In regards to the "balling" (I guess that's the word for it now) of infractions, I'd actually disagree with the position that it should be removed. In my opinion, it would be difficult to keep tabs on the separate lists of offenses and it would encourage trolls to be well-rounded, that is, trolling all portions of the site to avoid harsher penalties.
Instead, I strongly urge a time period for excusing past minor transgressions. Now, I have some good reasons for this: first is that you wpuldn't need to remove the "balling" policy, as this system would work quite well with it; second is that we all make minor mistakes, and it's unfortunate (in my opinion, of course) that some of the more minor or non-malicious mistakes play such a large role in one's record; thirdly is that this system encourages good behavior as the longer one goes without doing anything wrong, the more they benefit from it.
In terms of some specifics, I would suggest the period before the excuse be long (several months at least) so as to discourage abuse (i.e. putting on a "happy face" until your record is cleaned up a bit) and that any infractions reset said period, or possibly even make it longer.
Last edited by F1fth on Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
<>---------------------------<> ......Come play CC Mafia, .....where happiness lies <>----------[Link]----------<>
jefjef wrote:How about allowing premium players the right to vote in re of a perma ban (If not due to criminal issues). If the offender wins allow said person to stay. Then if they do not fly right then admin ban stands. Kinda a one last chance. After all we do pay to play for entertainment & enjoyment.
Well, the problem I see with that is a huge majority of the people voting in the poll would be friends of the banned member, as indifference would play a large factor in these votes.
<>---------------------------<> ......Come play CC Mafia, .....where happiness lies <>----------[Link]----------<>
jefjef wrote:How about allowing premium players the right to vote in re of a perma ban (If not due to criminal issues). If the offender wins allow said person to stay. Then if they do not fly right then admin ban stands. Kinda a one last chance. After all we do pay to play for entertainment & enjoyment.
Well, the problem I see with that is a huge majority of the people voting in the poll would be friends of the banned member, as indifference would play a large factor in these votes.
Valid point.. 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.
jefjef wrote:How about allowing premium players the right to vote in re of a perma ban (If not due to criminal issues). If the offender wins allow said person to stay. Then if they do not fly right then admin ban stands. Kinda a one last chance. After all we do pay to play for entertainment & enjoyment.
Forum Guidelines
Posting in the forum is a privilege, not a right. If you want to continue to keep this privilege, play by the rules.
Every member here that is premium is paying for the extra games (unlimited), as well as speed games, private games etc. therefore the forums are not included in this price. They are extra "bonus" if you will. They have nothing to do with being premium or non-premium. So now..why let only "premium" players have a "vote" on banning, and not freemiums? That is honestly kind of like saying lets let everyone edit others posts, or give warnings. That is the reasons there are moderators, and admin, as well as the report button. I do think there is room for change or minor tweaks to the rules about banning members how ever.
jpcloet wrote:Going from 1 month to perma is a big jump. Having 6 months and 1year step might be useful. Add a zero-tolerance rule after the one year like a probation. Any last rule break after a 1 year ban, then you go perma. How does that sound?
I think this would be a positive addition to the rules. However, it does seem to me that there does need to be consistency in who gets punished and for which offenses they are punished. From what I've been reading the last few days, it seems the mods are working towards this. I hope so, for I notice there's a sub-community that's very upset. It seems there's a line between teasing and trolling that moves back and forth quite a bit. Maybe if that line was stationary, the punishments wouldn't be (or appear to be) so random.
StiffMittens wrote:Sorry if this is repetitious (I haven't had a chance to read through the whole thread), but It sounds like a probationary system is emerging in this discussion. I think that may be the right way to go. Here's a possible scheme:
Minor infractions begin with a formal warning. A second minor infraction results in a 24 hour forum ban after which, a one month probationary period begins. During that probationary period is when the escalation process works. another minor infraction results in the next level of ban (say 72 hour) and after that ban is up the one month probationary period starts again. This escalation process continues up to the maximum sentence of 6 months forum ban, and after each ban the one month probation begins again. If the user cannot make it through the final probation period without an infraction, then the minor infraction track gets escalated to a major infraction. If, however, the user makes it through any one month probationary period without another infraction their status "resets" and any subsequent infraction begins with a warning again. [edit]On second thought, it should be reset to the post warning stage. That is, you get a formal warning the first time, but from then on you're on the system of ban-probation-possible escalation.
