How many chances do you give a member before banning them for breaking rules?

I never like to ban a member, and I give many warnings and chances to my members before banning them, but I will ban someone without no warning depending on the severity of what they have done.

How many chances do you give a member before banning them for breaking rules?

 

Maybe about 3, give or take the reason, as I'm a firm believer of the 3 strikes and your out rule

 

Couldn't have put it better myself this is normally what I opt for the 3 strike rule and your out, however this does depend if someone does something serious then it will be an instant ban right away.

 

Yea, if someone like a spammer came on, they would be banned instantly, but if it was something like constantly double posting or bumping up threads for no reason, then they would probably go through the three strike rule

 

Yea, I usually follow that as well. Its the most fair.

 

Double posting is the one thing that really irritates me and I find hard to deal with.
But spammer yea they get an instant ban it's pointless warning a spammer as they aren't there to participate they are there to spam.

 

Yea same here, im not fond of double posting unless its accidental due to connection/host problems.

 

Spammers are banned asap
other wise its three warnings then your banned

 

Haha everyone hates spam

 

I don't like to ban either unless I absolutely have to. I know when we first started out we kind of had a semi-complicated system going, and it wasn't just three strikes--you're out. There were so many things that you have to have happen to you before we finally lose patience and throw a permanent ban in your direction. So I too only do banning as a last resort.

 

3 strikes and they are gone but I don't consider the reasons first, a ban should always be a last resort.

 

I usually go on a case by case basis. For example, if I have a member that breaks say, a bump rule 5 times, I wouldn't ban him for that, where as if a member was rude to a Staff Member, flamed and broke another rule then I would ban.

 

I wouldn't ban over something small. But being disrespectfull and trolling is somethiing that will most likely get me to ban.

 

My forum comes with a built-in warning system that relies on a "10 strike" system. However, every strike can be worth 1-10 points. When the point count hits 10, it's an instant temp ban. So, I use different amounts of warning points for each offense.

Flaming another user - 5 points
Causing problems - 4 points
Spam (trusted user) - 2 points
Off-topic - 2 points
Unintentional rule-breaking - 1 point

So it all varies on the rules broken. The only way for my users to receive a perm ban is by getting temp bans 3 times.
However, if a new user registers at my forum and just comes to spam, flame, etc., it's instant ban.
So that's how I pretty much do it for auto bans and spammers. Otherwise, it's 3 strikes.

 

Nice system, its default in all phpBB forums. Having a warning system makes things easier to track. Do you have your points set to expire?

 

Yes. A warning will expire 2 weeks after it's been given.

 

Alright, then yea the system you have set is pretty fair.

 

Yea I wouldnt ban someone for breaking minor rules. But breaking the bump rule 5 times is alot lol. That would be a temporary ban not permanent.

 

I give a member 2 chances. I also have a chat box where they are given 2 chances before they're banned. But, sometimes if they are a spammer and recently registered I ban them immediately. It seems weird over the past few days I've been getting a bunch of them.

 

Might want to install some spam prevention mods for you phpBB forum. I recommend Anti-Spam ACP.