New rules for warnings and bans

So, my dear bureaucracy, how about you actually step up and explain this to the community?
I’ve been noticing some folks complaining about these bizarrely long ban durations or why small cards have such an absurdly long expiration period.
If it isn't too much trouble, I would truly appreciate some clarity... 🙂

It’s clear that quite a few things have shifted lately—though, if I’m being honest, I haven't seen a single official notice about any of it. 👎

Look at me, honestly... I’m just a decent, chill guy who stays out of trouble, so I never deal with any bans or anything, and I guess all those worries you guys have just don't really affect me.

We’re running a bit of an experiment here. 🙂

Right now, the point-based ban system looks like this:
100 points - 1 day
200 points - 2 days
300 points - 3 days
400 points - 4 days
500 points - 7 day
600 points - two weeks
700 points - three weeks
800 points - one month
900 points - two months
1000 points - permanent

One new thing to keep in mind is that these points stack up—new penalty points won't start ticking in until the previous ones have actually expired. We've also lowered the weight of certain offenses to make it a little harder to hit those ban thresholds; for instance, trolling is now only 25 points instead of the old 35. We’ll likely be tweaking things as we go, adjusting whatever we find works best, so just know that everything is still very much a work in progress.

It seems Dr. Helingen - Zagor isn't exactly celebrating his little experiment either...

I wish everyone luck with their testing, but honestly, I think we need some concrete rules established. It shouldn't feel like the moderators are just arbitrarily extending bans whenever they feel like it.

On that note, how long does each specific ban actually last? And why does it seem like every subsequent one lasts longer than the one before it?

If the timer for the next batch doesn't even start until the current one expires, wouldn't that just mean we end up with a bunch of tiny little cards* instead of one big winner? 🤔

Either way, I really think you guys should have sent out some kind of official heads-up. This isn't just some theoretical experiment on paper anymore—it’s actually happening.

*you know, those random ones they hand out for basically nothing

bluecyclist64 said:Even Dr. Helingen - Zagor tried running some tests, and let's just say he wasn't exactly thrilled with the results...

Good luck with all the experimenting, I guess, though it might be a better idea to actually establish some concrete rules instead of letting the mods extend bans whenever they feel like being unpredictable...

By the way, how long do these bans actually last? And why does every single one seem to drag on longer than the last one...

Well, like rustydrifter10 mentioned, nothing is set in stone yet, but from where I'm sitting, it seems like almost all the bans are actually shorter than they used to be. They've just extended the penalties for insulting other users, while everything else stayed the same or even got lighter.

As for those custom bans, they’re mostly aimed at the habitual offenders—people who just can't stop breaking specific rules. Take something as basic as using all caps, which is 10 points. You probably won't even get a formal strike for the first time; you'll just get a warning. If you keep doing it, then the strikes start coming.
But that doesn't mean you have a free pass to spam a hundred posts in all caps until you hit 1000 points. If you're persistently breaking the rule, you'll rack up more points and face a much longer ban long before that happens...

The same logic applies when we try to be lenient with people, because "custom" doesn't always mean making the punishment harsher. For instance, I often hand out a strike for trolling—which is now 25 points—instead of a strike for mild insults, which usually sits at 45.

In the grand scheme of things, this should actually benefit most users, since hitting a full ban becomes harder. The most common offense, trolling, now carries fewer points and lasts for a shorter period. Plus, for the 100 and 200 point thresholds, the bans are actually shorter than they were before...

rustydrifter10 said:We’re experimenting. 🙂
The current point-based suspension structure is as follows:
100 points - 1 day
200 points - 2 days
300 points — 3 days
400 points — 4 days
500 points - 7 day
600 points — two weeks.
700 points — three weeks.
800 points — one month.
900 points — two months.
1000 points — permanent status.
Just a quick update regarding the point system—points will now accumulate sequentially. Essentially, you won't start accruing points from a new strike until the previous ones have officially expired. We’ve also adjusted the weight of certain infractions; for instance, trolling is now set at 25 points rather than the old 35-point threshold, which makes reaching a ban slightly more difficult. Expect further adjustments down the road—we are fine-tuning things as we go to ensure the system actually works. It is all still very much a work in progress.

So, why does one single card stay active for two months now, instead of just thirty days like it used to?

I just picked up three different reward cards—each worth 45 points—but they all have different expiration dates: May 21st, July 20th, and September 19th.

