Ban duration and point criteria

I do apologize if I have somehow strayed from the appropriate topic for my inquiries—it is always my intention to be orderly.

1. Regarding the accumulation of red cards—which, as I understand, results in penalty points that eventually lead to a Ban once a certain threshold is met—do these points remain attached to one's record indefinitely even after a Ban has been served, or are they wiped clean?

2. Furthermore, while yellow cards do not seem to trigger the point system, I am wondering if there are any underlying consequences if a user happens to accumulate a high number of them over time?

Here is a breakdown of the penalty cards and everything else you might need to know.
Getting a yellow card doesn't carry any immediate consequences.

Is there ever a point where those penalty points you get from a red card actually expire—you know, like they just fade away after a while—or are they stuck on your record for good?

Did you happen to check out that link I sent you? If something expires after 30 days, I guess it clearly doesn't last forever.

It’s standard procedure for a Ban to trigger once you hit 100 points. I’ve actually cleared that threshold myself, yet I haven't been banned. How does that work?

goldenpilot20 said:It’s obvious you get banned once you hit 100 points. I have over a hundred myself, yet I haven't been banned. How does that work?

Read this:

Basically, a user doesn't get banned just for having more than 100 points; they get banned when they actually cross the threshold (like hitting 100, or 200, or 300). You crossed the 100-point mark, which triggered your ban. Your suspension ended, but those points stayed on your account. You won't face another ban until you rack up enough points to push past the 200 mark.

Alternatively, if a penalty expires and your points drop below 100, you'll be flagged again only once you earn enough to cross that 100-point line again.

Hopefully, that clears things up.

Jacob Foster11 said:Check this out:

Basically, you don't get banned just for having over 100 points. It happens when you actually cross the threshold—like hitting 100, 200, or 300. You crossed the 100 mark, so that triggered the ban. Your suspension ended, but those points stay on your record. If you rack up enough points to hit the next milestone at 200, that's when the next ban kicks in.

Another way it works: if a warning expires and your score drops back below 100, then you get a new violation that pushes you back over that 100-point line, you'll be banned again.

Hope that clears things up.

So that’s news to me. I didn't realize that. Still, I'm sitting pretty above 100 even with the new warnings.

goldenpilot20 said:So this is something new? I didn't realize. But I still have over a hundred with my new cards.

It’s nothing new. It’s been this way for years.

I honestly don't know what part of this you aren't getting. 🤷

Go ahead and read everything one more time. Again, I am telling you, your current point total doesn't matter. You get a Ban if that specific card pushes you over the threshold of 100, 200, ..., 1000 points. So the total isn't the key. What matters is the state of your points right before and after the card is applied. If you were under 100 before the card and hit 100 or more after, you get a Ban. If you were under 200 and hit 200 or more, you get a Ban. And so on...

Jacob Foster11 said:Or, if your card expires and your score drops below 100, then you get another one and it pushes you back over 100, you just get hit with a Ban again.

Not an expert or anything, but this rule is pretty idiotic. By this logic, you could get banned right after a suspension just by picking up, say, 30 points. Fix it.

Matthew Anderson4 said:I'm no expert, but this rule is incredibly stupid. By this logic, you could get banned again right after a ban just by hitting, say, 30 points. Change it.

People have already talked about this. While the system isn't perfect, it functions. The issue is that if we tried to build a fairer one, it would be far too complicated. There are already people who don't fully grasp how the current setup works. If we made it more complex, even more people wouldn't understand it, leading to a flood of complaints from those saying they "don't know why they got banned."

Furthermore, the current system was basically just a pre-made plugin plugged straight into vBulletin. Developing a better system would require actual programming work.

It's similar to the American presidential election process. The system isn't perfectly fair, but it’s because it is brutally simple (and unnecessarily expensive, IMO). It lacks fairness because it ignores certain vote segments when determining who makes it to the runoff. Yet, nobody complains about it.

Take this scenario. In the first round of voting, one candidate has 30%, the second has 25%, and the third has 24%. The remaining candidates hold the other 21% combined. Under the current rules, the top two move on. But what if that massive 21% majority actually preferred the candidate with 24% as their second choice? Then the first and third candidates should advance. Instead, those votes are ignored during the selection process.

It's a partial injustice, but that's the trade-off for simplicity.

Matthew Anderson4 said:Look, I'm no expert, but this rule is straight-up moronic. Based on this, you could get banned again right after a ban if you hit, say, 30 points. Fix it.

Sometimes even 10 is enough...

But the fix is dead simple.... just don't rack up points. 😉

If you aren't collecting points, then the warnings, the point totals, how long a strike lasts, the bans, all that crap doesn't even matter. You'd spend less time whining about some stupid rule and more time doing something actually useful.

