For Minor Infractions, 6 Months Max Vacation instead Perma

[Thezzaruz]

But not all banned players are liked enough to be voted for. If someone was allowed to stay via vote it would be considered a "last chance" save.

And that is just the problem with such a system. Being popular should not mean that you get off lighter or get back sooner than if you are unpopular. The punishments has to be equal for all users.

[4myGod]

I think all MINOR infractions should be max punishment of 6 months. All MAJOR infractions max punishment of perma-ban. Though, I also think both categories should be re-written.

MAJOR infraction: This includes but is not limited to: Cyber-bullying/Harassment, Bigotry, Intentional Deadbeating, Repeatedly Holding Players Hostage, Serial Teammate Killing, Hijacking Accounts, Systematically "Farming" New Recruits, Illegal Point Collecting, Gambling, **Point Dumping** etc.

Something like "Cyber-bullying/Harassment" I think can be too general and easily if a mod wants to he can turn flaming into this, as well if the first mod to gives a warning under Cyber-bullying/Harassment, then when the person gets punished again for flaming the next mod will see that I naturally just add it on to Cyber-bullying.

There needs to be some sort of clear explanation between flaming, bullying, etc.

I also agree with .44 that we should split each infraction into it's own escalating punishment system. Perhaps live chat, forum, and game chat, because all having to do with chat can be under the same category, for example just "Flaming" not seperated on where it occurs.

[Woodruff]

But not all banned players are liked enough to be voted for. If someone was allowed to stay via vote it would be considered a "last chance" save.

And that is just the problem with such a system. Being popular should not mean that you get off lighter or get back sooner than if you are unpopular. The punishments has to be equal for all users.

Yes, I tend to agree with this. Just because someone has a larger following of vocal individuals doesn't mean they're necessarily better for the site than someone who does not.

[MeDeFe]

show

StiffMittens, this looks like a quite good draft for a guidelines revision to me. In fact, I'll go so far as to say the basic concept is pretty much perfect and all that's left is the details.

- It accounts for the fact that everyone will at some point (and 99.9% far more often than just at one point) inevitably post something that might be construed as an infraction of the guidelines (even though Woodruff might disagree) and that this won't come back to haunt them forever.

- It accounts for personal vendettas by one or more mods against one or more users (Bob forbid that ever actually happen!).

- It takes into account that noone gives a fuck, flying or otherwise, about last year's posts, and if people do still care about those posts they were either epic and a cause for much amusement and admiration (and as such not exactly detrimental to the community as a whole) or of an extremely heinous nature (a category under which I have some problem seeing things like "Logic dictates there is a Cod", really who among you remembered those threads before I just mentioned one?)


I also strongly agree with the idea of leaving it to a mods discretion to issue a warning instead of escalating things to the next step. Say you spot a thread that's spiraling towards flaming (now outlawed in public, formerly allowed in certain places) with more or less everyone baiting everyone else, just tell the people in it to tone it down, no need for a one week ban over a heated discussion. Maybe point them in the general direction of Tavernside Fire (I just noticed: even lack agrees with that! I quote the turtle: "there's already two clans (one social, one competitive) that's related to flame wars, so if you wanna flame just join it" EDIT: ok, so it wasn't lack, still looked exactly like him... stupid epidemic)

show

the.killing, I think your proposal is unnecessarily complicated. Instead simply (at least I hope it is simple) divide infractions into major and minor, with major infractions being things like blatant racism, posting hardcore porn, or spamming up the fora with advertisements (I actually haven't noticed any of those bots on CC, although I have seen them on several smaller fora, still, it can't hurt to plan ahead if they ever find this place). Everything else would be a minor infraction.



As for the scale to follow, I think official warning, 1 day, 3 days, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months for minor infractions with a one month probation before being reset to 1 day would work well. Friendly warnings that count against nothing can be issued at mods' discretion. For major infractions: official warning + 1 week ban, 1 month, 6 months, perma (this is why they have to be major infractions) with a longer probationary period, 3 months sounds reasonably long to me.

