Feedback Thread

highgiant1985

Might just be me... but I find the amount of pictures posted in some threads annoying e.g. UTD thread at the moment, Katie vs Scarlet. Its a soccer forum... I'd go to a celeb forum if I wanted that...its also not ideal to have them on a thread I'm reading in work.

highgiant1985

highgiant1985 wrote: »

Might just be me... but I find the amount of pictures posted in some threads annoying e.g. UTD thread at the moment, Katie vs Scarlet. Its a soccer forum... I'd go to a celeb forum if I wanted that...its also not ideal to have them on a thread I'm reading in work.

You can disable images etc as far as I know

Leiva

highgiant1985 wrote: »

Might just be me... but I find the amount of pictures posted in some threads annoying e.g. UTD thread at the moment, Katie vs Scarlet. Its a soccer forum... I'd go to a celeb forum if I wanted that...its also not ideal to have them on a thread I'm reading in work.

Nah never had a problem with pics and gifs etc as I come on here to talk football but also have a laugh along the way.

But i am guilty of the posting the odd nsfw .gif without warning - but lesson learned.

DM_7

highgiant1985 wrote: »

Might just be me... but I find the amount of pictures posted in some threads annoying e.g. UTD thread at the moment, Katie vs Scarlet. Its a soccer forum... I'd go to a celeb forum if I wanted that...its also not ideal to have them on a thread I'm reading in work.

Don't blame the message board for that one!

Thanx 4 The Fish

Some short responses.

Why do you need to call Ronaldo Fat, Plump, rotund etc? Surely you could think of something better to call one of the best strikers of my generation. If you are stuck, just call him Ronaldo, people should know who you are talking about by the context of your post.

GAE, I suggested a solution for that some time ago, Beasty has actioned it with the Admins, it is not that important as it is being dealt with and it does not detract from the forum and so what if it only takes 5 minutes, there are lots of other five minute jobs to do and most of them are probably more important than removing a redundant sub forum.

As for cards, they are there for a warning. If you do not learn from the warnings then you will find yourself on the wrong side of a suspension but we have had feedback from many posters and one on this thread that they will not make the same mistake again and there are quite a few posters who will only get one warning all season, or even none and so never get suspended. If it is possible for them to read and stick to the guidelines, then why is it so hard for others? I am genuinely interested in an answer to this because I know that if something meant that much to me that I did not want to be removed from it, I would do what I could to ensure that I worked within the rules and when I had a chance to give feedback on them, i would make it was considered, constructive and contributed to the forum.

lordgoat

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

Some short responses.

Why do you need to call Ronaldo Fat, Plump, rotund etc? Surely you could think of something better to call one of the best strikers of my generation. If you are stuck, just call him Ronaldo, people should know who you are talking about by the context of your post.

Cheers for the reply but I think the point is being missed.

What is the difference between saying 'adjective Ronaldo' and saying a player is fat?

Both are descriptive no? Personally it annoys me more when someone says x player has had a few pies etc but that's not a card?

It's just another inconsistency IMO and I fully believe that the majority of people that report rotund ronaldo are doing it to get posters carded and banned. That or they are the most sensitive souls in the whole flower garden.

highgiant1985

DM-ICE wrote: »

Don't blame the message board for that one!

true :pac: I put in the hours / get the work done and work late when projects require it so taking a break during the day to surf the web / read a few topics here is never an issue.

Someone said its possible to turn off images. If so can someone tell me how to do this?

PhlegmyMoses

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

If it is possible for them to read and stick to the guidelines, then why is it so hard for others? I am genuinely interested in an answer to this because I know that if something meant that much to me that I did not want to be removed from it, I would do what I could to ensure that I worked within the rules and when I had a chance to give feedback on them, i would make it was considered, constructive and contributed to the forum.

I'd say that vast majority of cards that get dished out are on matchday threads or threads on big incidents, like the Suarez Evra thing or a particularly bad tackle. If that's the case, it's easy enough to understand why people aren't thinking about their access to this soccer forum when biting on a windup or getting annoyed with something that has been said. Football elicits inherently irrational behaviour in otherwise rational people. People make posts in the heat of the moment, especially in matchday threads and they suffer the consequences.

Leiva

I still think match threads should have a pre determined life span.

Yes there is plenty to talk about after the final whistle but it seems that many match threads morph into nothing more than a mickey waving contest between supporters, and many infractions occur over things that never even happened during the game- festering for days on end.

