users with three and a half hundred points are walking around freely, while a moderator, out of spite, might give someone a penalty once every six months for something far-fetched.

It's not the system's fault.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong in this, as some users really like to distort usernames. I even think that the penalty for this should be increased and it should be considered an insult to the user.

In principle, what you describe, namely the deliberate distortion of a user's name with the intention of hurting them, can indeed be equated to an insult, so everything is fine. And if there is no malicious intent, then it really doesn't deserve more than five points.

I agree with post #2.

Only coordinators can ban manually. Moderators don't seem to have that authority.

By the way, how often do you see active coordinators? Or rather, a coordinator :)

It would be logical to either give moderators the ability to issue permanent bans to combat spammers, or expand the list of coordinators so that they can effectively deal with spammers.

We need at least two coordinators. But there's nowhere to find them.

You could also vote.

We need at least two coordinators. But there's nowhere to find them.

Hmm... are there really no people who could take on such a responsibility?

A moderator doesn't need the ability to ban; the most suitable option is to expand the list of coordinators.

Hmm... are there really no people who could take on such a responsibility?

I think the Creator doesn't want just anyone to be the coordinator, and he apparently doesn't have a reliable person for the job.
We need someone like that for the third game. Someone who can periodically ban people for a day or two. :D

I support the progressive ban method. By the way, sometimes, due to a lack of knowledge of the rules, you unintentionally commit violations. Most people are too lazy to read the rules thoroughly and carefully because they initially register on any forum with a specific goal in mind: to get information, chat, or play, and they are primarily focused on achieving that goal, so reading the rules is not a priority. Therefore, according to the rules, firstly, you should ask experienced forum members for clarification, secondly, you shouldn't assign points for the first violation, and thirdly, I would suggest making the geometric progression stricter: one month, three months, six months, one year, and a permanent ban. After all, some individuals can accumulate so many violations that, considering that they receive a warning for each one before points are assigned, a stricter approach is warranted.

Added 2 minutes later
To clarify: I don't mean that you shouldn't follow the rules when dealing with new users, but perhaps being a little more lenient would be beneficial.