I also think the two should be kept separate, so if someone is on probation after a week long ban for spamming and trolling (minor infractions) and then blows off about how "all ragheads are filthy terrorists" or something equally heinous they still receive a shorter ban for a first major infraction. My reasoning for keeping the two separate is that if you start mixing them up, it is very easy to end up making a big mistake. I recall there have been cases that were not at all clear-cut. If I remember correctly, when one person used blackface for their avatar they were not even aware that many blacks would consider it racist. I think that was resolved amicably in the end, but imagine a moderator taking a strict approach in a not-so-clear cases, a few minor infractions and a slip-up you might not even have been aware of might make you end up in a boiling kettle.



4myGod, I agree that infractions in Livechat should not influence the length of a forum ban (or vice versa) and that infractions in games should also be kept separate from forums and livechat (although a busted multi that loses all access to the site will obviously not be able to post either), but as I understood the.killing he meant that there should be a scale for flaming, a scale for spamming, a scale for trolling and so on, and that these all be added up in an overall scale. As I stated, that's an approach I think is too complicated, partly because it requires that you list every possible infraction by name and in detail before punishment can be meted out, and partly because calculating the length of any given ban will become a science in itself. Minor/Major and keeping the scales separate should suffice.



EDIT: Damn that turtle avatar epidemic!

[Woodruff]

- It accounts for the fact that everyone will at some point (and 99.9% far more often than just at one point) inevitably post something that might be construed as an infraction of the guidelines (even though Woodruff might disagree) and that this won't come back to haunt them forever.

Why would I disagree, given that I have personally received a ban for a moment of weakness on my part? <smile>

I also strongly agree with the idea of leaving it to a mods discretion to issue a warning instead of escalating things to the next step. Say you spot a thread that's spiraling towards flaming (now outlawed in public, formerly allowed in certain places) with more or less everyone baiting everyone else, just tell the people in it to tone it down, no need for a one week ban over a heated discussion. Maybe point them in the general direction of Tavernside Fire (I just noticed: even lack agrees with that! I quote the turtle: "there's already two clans (one social, one competitive) that's related to flame wars, so if you wanna flame just join it")

Actually, you're quoting a user named Joodoo there.

[PLAYER57832]

I don't have time to go through this whole thread right now, but a 6 month, even a year or 2 year ban seems like a reasonable possibility either in addition to or in lieu of a prema- ban, given that usernames are essentially "permanent".

However, I think the real issue is over what the forums are supposed to be.

[F1fth]

As for the scale to follow, I think official warning, 1 day, 3 days, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months for minor infractions with a one month probation before being reset to 1 day would work well. Friendly warnings that count against nothing can be issued at mods' discretion. For major infractions: official warning + 1 week ban, 1 month, 6 months, perma (this is why they have to be major infractions) with a longer probationary period, 3 months sounds reasonably long to me.

This seems like a good addendum to me, as it gives a little more weight to major infractions. I'd even consider making it as long as 6 months, but 3 is pretty reasonable as well.

I have one suggestion for StiffMitten's draft: instead of resetting the ladder after the probationary period, I think the penalty should only decline a level. Otherwise, trolls could just go crazy once every month and never get more than a warning.

[ender516]

As for the scale to follow, I think official warning, 1 day, 3 days, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months for minor infractions with a one month probation before being reset to 1 day would work well. Friendly warnings that count against nothing can be issued at mods' discretion. For major infractions: official warning + 1 week ban, 1 month, 6 months, perma (this is why they have to be major infractions) with a longer probationary period, 3 months sounds reasonably long to me.

This seems like a good addendum to me, as it gives a little more weight to major infractions. I'd even consider making it as long as 6 months, but 3 is pretty reasonable as well.

I have one suggestion for StiffMitten's draft: instead of resetting the ladder after the probationary period, I think the penalty should only decline a level. Otherwise, trolls could just go crazy once every month and never get more than a warning.