Something like a 24hr close after the kick off time could work.

Then any outstanding discussion could be taken to the super threads.

keith16

lordgoat wrote: »

Cheers for the reply but I think the point is being missed.

What is the difference between saying 'adjective Ronaldo' and saying a player is fat?

Look, let me spell it out for you. It's bloody insulting full stop.

It's perfectly ok to comment civilly on athlete's weight where it is impacting their performance. It's perfectly ok to be critical of players who should be looking after themselves a bit better. Saying "they had a few pies" is euphemistic way of saying it.

What if you found out some kid in school had the same name as your son but was distinguished as being the fat / black / ugly one? Would you be happy?

What if you met Ronaldo in real life? Would you say, "hey, Fat Ronaldo"? Attacking or calling out Ronaldo's weight by saying "fat Ronaldo" is doing so, only for the sake of it. It serves no purpose. It's not constructive criticism in the same way people have rightly criticised the likes of Rooney for. People don't just call him fat for the sake of it, other than mindless numpties. Plenty of united fans would be giving out about his weight, but it's not personal, it's professional.

Using "fat Ronaldo" is made redundant by the context most of the time anyway. It's cheap, childish and tiresome.

Honestly, if you need lessons on why it's not nice to distinguish and judge people soley on their appearance then you need to have a bit of a look at yourself.

Panthro

Leiva wrote: »

I still think match threads should have a pre determined life span.

Yes there is plenty to talk about after the final whistle but it seems that many match threads morph into nothing more than a mickey waving contest between supporters, and many infractions occur over things that never even happened during the game- festering for days on end.

Something like a 24hr close after the kick off time could work.

Then any outstanding discussion could be taken to the super threads.

I'd agree that match threads usually ending up descending into an awful lot of B.S. after a certain period. Therefore I'd second the idea of a lifespan for match threads, I think 24 hrs after kickoff is too narrow a time frame as it would/could lead to the Superthread's becoming the match thread's new home. I'd give a life span of 48 hrs to match threads.
But yes, lifespan for match threads, I'm on board.

Liam O

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

Some short responses.

Why do you need to call Ronaldo Fat, Plump, rotund etc? Surely you could think of something better to call one of the best strikers of my generation. If you are stuck, just call him Ronaldo, people should know who you are talking about by the context of your post.

GAE, I suggested a solution for that some time ago, Beasty has actioned it with the Admins, it is not that important as it is being dealt with and it does not detract from the forum and so what if it only takes 5 minutes, there are lots of other five minute jobs to do and most of them are probably more important than removing a redundant sub forum.

As for cards, they are there for a warning. If you do not learn from the warnings then you will find yourself on the wrong side of a suspension but we have had feedback from many posters and one on this thread that they will not make the same mistake again and there are quite a few posters who will only get one warning all season, or even none and so never get suspended. If it is possible for them to read and stick to the guidelines, then why is it so hard for others? I am genuinely interested in an answer to this because I know that if something meant that much to me that I did not want to be removed from it, I would do what I could to ensure that I worked within the rules and when I had a chance to give feedback on them, i would make it was considered, constructive and contributed to the forum.

The only 2 yellows I got in the first nearly 3 years I was on this site were within a week of each other, if that was to happen now I would be on the verge of a ban for very little, they can be accumulated by decent posters who participate in match threads for throwaway comments that are directed at people on the windup, as emotions are running high during a match sometimes it's easy to just flip out a bit and lose it the odd time. Would it really be that hard to just edit some of the quotes that are only on the border of breaking the charter rather than the blanket and rigid rulings where even a small indiscretion is a third of the way to a ban?

lordgoat

keith16 wrote: »

Look, let me spell it out for you. It's bloody insulting full stop.

It's perfectly ok to comment civilly on athlete's weight where it is impacting their performance. It's perfectly ok to be critical of players who should be looking after themselves a bit better. Saying "they had a few pies" is euphemistic way of saying it.

What if you found out some kid in school had the same name as your son but was distinguished as being the fat / black / ugly one? Would you be happy?

What if you met Ronaldo in real life? Would you say, "hey, Fat Ronaldo"? Attacking or calling out Ronaldo's weight by saying "fat Ronaldo" is doing so, only for the sake of it. It serves no purpose. It's not constructive criticism in the same way people have rightly criticised the likes of Rooney for. People don't just call him fat for the sake of it, other than mindless numpties. Plenty of united fans would be giving out about his weight, but it's not personal, it's professional.

