Reaching 100%, last time I checked (a year ago?) didn't do anything extra special to an account (suspend, limit). If that's still the case, why do people reset the warn level to 0 after suspending a person for reaching 100%? Any additional action after that should just result in more suspensions, relative to the offense.
Just keep incrememting the number, say 120%, 140% etc... no need for new warn level graphics or anything, just keep it at the "Fuxor".
I like this idea. But, I also think that with this, we should go back to a 10% (or 5%) base system, with 20%, 40%, etc for severe offenses. Maybe a 5% or 10% decay every couple months with that, as well.
We don't need decay.
I've heard all the arguments for it and I don't think any of it is good.
First, it's reset to 20 * number of suspensions.
Have it go by 10%'s and have suspensions like 100% ones at 40%, 70%, and a ban at 100%.
Decay based on Karma might be good... if a well-respected member of the community does one bad thing, they might deserve a little decay.
But then again, decay could just be based on the moderator's discretion...
They would need a lot of karma.
Karma isn't even used anymore. We can however, enable it to be adjusted only via warns, which would make sure those who don't deserve decay never get it...
I was thinking more for SEN v5, since Karma will be enabled there... right? >>