Ultimately, this brings in far too much complexity. If the flaming itself is bad, it may well be against the rules. Thus we do not need to use this complex punishment system, as we already have a mute/jail/ban syatem in place for dealing with these offences. The scenario is a little vague but the way I see it there are a few varying situations:
- The new faction is being quite irritating in chat and inciting a faction and encouraging it to raid them. I don't see how this kind of thing warrants a revocation of protection as it can be interpreted as some old fashioned badinage or just idiocy. They could be ignored or engaged in verbal jousting. If you're really hot-headed, wait for the month to end.
- They do something that would usually warrant a war such as theft, killing or something similar. In this case, I understand that revocation of protection would be good. However, in this case, raids or a postponed war will have to suffice. After all, it's so subjective that nobody can judge.
- They actually break the rules by swearing, spamming, griefing etc. There are alternative punishments in place for this.
Clearly this would not be replacing existing punishment techniques as those are executed much more quickly than a war declaration response. This was intended mostly for those who are talking trash within the permitted constraints. The point of this is to address those who are taunting other factions while hiding behind the young faction protection, this point is irrelevant when it actually is against server rule since we already have defined actions which frankly are more severe. Furthermore, I don't think that we really have a problem with it being complicated when comparing it to many other aspects of the war, such as alliance wars, reporting changes, calculating surrender terms, etc.
Now, I would like to point out what I feel is missing from your points.
The new faction protection is not supposed to protect people from being dumb, it is supposed to allow them to develop their faction somewhat more peacefully before being exposed to the threat of war. When this function is no longer the primary use of the protection, aka the protection is being abused, it does not seem reasonable for them to keep that status as they are saying they are ready to take the backlash of making enemies. To me, it seems like walking up to a gang in an alley, spitting on one of them, then saying, "wait, I'm not ready to fight." Hopefully this analogy makes some sense.
In your second point, you say to just wait until the end of the month or stick to the weekly raids. I, and I'm sure many other people, dislike this solution. One of the reasons I dislike it is that it still seems like throwing the first punch then saying, "wait, I'm not ready." Furthermore, a month can be a long time, and when there is so much of a time gap, the message doesn't get through to them that it is a bad idea to pick fights before you can handle them. If they really were not capable of handling a war yet, they probably should have known not to egg on people who are ready. Furthermore, it still would be considered an abuse of the young faction protection.
Your third point was already addressed in the first paragraph of this post, but I'll reiterate over it. This is not supposed to replace existing rules, this may exist in parallel with them. If they have been banned, well, there is no point in the war, the only thing missing is their head as a trophy, which can't be obtained anyway. If it is a mute, I think that it could potentially be considered enough, assuming that they were not directly taunting another faction to raid them. As I said, this is not to replace the existing consequences, but simply to prevent abuse of the young faction protection.
However, it seems that I needed to be a bit more clear in my explanation of the proposal, and for bringing that to my attention, I thank you.
