Board Thread:Suggestions/@comment-31248264-20160930140909/@comment-24947676-20160930202157

LenLawliet wrote: CrystaltheCool wrote: To, y'all who're supporting, consider this:

The thing Igor is suggesting literally says "Staff cannot ban an user because they wanted them banned, unless it's a sockpuppet.".

What if a staff member wants to ban someone for breaking too many rules? This would actually fucking prevent rulebreakers from getting banned. Great fucking job Igor, your stupidity will allow everyone to break all the rules. You're creating anarchy. Great fucking job. Clap clap clap. Round of applause for Igor, the guy who hates "her-ass-meant" but is creating a rule that will allow it to pass by. Round of applause for Igor, everyone! If someone breaks a rule, they have to get a warning. Then they get to more before a kick. If they come back on and break more rules, then they can get banned. That specific message wasn't referring to you specifically. And you aren't Igor anyway, so what you're saying isn't valid.

The warning-kick-ban thing only applies to chat. Outside of chat, it's warning-warning-warning-ban. Because I was referring to "ban", I am referring to the "ban" part of the cycle. If Igor's rule passes, then the "ban" stage will NEVER come, unless it's the case of a sock. You do see how that can be a problem, yes?