Using "fat Ronaldo" is made redundant by the context most of the time anyway. It's cheap, childish and tiresome.

Honestly, if you need lessons on why it's not nice to distinguish and judge people soley on their appearance then you need to have a bit of a look at yourself.

I can't hear you from so far up there on your high horse.

As I said in my first post, i only want the mods to comment on it. I'm not really looking for random opinions only those from people that can dish out the cards.

darced

This post has been deleted.

keith16

lordgoat wrote: »

I can't hear you from so far up there on your high horse.

There's nothing high-horsey about it. It wouldn't be accepted in any other walk of life. What if you heard a pundit saying it? Or a manager? You don't because labeling people like that is nothing more than a bullys charter.

lordgoat wrote: »

As I said in my first post, i only want the mods to comment on it. I'm not really looking for random opinions only those from people that can dish out the cards.

Well why don't you bloody well PM one of them so? I thought I would indulge you since none of them have bothered replying to you. This isn't a thread for mods only. Everyone is entitled to challenge your opinion when you post it, so don't bother posting further if you don't want your playschool "I want to call him fat" type views trampled on.

dfx-

keith16, lordgoat, keep it civil please. All feedback is welcome, it's not restricted to anyone.

lordgoat

dfx- wrote: »

keith16, lordgoat, keep it civil please. All feedback is welcome, it's not restricted to anyone.

Always.

My point which is still not being dealt with (sorry to go on)

Is that a sentence like this:
Jesus. The state of x player. He's a complete fat mess. Is acceptable.

While.

While he's a great player in my opinion he's no where near as good as plump ronaldo.



It's crazy that the forum loses good posters because of this. Pro F should not have got a card for it. He was not being insulting. He's a good poster I've had plenty of debates with him and disagree with him more often than not but from how that incident played out it was just beyond crazy.


Again I'm just really interested in mod feedback. Cheers.

Overall I think the modding is mostly fine except in cases where some mods are over the top. It's a thankless job so fair play for doing it.

Beasty

So where do you draw the line? Are you leaving it to the mods to try and work out if the term "fat" is used in a derogatory or descriptive manner? Fat Sam is not allowed, Fat Frank is not allowed - do we need to resort to having to define who is "fat" and who is not? What happens if Rooney comes back to pre-season training with a bit of a paunch? Are you then looking to call him fat until he loses it (knowing that is likely to wind up some forum regulars)?

Bottom line on something like this is we do need a hard and fast rule - otherwise we'll have dispute threads coming out of our ears - every time I will simply say that it was a mod judgement call, and then we'll end up with others arguing a lack of consistency in modding. A no-win for the mods. However this way it's a no brainer - read the rules and abide by them - if you call anyone "fat" (Sam, Frank, Ronaldo, Wayne) you can expect a card

Leiva

does that Ronaldo thread really deserve the whole feedback threads time?

bigger fish and all that

lordgoat

Beasty wrote: »

So where do you draw the line? Are you leaving it to the mods to try and work out if the term "fat" is used in a derogatory or descriptive manner? Fat Sam is not allowed, Fat Frank is not allowed - do we need to resort to having to define who is "fat" and who is not? What happens if Rooney comes back to pre-season training with a bit of a paunch? Are you then looking to call him fat until he loses it (knowing that is likely to wind up some forum regulars)?

Bottom line on something like this is we do need a hard and fast rule - otherwise we'll have dispute threads coming out of our ears - every time I will simply say that it was a mod judgement call, and then we'll end up with others arguing a lack of consistency in modding. A no-win for the mods. However this way it's a no brainer - read the rules and abide by them - if you call anyone "fat" (Sam, Frank, Ronaldo, Wayne) you can expect a card

I don't know where the line is. If I did I wouldn't have needed to ask.

You seem to miss that fact that plenty of fans have been wound up by saying x player is fat tubby etc and don't get cards but once the word fat is put in front of someone's name it becomes a card. Bit of a Mis match.

From you're response I'm taking that's it's just the word fat that the issue is with then. Sorted. Thanks for te reply.

Sorry Levia just trying to get a bit of clarification.

Oranage2

lordgoat wrote: »

I don't know where the line is. If I did I wouldn't have needed to ask.