Elizabeth Davis As stated by:
If the duration of a new card only kicks in once the previous one expires—then wouldn't that actually result in a higher yield of smaller cards rather than just one big one? 🤔
I honestly feel there should have been some form of formal notification issued—especially since we’ve moved past the theoretical phase and are now actually in the implementation stage. It isn't just an experiment on paper anymore; it's happening.
Sometimes shared just for the sake of having something to talk about—miscellaneous topics, if you will.

👍

lonebadger6 As stated by:
As rustydrifter10 pointed out, nothing is set in stone just yet—but from where I’m sitting, it looks like almost everyone's membership duration has been slashed compared to how things used to be. It feels like they’ve intentionally shortened the lifespan of our forum access. Either you're getting less than you did before, or you're just barely breaking even.

Alright, that clears up my questions from earlier—thanks for the explanation. 😁

So, let me get this straight—insulting other members carries a two-month ban, while every other violation gets a shorter sentence?
How much, if you don't mind me asking?

Anthony Nguyen81 said:So, you're saying insulting other members carries a two-month duration, while everything else is shorter?
If you don't mind me asking, how long are the others?

Right now the default penalty points are set up like this:

Violation Type Points Expires
Quoting with an image 10 7 day
Poor thread opening 10 3 Day(s)
Offtopic 10 15 day 10 15 Day(s)
Signature violates rules 10 30 Day(s)
Image larger than 640 pixels 10 15 Day(s)
SHOUTING (CAPS LOCK) 10 3 Day(s)
Breaking thread rules 25 3 Day(s)
Trolling 25 10 Day(s)
Breaking sub-forum rules 30 30 Day(s)
Breaking General Forum Rules 35 15 Day(s)
Insulting members 45 60 Day(s)
Unauthorized quote editing (falsification) 50 30 Day(s)
Unauthorized advertising (contact marketing@forum.com for ads) 50 10 Day(s)
One-day ban 100 2 Day(s)
piratstvo 100 30 day 100 30 Day(s)
Hate speech 500 20 Day(s)
Severe insults toward members 500 20 Day(s)
Doxing / Posting private info 500 20 Day(s)
Spambot 1000 Never

We still have the option to use custom penalties because, let's be honest, not every single ad or inappropriate signature is the same thing—there’s a massive difference between a 45-point slap on the wrist and a 500-point hammer blow for something truly egregious. We're actually still working through some adjustments, looking at different types of penalties, varying the point durations, and recalculating the totals. This isn't the final version of the handbook yet, but this is basically where we stand for now. Once we reach a final decision, we'll definitely let everyone know. As you can see, we haven't updated every single category yet, but that's mostly just because we haven't gotten to them in our discussions, not necessarily because we've decided to leave them exactly as they are.

Thanks.
In principle, the table makes sense—it’s clearly been well-designed.👍
It can be a bit of a mess when someone gets hit with multiple warnings in a single thread (one has to be careful, I know 🙂).

Got an idea, and honestly, it’s not even about the points—those don't really matter to me.

The suggestion is this: when someone gets hit with a troll warning (which, let's face it, is why most people get flagged anyway), just add one quick sentence explaining exactly what part of their post was considered trolling. Maybe even bold the specific text that triggered it. I feel like doing that would shut down all those endless complaints against the mods and clear up any confusion right away.

It's just a small tweak for when warnings are issued for trolling. It wouldn't be much extra work, but it'd definitely cut down on the flood of appeals and make life easier for everyone handling moderation in the long run.

Edward Perez64 said:I’ve got a suggestion here, and it’s not even about the points because those aren't really the issue.

My idea is that whenever someone gets hit with a warning card for trolling—which, let's face it, is the most common reason anyway—the moderator could just include a quick one-sentence explanation of exactly what part of the post was considered trolling. Or, if possible, maybe they could even bold the specific text that triggered the warning. I honestly think this would clear up all those complaints people lodge against the moderators and smooth over a lot of those annoying misunderstandings.

It’s just a small tweak to how we handle warnings labeled as "trolling." It shouldn't be much extra work, but it would definitely cut down on the number of appeals and make the whole moderation process way more efficient in the long run.

The thing is, the warning message is actually automated, so we can't just go in and bold parts of a post; by the time the card is issued, we don't even see the content anymore. While a moderator could certainly add a little note alongside the warning—and some of them do occasionally—in most cases, it's pretty obvious why the card was handed out. Plus, any user who is genuinely confused is always welcome to ask. There isn't a rule saying we have to provide a default explanation every single time.