[sv1cec]

Originally Posted by SamirDarji

I think that the warnings themselves define whether a user should start with a blank slate or not. For example:

A user is warned with a warning that has a duration of 5 days
The same user is warned with a warning that has a duration of 90 days (serious offense)
The same user is warned with another warning that has a duration of 10 days. This warning causes the user to be banned for 30 days.

Now, once the user is unbanned, the lessor offense warnings have expired, so the points don't count anymore. But the more serious offense is still on record, so another few minor offenses or one major one can get them banned again.

I think it is important for them to not have a clean slate because some things are too serious to give them a completely fresh start.

I tend to agree with you.

The only problem is, that with the system as it is now, when a member reaches the maximum points and he is banned, his total warning points get reset to the maximum warning points. When the lesser warnings start getting removed, he artificially ends up with fewer points than he should have. In your example above, and assuming that the first offense was worth 2 points, the second 7 and the third 5, when the user was banned, he had 14 points, but the moment he gets banned he is left with 10 (let's assume the limit is 10). When the two minor warnings expire, (2+5) he is left with only 3 points.

I think that this is something I should address, by not resetting his total points to 10, but leaving them at whatever they were the moment he got banned, i.e. 14 in this case. In that way, even when the minor offenses are removed, he still has the 7 points from the major one, and with 3 more he gets banned again.

What do you people think?

------------

John