You seem to miss that fact that plenty of fans have been wound up by saying x player is fat tubby etc and don't get cards but once the word fat is put in front of someone's name it becomes a card. Bit of a Mis match.

From you're response I'm taking that's it's just the word fat that the issue is with then. Sorted. Thanks for te reply.

Sorry Levia just trying to get a bit of clarification.

I'm still not sure where the line is, not just about fat though, what about saying bramble is crap, is that allowed?

Or what about Carroll plays like a horse, or Gervinho is a donkey?

Or Rooney is the white pele?

or calling a player brainless?

or x is a terrible player?

I can understand the abuse rule to stop people calling players w*n**rs and what not but the abuse rule should have a line and fat should fall well into the safe category.

Knex*

I know people want to move on here, but personally I think you're going down a sticky road if start banning people for saying "fat Ronaldo".

Sure, its frowned upon, but often that's enough to see it cease by the majority. If people in a thread are taking offence, and I don't really see why the would myself, then they can ask the poster in question to refer to him as Brazilian Ronaldo or whatever.

Its far too minor a case in my eyes to be picking up an infraction for. At most I think it may warrant a warning, and maybe then an infraction/ban on recurrence, as I'd be certain you will catch unsuspecting posters out with this in the future.

Beasty

My "contribution" was simply in the context "nicknames" in light of the Policy on Abuse

In that policy it is clear that names such as Fat Sam and Fat Frank are not permitted - it seems pretty clear to me that calling someone Fat Ronaldo falls into the same category

Using abusive terms to describe someone is also oulawed - if in doubt then the solution is simple - err on the side of caution. There are plenty of posters who manage to make many thousands of posts without a blemish on their records

Now I don't claim to be a "regular" in the forum, and the interpretation of the rules is primarily down to the local mods, but I really don't see what the issue is here

lordgoat

Beasty wrote: »

My "contribution" was simply in the context "nicknames" in light of the Policy on Abuse

In that policy it is clear that names such as Fat Sam and Fat Frank are not permitted - it seems pretty clear to me that calling someone Fat Ronaldo falls into the same category

Using abusive terms to describe someone is also oulawed - if in doubt then the solution is simple - err on the side of caution. There are plenty of posters who manage to make many thousands of posts without a blemish on their records

Now I don't claim to be a "regular" in the forum, and the interpretation of the rules is primarily down to the local mods, but I really don't see what the issue is here

To sum up.

Ronaldo is looking fat.

Are you talking about fat ronaldo?

One is a card.

Insect Overlord

lordgoat wrote: »

To sum up.

Ronaldo is looking fat.

Are you talking about fat ronaldo?

One is a card.

In one of those sentences you describe the man.
In the other you define him.

You reduce him to one (unfortunate) trait.

Insect Overlord

Insect Overlord wrote: »

In one of those sentences you describe the man.
In the other you define him.

You reduce him to one (unfortunate) trait.

"He is a bastard who is <race>" = Yellow.
"He is a <race> bastard." = Red?

Insect Overlord

Deleted User wrote: »

"He is a bastard who is <race>" = Yellow.
"He is a <race> bastard." = Red?

Why call any footballer/commentator/official/pundit/manager a bastard at all?

I really hope you don't need someone to explain racism to you...

I am pie

Suggestion - put all the draft kncokout matches under a new sub folder or somewhere easier to locate them.

The_Kew_Tour

Leiva wrote: »

does that Ronaldo thread really deserve the whole feedback threads time?

bigger fish and all that

This.

If fat Ronaldo thing was only major issue we have a super duper smoothly run forum.

dfx-

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

There is a poster who just thanks every post that goes against mine. I never took any notice till got few PM from posters asking what is up last week.

At first I found it funny now its gone little disturbing(in a wtf way:pac:). I also know that poster has been saying things to other posters about me. I dont know the guy and dont want to. Not somthing I will lose sleep over but maybe suggestion for people who just want honest debate with people trolling for no reason

If you feel it is abuse through the thanks system, that is against the charter. If you want, you can consult the opinion of a moderator(s) in confidence and they can act.

Bounty Hunter

I am pie wrote: »

Suggestion - put all the draft kncokout matches under a new sub folder or somewhere easier to locate them.

As I am a mod and I am running this I thought I should respond to this. Drafts like this have been run before and it is always a concern that they may clutter up the board.

