Board Thread:Suggestions/@comment-29777301-20170405145526/@comment-29777301-20170406125619

Bluecats wrote:

KuuderessioPlusvalín wrote:

Bluecats wrote:

KuuderessioPlusvalín wrote:

Dradoner1690 wrote: Oppose warnings exist for a reason like crystal said warnings are not infinite and they can learn from their mistakes. I perfectly knew that warnings are not forever... That´s why i request in cases like that ban users for one week. Because if you put only a warning, the uses can continue to spread information, as much as he/she wants. No, crystal said "Warnings are not forever" as in "We should let them have a second chance before banning them". I think

Well... I explain that it doesn´t have to be an instant ban. That would depend if the creator of the content has previously reported the action. If in one case, the creator forgives the actions of the user did and accept the apologizes of the user, the user wouldn´t get banned. SO, they're at the mercy of the content's creator? The origin of that is because a user has done something that wasnt allowed. If you spread something that the creator doesnt leave, is a bad action. You are breaking his/her rivacy and you are spoiling his/her job. By default, that's annoying a user .It is not "being at your mercy" is to punish an act that has annoyed a user.