AshleeLightBringer
Silver Member
We see people all of the time posting about getting banned for what is seemingly a first offense, which many times is proven to not be true.
Nevertheless, there are those that commit the same offense(s) over and over, and they get muted and kicked but don't get banned, then they run to the Forum whining and crying only to be told by staff that they could have been banned but weren't and to be grateful... Huh?
So, why weren't they banned?
It doesn't make sense. It seems to me that if a person has committed the same offense(s) a number of times that staff pretty much has that person(s) flagged, yet if that person(s) is only receiving mutes and kicks over and over, then muting and kicking isn't teaching that person anything about what rules mean. Maybe being banned just might do the trick.
This should apply particularly to 13+ rooms, where men show up exposing themselves and then there is trolling, and there are other examples.
Yet, the question remains:
How many mutes/kicks does it really take before someone can be banned?
Nevertheless, there are those that commit the same offense(s) over and over, and they get muted and kicked but don't get banned, then they run to the Forum whining and crying only to be told by staff that they could have been banned but weren't and to be grateful... Huh?
So, why weren't they banned?
It doesn't make sense. It seems to me that if a person has committed the same offense(s) a number of times that staff pretty much has that person(s) flagged, yet if that person(s) is only receiving mutes and kicks over and over, then muting and kicking isn't teaching that person anything about what rules mean. Maybe being banned just might do the trick.
This should apply particularly to 13+ rooms, where men show up exposing themselves and then there is trolling, and there are other examples.
Yet, the question remains:
How many mutes/kicks does it really take before someone can be banned?