No Thanks Not sure if you use this or not...

On another forum I was on, before someone got a ban, the admins would change their rep down to a low negative. Their rep system had restrictions set upon people with a low enough rep. Some restrictions would be like:

-All posts must be approved by staff
-User can only post a few times a day
-User can't post until rep is higher
-User can't give rep until theirs increases

I was thinking this could be an alternative to bans. It still would give people who have been acting up a chance to at least VIEW the forums, but they have restrictions set upon them. Then, if their behavior continues downhill, you enforce more restrictions upon them. Kind of like a strike system. Warnings are good, but not always effective in stopping people's behavior. But if you restrict it, they can begin to realize that the more they act up, the less they can do over time. Then, after all restrictions are in place, there is no need for a ban. Unless the staff deems it.

So, any thoughts on this? I'm not sure how to be able to set that up or if you'd need SPDude's permission, but I think this could be a nice alternative to bans.

 

This isn't a half bad idea.

But it seems...a bit, over-the-top. Sometimes people won't use the rep system unless they see a good post, if the user can only post little a day, how do they make up for their behavior? Unless they do it in like, 3 post, no chance. If all post have to be approved by staff, there isn't much point in posting if you have to wait for a staff to approve it.

It's not bad, but a bit crazy. But it's a great alternative for near-bans.

 

This.

I think that on this forum people act stupid on purpose, so they can get banned. And we hardly ever get well-know people banned. It happens every once in a blue moon but I this this should apply to those people. Not the noobs around here. You see what I'm saying?

 

Staff could change rep back. Or set it to 0 when behavior changes.

 

We don't have many trouble makers, so it isn't necessary.

 

People act stupid on purpose to make themselves look good when it backfires in the end.

Why Zero? What if that person had over 500 rep? It would drop to red and then zero? Not very fun, especially for Premiums.

 

I see where you are coming from with the idea, but it seems kind of a bit too cold to do to members who are only temp banned. The ban is the lesson in itself, but after a ban, when the member comes back, I think most of us would rather have things go back to normal and that the person has learned his or her lessons. Making someone start off from 0 or go back to the beginning also takes the person out of being a premium, so it seems pretty excessive to do.

 

Normally for small offenses that are more serious than just deserving an infraction we give them a 24-hour (or some other short amount of time) time-out, to allow them cool off and reconsider their actions. I find that the infraction system is quite effective, actually. It can only go two ways -- the person ignores the infraction, and we punish them further, or they reform their ways.

And it seems like the system you're suggesting would make a lot more work for us, I mean we're constantly having to talk to people for small things, could you imagine approving all posts made by five people? It'd add up. And restricting how many times they post sounds unnecessary to me too. When we give someone an infraction, we (or at least I) hope that they will change their ways and become an active, friendly, and participating member of the community.

Plus basing things around the rep system really seems unfair to me, people rep for no reason at all.

I think our system is quite effective as is and doesn't need any changes.