I like that concept, with the addition of a probationary period that also varies. Perhaps a ban should be followed by a probation as long as the next shorter ban; that is, using MeDeFe's scale, a 6 month ban is followed by a 3 month probation to get set back one level on the ladder of punishment, then another month to get set back another, then a week, and so on. Some one returning from a one month ban would be on probation at some level or other for eleven days total..

On a different note, but still part of the discussion (I think), I am not sure why so many people feel that live chat and the fora should be considered separately as far as offenses and penalties go. Are they not both wide-open channels of discussion? Are they held to different standards? If so, why? I can see the distinction for PMs -- abuse of those is a bit like sending threatening letters in the mail -- but apart for the fora benefiting from being an organized discussion which is easy to search and reference and which is worthy of retaining for future review, why the distinction?

[Woodruff]

As for the scale to follow, I think official warning, 1 day, 3 days, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months for minor infractions with a one month probation before being reset to 1 day would work well. Friendly warnings that count against nothing can be issued at mods' discretion. For major infractions: official warning + 1 week ban, 1 month, 6 months, perma (this is why they have to be major infractions) with a longer probationary period, 3 months sounds reasonably long to me.

This seems like a good addendum to me, as it gives a little more weight to major infractions. I'd even consider making it as long as 6 months, but 3 is pretty reasonable as well.

I have one suggestion for StiffMitten's draft: instead of resetting the ladder after the probationary period, I think the penalty should only decline a level. Otherwise, trolls could just go crazy once every month and never get more than a warning.

I like that concept, with the addition of a probationary period that also varies. Perhaps a ban should be followed by a probation as long as the next shorter ban; that is, using MeDeFe's scale, a 6 month ban is followed by a 3 month probation to get set back one level on the ladder of punishment, then another month to get set back another, then a week, and so on. Some one returning from a one month ban would be on probation at some level or other for eleven days total.

I like that a lot, actually. However, that might become a little too "kludgy"..."not easy to use"...whatever a good term would be. In other words, it might add a level of complexity to it that makes it not quite worth the added benefit.

On a different note, but still part of the discussion (I think), I am not sure why so many people feel that live chat and the fora should be considered separately as far as offenses and penalties go. Are they not both wide-open channels of discussion? Are they held to different standards? If so, why? I can see the distinction for PMs -- abuse of those is a bit like sending threatening letters in the mail -- but apart for the fora benefiting from being an organized discussion which is easy to search and reference and which is worthy of retaining for future review, why the distinction?

I agree with you entirely, but I DO see the reason for it. The reason behind that complaint is that there IS a different view of what happens in chat as opposed to what happens in the forums. Things are definitely "looser" in the games. Now, I'm of the opinion they SHOULDN'T be, so I think you and I agree in that concept. But that's why those feel that they should have differing punishments as things currently stand.

[AndyDufresne]

I think all MINOR infractions should be max punishment of 6 months. All MAJOR infractions max punishment of perma-ban. Though, I also think both categories should be re-written.

MAJOR infraction: This includes but is not limited to: Cyber-bullying/Harassment, Bigotry, Intentional Deadbeating, Repeatedly Holding Players Hostage, Serial Teammate Killing, Hijacking Accounts, Systematically "Farming" New Recruits, Illegal Point Collecting, Gambling, **Point Dumping** etc.

Something like "Cyber-bullying/Harassment" I think can be too general and easily if a mod wants to he can turn flaming into this, as well if the first mod to gives a warning under Cyber-bullying/Harassment, then when the person gets punished again for flaming the next mod will see that I naturally just add it on to Cyber-bullying

There needs to be some sort of clear explanation between flaming, bullying, etc.

There actually are clear definitions of these things behind the scenes now. In the past, we had no definitions, just general ideas of what each term meant. But over the past couple of weeks I've written up 45+ Situation Guidelines that detail what somethings if (what is Bigotry, what is Cyber-bullying/Harassment, what is Common Flaming, etc,---and how to deal with these things.)


--Andy

[AndyDufresne]

But back on topic, lets discuss Minor Infractions and 6 month Max Vacation and Major/Severe Infractions Perma Max Vacation.