It is being run between seasons for that reason, and thankfully we have already had more than half of the threads there will be for it as there should be a grand total of 7 more matches in that tournament. Now that we are getting to the quaterfinal stage I will only start 2 matches at a time as apposed to the four that ran in the first knockout round. The Semi-finals may only see one started at a time. So the amount of these threads should be drastically cut down now.

lordgoat

Insect Overlord wrote: »

In one of those sentences you describe the man.
In the other you define him.

You reduce him to one (unfortunate) trait.

So what you're saying is the context of the word. Yet if I swap fat for skinny there's no card.

Anyways I'm done now. (Sorry for those I annoyed and thanks to the mods that did try to help bring some clarity)

I won't be using the word fat in front of ronaldo. Unless cristiano comes back and looks a bit out of shape. Although if he did I think it would confuse a lot of people even more.

Insect Overlord

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Why call any footballer/commentator/official/pundit/manager a bastard at all?

I really hope you don't need someone to explain racism to you...

Don't pretend not to understand, it's pretty pathetic.

eagle eye

This Ronaldo thing irks me. I really don't care that much what anybody calls a footballer but anytime I want to make the difference clear I just post C.Ronaldo for the Portugese one, its not that hard and two extra touches of the keyboard is well worth it if its going to save hassle and a card/ban.

SlickRic

also, he wasn't banned for calling him "fat".

it was a warning.

i'd rather people not say "fat", mainly because it's the first step on the road to people debating like 7 year olds.

Jax Teller

SlickRic wrote: »

also, he wasn't banned for calling him "fat".

it was a warning.

i'd rather people not say "fat", mainly because it's the first step on the road to people debating like 7 year olds.

How about overweight ?

Chucky the tree

Leiva wrote: »

I still think match threads should have a pre determined life span.

Yes there is plenty to talk about after the final whistle but it seems that many match threads morph into nothing more than a mickey waving contest between supporters, and many infractions occur over things that never even happened during the game- festering for days on end.

Something like a 24hr close after the kick off time could work.

Then any outstanding discussion could be taken to the super threads.

Ugh, God no. Keep the match threads open so the trolls stay away from the Super thread. The place is still riddled with trolls btw, should be talking about that rather than "is fat ronaldo acceptable or not?"

Beasty

There has been a bit of discussion amongst the mods about the card system. Currently totting up works as follows:

2 yellows = 1 week
3 yellows = 2 weeks
4 yellows = 1 month
5 yellows = 2 months
6 yellows = re-apply for access to the forum after 6 months

The 2 months for 5 cards is a bit of an anomaly, as there is no longer a 2 month default available to the mods (which means a longer ban is imposed but then lifted manually). 3 months is available though and I would think that's not unreasonable for 5 yellows (and indeed gives a month less to accumulate that all-important 6th!)

However at the other end of the scale, what are thoughts on a ban kicking in after 2 yellows? They could be 11 months apart (or even in very quick succession if someone gets carried away with themselves in a heated match thread)

How about making the first ban kick in after 3 yellows? It would then look something like this

2 yellows = nothing
3 yellows = 2 weeks
4 yellows = 1 month
5 yellows = 3 months
6 yellows = re-apply for access to the forum after 6 months

A red would remain the equivalent of 2 yellows

Any views?

Leiva

what is the timescale for expiry of yellows etc?

Thanx 4 The Fish

Same as currently. Clean slate at the start of the next season which I believe currently runs from July.

Winston Payne

Nothing for two yellows is too lenient.

Oranage2

Beasty wrote: »

There has been a bit of discussion amongst the mods about the card system. Currently totting up works as follows:

2 yellows = 1 week
3 yellows = 2 weeks
4 yellows = 1 month
5 yellows = 2 months
6 yellows = re-apply for access to the forum after 6 months

The 2 months for 5 cards is a bit of an anomaly, as there is no longer a 2 month default available to the mods (which means a longer ban is imposed but then lifted manually). 3 months is available though and I would think that's not unreasonable for 5 yellows (and indeed gives a month less to accumulate that all-important 6th!)

However at the other end of the scale, what are thoughts on a ban kicking in after 2 yellows? They could be 11 months apart (or even in very quick succession if someone gets carried away with themselves in a heated match thread)

How about making the first ban kick in after 3 yellows? It would then look something like this

2 yellows = nothing
3 yellows = 2 weeks
4 yellows = 1 month
5 yellows = 3 months
6 yellows = re-apply for access to the forum after 6 months

A red would remain the equivalent of 2 yellows

Any views?

