:
|
It seems to me that mods will often go on warnings alone instead of whether or not the person in question is actually a good member. If the member in question is OBVIOUSLY an annoying little twat, tell him/her to stop. If they continue, give them a temp ban. There. Simple. I never liked this "three strikes, you're out" system because it puts too much emphasis on itself. Deciding if someone is a worthy poster or not isn't such a complicated matter that it requires some grand scheme for judgment. You know if they're a good member. You just do. The number of strikes/warnings someone has is irrelevant.
|
Ah, yes. But that would mean the staff have to make the judgement on whether a member is a good member or not. I don't see many members being very happy with a system like that, I can already see the numerous amounts of threads arguing the matter... In an ideal, totalitarian society, it would work, because the staff have complete judgement. But this isn't an ideal totalitarian society.
:
|
But actually, Alcar, is it possible for a certain forum to not have its posts count toward a user's total post count? A spam forum like that wouldn't be such a bad idea.
|
SeaRex, a spam forum would defeat the purpose of not spamming
Just like the spam thread, when it was truly filled with spam.
:
|
Flaming should vary, depending on how rude or insensitive a particular flame could be. If you tell somebody to 'suck their Dad's dead cock', fully knowing that member's Dad recently died, then they should get about 8-10 points. Similarly, if they constantly tell somebody to 'Shut up.' in two word posts, or '**** off' as we see so often by some members, they receive about 5 points
|
That sounds great. Especially with the taking into relevance of happenings (refering to the dead father incidence).
Alcar...