Permabans are, for a lack of a better way to say this, when Andrew is sick of dealing with you. Other staff may get input, but ultimately permabans are Andrew's decision.

Plus, a three strikes system would have its issues. Say I was banned once for grief as a builder, then recently I was banned for mouthing off to a staff member, and lets say also got banned for a loan scamming situation that was more or less bad timing. It wouldn't make sense to permanently ban me, because I don't repeat offenses, and learn from what I've done.

The "at staff discretion" system we have now works perfectly fine. Why change it?

 

Maybe modify this a bit: perm ban for 3 bans in a month and 3 warnings in a month for a normal ban. This is my opinion, as I see people just get warnings/bans and just ignore them.

 

I say modify, perma ban for 3 of same offended but must be a bad offense such as scamming not maybe minor grief if you are banned 3 times all for scamming maybe perma ban

 

So, say like you do 3 minor things in the same month, you get banned forever. Right?

 

This is insane and absurd. Everyone makes mistakes. I am pretty sure staff know when someone is worth a PermaBan. ECC shouldn't be compared to the real world as much, this is just a game.

 

Let me see if I can argue for both sides here...

Making a strike-out system COULD work, for cutting down on people who are constantly getting minor bans for small things. Say they have a record of like, stealing crops, or taking small things, or mouthing off to staff.

This post (Thank you @nicit6) says it perfectly. Why change a system that works? Why change out something like a table when it hold itself up just fine, and doesn't wobble, not too small, just right. Same thing here. Why change out a perfectly good system when there's nothing wrong with it? As @minecraftbros0 said,

if you don't want to see something from a person, there's /ignore.

 

-1

 

1) We would lose many players.
2) Only Andrewkm can issue a perma ban and this suggestion would have a lot of perma bans being issued frequently.

Frankly, I don't agree with this. Perma bans are issued on a case by case basis when the player is a very serious problem. We don't give people who commit misdemeanors the death sentence and I don't think we should do that here.

Revan

 

Revans from what I've seen I've seen many people come back from perma banned they seen to be just longer temp bans such as 1 week-1month

 

From what I can see there are 527 perma banned users. You see only the ones let back and never hear about the ones we don't unban.

 

Wut, since when? o.o Never knew there were that many...

 

Thats because you guys don't need to know how many people are perma banned or when or why. So generally, the player base only hears about perma bans when the user returns.

 

That's the idea, minecraftbros. We don't talk about banned players, so eventually, we forget about them. Thus why you're surprised by the mass amount of people.

 

True revan but I can bet you most of those users did not appeal, or did not want to appeal and have a chance to rejoin ecc

 

I would disagree, but, I can see why it may look that way to you. The fact is that a lot of things goes on behind the scenes that you guys don't see or no about.

 

-1. I was banned for grief as a builder because I accidentally broke a block that held back water without knowing, it destroyed crops. I was then banned as a president (?) for falling asleep with my hand on the mouse while farming, and I broke 6 dirt blocks. This means I have ONE strike left until a permaban? I truly hope this doesn't happen, lol.

I do see where you're coming from, however, because it does get quite annoying seeing the same faces appealing every week for the SAME things, but this is not the solution.

 

Why start to handle all ban cases the same? It would make better sense if we could handle all ban cases individual. That would prevent bans where players almost don't do anything wrong.

It would not be fair if someone who gets banned for advertising too much in /chat trade 2 times and for accidentally speaking french in /ch global, and someone who Donation scams and Griefs would both get perm banned.

It would be much easier without this system.

-13.4

 

I'm against this mostly because there are too many variables and a lot of room for mistakes.
The staff team does their best, but mistakes get made sometimes. I would hate to see a mistake ban happen on a third strike.
Also due to the fact that some appeals are handled privately, I believe there would be a paperwork problem in actually handing out the bans accurately.

There's also what everyone else said; we'd lose a lot of players, not all minor cases are serious enough to be held against someone in the long term.

I believe somewhere on another suggestion I simply said that Andrew needs to make more examples of people and show that they're not gonna get away with some of the stuff they are. I believe instead of an arbitrary system, it really should be a case by case basis, and Andrew should make a little more of a habit of letting everyone know that he is paying attention and is not tolerating the repeat offences and serious stuff.