timmytuttut88 wrote:
Specifics:
... there needs to be some sort of ban meter. If you get a lot of warnings the meter goes up. If you don't get any warnings for a long time the meter goes down ...
Out of curiosity timmy; is it your intention that the meter would be private only for the users themselves to view or public ?
Regardless I do, as have others, question the benefit for anyone but a 'select' few. And hence from my personal point of view this "suggestion to improve CC" would have to rate as low priority even if I could be dissuaded of my opinion as follows:
Looking at the huge majority of users who are here to have fun and not to test the rules this would seem to be irrelevant. If there are a few who are here who intentionally break the rules or at least "test the edges" it seems to me that a rigid meter is going to be of no use. Whilst I agree that there should be consistency in application of bans good mods/admins also need to use discretion.
In my limited experience I'd say the mods/admins do use their discretion well. If there were a ban meter in place where 0 was the minimum and 10 was the perma-ban mark I'd suggest that users who have been perma-banned have typically reached about 40 when they get banned. Some users may have only reached 30, some may have reached 50. But the point is they were all well over 10 and certainly in no doubt as to why they were being banned. They may not have known just when they were going to be banned "next", but will have certainly been aware that they'd already crossed the line several times and so were on borrowed time. If the CC admin team appear to have been inconsistent it seems me that this is because they have chosen to take a lenient line, always giving people the benefit of the doubt and consequently are very fair on this point.