I like the new idea, obviously there are pro and cons to both systems, you could potentially gives a troll a free comment with the new system but once they get their troll comment out early they face 18 weeks of ban if the get 5 fellows, the previous system it was only 15 weeks off.

At the start it'll look bad but after that the trolling will be reduced significantly in my opinion with the potentially longer ban time.

Will I Amnt

Maybe have 2 yellows equal a weeks ban if they are within 2 months or so if it's too lenient to go unpunished?
As said, 11 months apart is a bit harsh.

On another note, the whole LOI vs everybody else thing.
Why does this be allowed to continue so long without moderator interference?
You can't say Suarez and Evra in the same sentence without a mod note going up... *Awaits mod note*
And that's fair enough because we all know how it turns out at this stage but it's almost as bad with the whole LOI debate.

The same people show up to spout the same nonsense with the same arguments ad nauseam.
It's a pain in the arse to read and has infractions written all over it.

RasTa

How about not banning people?

Thanx 4 The Fish

How about they do not act like dicks?

We would soon be overrun with trolls and spammers If there were no bans to keep it under control. Mods do not like banning people, if not only for the extra paperwork and pins that generally happen. If we had a forum that did not include people who required bans then we would need no moderators and so no rules as everyone would be civil, have a basic level of intelligence and common sense, with maybe a little bit of a tougher skin than your average apple.

RasTa

If you don't like banning people then why do you issue bans to people who calls someone a troll, back seat modding or a re-reg. I wouldn't classify that as acting the dick. Which imo should be the only rule in the charter.

Leiva

Ahh Rasta I have (and I am sure you have) witnessed some right psycho's come and go.
Who deserve to be banned from the Internet never mind this forum with the disgusting things they say.

Thanx 4 The Fish

RasTa wrote: »

If you don't like banning people then why do you issue bans to people who calls someone a troll, back seat modding or a re-reg. I wouldn't classify that as acting the dick. Which imo should be the only rule in the charter.

We issue them because over the course of our time here we have had people accuse people of being Trolls or wins just to annoy them or because they did not like the point that was being made. A lazy way of getting out of an argument, we have also had people who are not re-regs accused of being such by people who do not like them, do not have the tools to hand to know or are just on a wind up themselves. Some of these things are as a direct result of feedback on the forum or from our members about how they do not like the fact that it can go on. As for handing out bans for them, we don't, we hand out warnings, you will be banned if over the course of a season your warnings breach the level agreed by the forum and forum mods for that season.

From your post it seems that only a couple of the bans annoy you. What do you propose we do instead to deal with things? Just let them keep on going with it? This is a feedback thread, if the members agree with you them come up with a different solution.

Xavi6

Agree with bans but at the same time there should be more leniency for calling out an obvious troll for what they are. Basically if you're right, as per mod discretion, then there should be no yellow for it.

Also, if trolling is a punishable offence then so should being an over sensitive Sally. Some people just want to be offended and their drivel is as irritating and adds as little value as a troll.

eagle eye

Beasty wrote: »

There has been a bit of discussion amongst the mods about the card system. Currently totting up works as follows:

2 yellows = 1 week
3 yellows = 2 weeks
4 yellows = 1 month
5 yellows = 2 months
6 yellows = re-apply for access to the forum after 6 months

The 2 months for 5 cards is a bit of an anomaly, as there is no longer a 2 month default available to the mods (which means a longer ban is imposed but then lifted manually). 3 months is available though and I would think that's not unreasonable for 5 yellows (and indeed gives a month less to accumulate that all-important 6th!)

However at the other end of the scale, what are thoughts on a ban kicking in after 2 yellows? They could be 11 months apart (or even in very quick succession if someone gets carried away with themselves in a heated match thread)

How about making the first ban kick in after 3 yellows? It would then look something like this

2 yellows = nothing
3 yellows = 2 weeks
4 yellows = 1 month
5 yellows = 3 months
6 yellows = re-apply for access to the forum after 6 months

A red would remain the equivalent of 2 yellows

Any views?

I think thats pretty fair apart from the bolded part. I think you should get one month for a red because you have to do something way ott to get a red imo.