Probation periods, in addition to whether or not to ball up offenses, are different beasts I think. Lets tackle those suggestion ideas in a different topic at a different time.

We'll work more efficiently with 1 single goal in mind at a time.


--Andy

[PLAYER57832]

This is probably going to be considered a different suggestion, then, too, but what of erasing "points" after a period of decent behavior.

I mean, theoretically, under the current rules, someone could be a near jerk in their first 2 months, learn their lesson, then goof 2 years later and be banned.

[PLAYER57832]

But back on topic, lets discuss Minor Infractions and 6 month Max Vacation and Major/Severe Infractions Perma Max Vacation.

Probation periods, in addition to whether or not to ball up offenses, are different beasts I think. Lets tackle those suggestion ideas in a different topic at a different time.

We'll work more efficiently with 1 single goal in mind at a time.


--Andy

Maybe instead this could be moved over to discussion, since it seems like all of these ideas relate together and really need a comprehensive discussion.

That is, I am not sure just adding a 6 month ban, separate from the other ideas is the same as combining them all?

[MeDeFe]

@ Andy's 1st post:
Any chance of those behind the scenes guidelines being turned over for public scrutiny? It's just that "behind the scenes" is not a very reassuring phrase, we know that you are humans, and because of that we only trust you so far. We expect you to generally mean well, but also to be capable of major screw-ups. If everyone can have a look at the definitions and offer advice or comments on them, chances are that someone will spot any flaws they may contain. At the very least they'll be everybody's screw-up if things go wrong.


@ Andy's 2nd post:
I disagree that we should stick to only discussing the lengths of bans for various infractions, I think that was one of the problems with the earlier debates, we only talked about one detail and lost sight of the whole picture. Using the scale I proposed we're talking about a total of just over 10 months of being banned for 7 offenses, or at least 7 offenses that were noted/reported. Adding 6 months again and again to that for each further minor offense is somewhat better than permabanning, but, to be honest, not by much. There needs to be a mechanism for prescribing old offenses, be it a probationary period after each ban, or simply removing offenses older than 6 months or a year (examples made up on the spot) from the record, or be it something completely different but utterly brilliant that I haven't thought of.

[AndyDufresne]

Unfortunately I think a probationary period will probably involve too much Coding on Lack's end, in addition to too much time on a Moderators end. (I know Lack will much rather spend time coding new updates for everyone, that disciplinary measures for only a select few). I think a Probationary period will probably lead to more messes ups and inconsistencies than it will fix. It's the same problem we had in the previous years of Conquer Club, which lead to the "balling up"


--Andy

[MeDeFe]

How about dropping old offenses from the record after a certain period of time then? e.g. 6 months for minor and 12 for major. I don't think that would have to involve a lot of coding.


Also, about those behind the scenes guidelines?

[thegreekdog]

But back on topic, lets discuss Minor Infractions and 6 month Max Vacation and Major/Severe Infractions Perma Max Vacation.

Probation periods, in addition to whether or not to ball up offenses, are different beasts I think. Lets tackle those suggestion ideas in a different topic at a different time.

We'll work more efficiently with 1 single goal in mind at a time.


--Andy

I know we're not voting, but I'm absolutely in favor of a 6 month ban (or less) max for minor infractions.

[AndyDufresne]

How about dropping old offenses from the record after a certain period of time then? e.g. 6 months for minor and 12 for major. I don't think that would have to involve a lot of coding.


Also, about those behind the scenes guidelines?

I'm not sure about dropping old Infractions completely. A history should still be taken into account I think when a user makes an Infraction. But something like this, as opposed to the lengthy probationary period is something more feasible for both Lack and our Moderators I think. This may be worth pursuing in discussion at least.

As for Situation Guidelines, most of the definitions were taken from the Community Guidelines---where things are listed and spelled out. If things are unclear or need further explanation in the Community Guidelines, let us know and we can improve those.


--Andy

[squishyg]

I'm not sure about dropping old Infractions completely.