I haven't seen a single person complaining about this rule who only gets a warning or two every six months. Usually, it's the ones with 7, 8, or 10 pages of warnings doing the crying. 😁

Jacob Foster11 said:People have talked about this before. Look, the current setup isn't perfect, but it gets the job done. If we tried to build something totally "fair," it’d be a massive headache. Half the users don't even get how things work now. Make it more complex and you'll just have a million more people whining because they "don't understand why they got a Ban."

Plus, the current system is basically just a plug-and-play module dropped into vBulletin. Building a better one would actually require some real coding work.

It’s not perfectly fair, sure, but that's the trade-off for keeping it simple.

Fair enough. If simplicity is the goal, let it be. No way I want the mods working overtime just to fix something that isn't broken.

Kevin Williams56 said:Sometimes 10 is plenty.

The fix is easy... just stop racking up points. 😉

If you aren't hunting for points, then warnings, point totals, durations, Bans, all that stuff doesn't matter. You can spend that time doing something actually useful instead of arguing over stupid rules.

I haven't seen anyone complaining about the rules unless they're already sitting on seven or eight pages of warnings. Usually, it's the ones with ten pages of strikes who start crying. 😁

Right, but what does that have to do with whether the rule itself sucks?
Nothing.

Matthew Anderson4 said:Fine then, if it's easy, just leave it be. I certainly wouldn't want people who actually handle this stuff to feel forced to put in extra effort.

Who exactly is doing this as a "job"?

Like I already said, someone needs to design and program a better system. I highly doubt the forum owners can do it themselves since they lack the technical expertise—which isn't surprising. If they outsource it, they have to pay someone else to do the work. And honestly, I doubt they'll bother when everything is running fine as is. Why would they waste money on something that doesn't offer a massive improvement? They aren't idiots.

Jacob Foster11 said:So who actually benefits from this?

Like I said, someone needs to design and code a better system. I doubt the forum owners can pull that off themselves—they probably don't have the technical chops (not that anyone expects them to). And if they hire an outside dev to do it, that costs money. Honestly, since everything seems to be running fine as is, why would they bother spending cash on something that doesn't change much?

Basically, they aren't interested in investing in making the forum better. Just say it. This rule basically implies it's better to get a Ban at 150 points than at 100. Truly brilliant logic.

Jacob Foster11 said:They aren't idiots, though.

Stop dangling the carrot in front of me. One of these days I might actually bite.🙂

Matthew Anderson4 said:Basically, they aren't willing to invest in improving the forum's quality. Just say it straight. This rule implies it's actually better to get banned at 150 points rather than 100. Truly genius logic.

I have no idea what their actual stance is since I'm not in direct contact with them. I'm just looking at it from their perspective. If I own a project and I sink, say, $3333, into it, I expect to see at least $3333 back in returns. That's just breaking even. If I don't make that much, I'm losing money—it's wasted capital. It would have been better not to invest it at all. Designing an entirely new penalty system is going to cost a significant amount of money, and it certainly won't generate any extra revenue. Honestly, I'd be a fool to go through with it.

Matthew Anderson4 said:Oh yeah? And what does that have to do with the rule being garbage?
Yeah, nothing at all.

Who says it sucks? Like I said, it’s just you guys whining for 7 or 8 pages straight. The rest of us (the massive majority of this forum) think the rule is totally fine.

I'll say it again—don't earn a strike and you won't have any issues with your points. 😁

Matthew Anderson4 said:So they aren't willing to invest in raising the quality of the forum. Just say it plainly.

"Raising the quality of the forum"... give me a break. 😁

So you're saying helping trolls dodge a Ban would be a "good investment." Great idea.🤷

If you ask me, strikes should be permanent. That'd be the only actual improvement to this current system. You hit 1,000 and you're gone... but hey, that'd be bad news for you and the other "strike collectors."🙂

Kevin Williams56 said:Who says it sucks? Like I said, it’s just you guys whining for seven or eight pages straight. For the rest of us—the actual majority here—the rules work just fine.

Again—don't earn a strike and you won't have point issues. 😁

Wow, what a way to "improve" the quality of this forum. 😁

So you think helping trolls dodge bans is a solid investment. Great idea.🤷

If you ask me, strikes should be permanent. That would be the only real upgrade to this current system. Hit 1,000 and you're out. But hey, that might be bad news for you and the other "strike collectors."🙂

The fact that you feel the need to end every sentence with '😁'
shows how seriously you take this stuff.
And we're only "outraged" because the rules actually hit us. It's like saying only certain religious groups care about specific dress code bans. Makes zero sense.🙄

Kevin Williams56 said:But the solution is actually quite straightforward... you simply have to stop accumulating points. 😉

There is an even simpler way to handle this—just don't post on the forum at all. If you stay silent, you certainly won't end up with warnings or a ban. While what you mentioned holds true in most scenarios, I am personally aware of certain moderators who have handed out warnings to users when it wasn't strictly necessary. It seems that if someone decides they simply don't like you, they can weaponize the rules against you. Fortunately, those instances are the exception rather than the rule. 🙂