Not even after years have passed? I hope cc will be around long enough so that people can have their records expunged after years of good behavior. Some of our beloved and not so beloved offenders are minors after all. I'm all for holding young people (as well as older people) to high standards, but a certain amount of immaturity is to be expected from people who are immature. If a 14 year old is being an ass and gets in trouble for that, shouldn't we perhaps forget about those youthful indiscretions once a couple of years have gone by?

[AndyDufresne]

I said I'm not sure. Perhaps there are some arguments that can sway me a certain direction.


--Andy

[clapper011]

But back on topic, lets discuss Minor Infractions and 6 month Max Vacation and Major/Severe Infractions Perma Max Vacation.

Probation periods, in addition to whether or not to ball up offenses, are different beasts I think. Lets tackle those suggestion ideas in a different topic at a different time.

We'll work more efficiently with 1 single goal in mind at a time.


--Andy

I know we're not voting, but I'm absolutely in favor of a 6 month ban (or less) max for minor infractions.

that may be a good idea, but what happens when the abuser (so to speak) can not control themselves..when does it then become more then a "minor" infraction? When would the line then be drawn?

[F1fth]

I think Stiff suggested that if you're maxed on the ladder of punishment, subsequent punishments might be considered major infractions.

I have a slight variation on this idea: that subsequent punishments don't count on the major infraction list, but escalate it -- meaning if someone was being quite an annoyance, they would raise their punishment on the major infraction ladder, and when they do slip up big time (i.e. commit a major infraction) it'll be more severe for them because of it.

Also, I'd like to add that even with only the 6 month maximum ban, the person could only really bother us twice a year at most. That's not a terrible worst case scenario, in my opinion.

[Woodruff]

How about dropping old offenses from the record after a certain period of time then? e.g. 6 months for minor and 12 for major. I don't think that would have to involve a lot of coding.


Also, about those behind the scenes guidelines?

I'm not sure about dropping old Infractions completely. A history should still be taken into account I think when a user makes an Infraction. But something like this, as opposed to the lengthy probationary period is something more feasible for both Lack and our Moderators I think. This may be worth pursuing in discussion at least.

For my part, as you probably know, I've been wholeheartedly in support of keeping track of previous offenses, as I find them very relevant. In fact, I'm probably one of the most vocal on that count.

However, I would also say that, IF THERE IS NO REPEATED BAD BEHAVIOR, this seems perfectly reasonable. After all, if the user has gone 6 months without another infraction, it seems pretty reasonable to dispense with that previous offense. However, if there are repeats within the 6 months, then it wouldn't disappear until that NEXT 6 month timeframe expired.

Also, I'd like to add that even with only the 6 month maximum ban, the person could only really bother us twice a year at most. That's not a terrible worst case scenario, in my opinion.

Agreed, provided the admins still have the authority (without having to hear all the whining, I mean!) to permaban when it is appropriate (wicked, for example).

[squishyg]

what happens when the abuser (so to speak) can not control themselves..when does it then become more then a "minor" infraction? When would the line then be drawn?

I don't think it's possible or reasonable to anticipate all infractions and suitable punishments. At a certain (and perhaps undefined) point, a player may cross the line and severe punishment may be called for. Perhaps we need a couple of mods (forgive me if this already exists) who are in charge of hearing out a player and laying out their punishment. It may be the case that some cases have to be judged on a, well, case by case basis, rather than on a fixed set of parameters.

[Frigidus]

But back on topic, lets discuss Minor Infractions and 6 month Max Vacation and Major/Severe Infractions Perma Max Vacation.

Probation periods, in addition to whether or not to ball up offenses, are different beasts I think. Lets tackle those suggestion ideas in a different topic at a different time.

We'll work more efficiently with 1 single goal in mind at a time.


--Andy

I know we're not voting, but I'm absolutely in favor of a 6 month ban (or less) max for minor infractions.

that may be a good idea, but what happens when the abuser (so to speak) can not control themselves..when does it then become more then a "minor" infraction? When would the line then be drawn?

You have to look at things case by case. Although there are situations in which a permaban is appropriate, they are rare and extreme.