This makes sense to me (including the reset NOT including the warning stage).
StiffMittens wrote:Major infractions work the same except the escalation slope might be steeper and would culminate in perma-ban. Also, the probationary period after a major infraction is three months, so the offender has to keep their nose clean for longer in order to avoid further escalation.
Again this makes sense. The probationary period definitely needs to be longer for these sorts of offenses, without being impossible to overcome. I might even see it being a bit longer than 3 months personally...but the general idea you have here is good. And it certainly should escalate to more severe bans more quickly.
Somewhere, there needs to be some specific delineation of what is a minor and a major offense.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
alex951 wrote:i think cc needs the perm ban, but i also think that the 6 month ban is a good idea. You have to understand that the mods have to do a lot of stuff throughout the day and to have someone continuously brake the rules only makes their job of maintaining cc harder. The rules on cc or not hard to follow they are plain and simple.
Read the topic I linked to in my comment. You obviously have not seen what the admins/mods ban for.
Here's something I've been thinking about: How about if we separate the minor infractions into their respective groups, like I said (i.e. trolling & flaming have different escalating scales), but each of those scales are somewhat less severe but also less "escalating" than the current one. HOWEVER, there would be the "overall scale," which is somewhat of compound scale. Basically, (and note that the vacations are not what i suggest but rather just placeholders) it's like this: OFFENSE A .................... OFFENSE B Friendly Warning ............ Official Warning Official Warning .............. 24hrs 24hrs ............................. 5days
COMPOUND ESCALATION When Offense A reaches 24hrs and Offense B reaches 5days, the compound escalation scale takes them both into account and the user is issued a 1 month ban. The smaller scales then reset, cutting off the first punishment (in the examples above, Offense A's punishment goes straight to Official Warning and Offense B's punishment goes straight to a 24hr ban). If the two scales reach their peak again, the user is issued a 6 month ban.
Just a thought, I think it'd work well. .44
P.S. once again, those timetables I used above are purely examples — my suggestion is not those times but just the scales and how they work.
the.killing.44 wrote:Here's something I've been thinking about: How about if we separate the minor infractions into their respective groups, like I said (i.e. trolling & flaming have different escalating scales), but each of those scales are somewhat less severe but also less "escalating" than the current one. HOWEVER, there would be the "overall scale," which is somewhat of compound scale. Basically, (and note that the vacations are not what i suggest but rather just placeholders) it's like this: OFFENSE A .................... OFFENSE B Friendly Warning ............ Official Warning Official Warning .............. 24hrs 24hrs ............................. 5days COMPOUND ESCALATION When Offense A reaches 24hrs and Offense B reaches 5days, the compound escalation scale takes them both into account and the user is issued a 1 month ban. The smaller scales then reset, cutting off the first punishment (in the examples above, Offense A's punishment goes straight to Official Warning and Offense B's punishment goes straight to a 24hr ban). If the two scales reach their peak again, the user is issued a 6 month ban. Just a thought, I think it'd work well. .44 P.S. once again, those timetables I used above are purely examples — my suggestion is not those times but just the scales and how they work.
It seems to me that taking previous minor offenses into account when a major offense occurs makes sense but taking previous major offenses into account when a minor offense occurs does not.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Woodruff wrote:It seems to me that taking previous minor offenses into account when a major offense occurs makes sense but taking previous major offenses into account when a minor offense occurs does not.
Well, yeah. And the major ones would be held to a different account.
jefjef wrote: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.
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.
jefjef wrote: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.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
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)
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!
Last edited by MeDeFe on Tue Jul 14, 2009 7:45 am, edited 2 times in total.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
MeDeFe wrote:- 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>
MeDeFe wrote: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.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
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.
MeDeFe wrote: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.
<>---------------------------<> ......Come play CC Mafia, .....where happiness lies <>----------[Link]----------<>
MeDeFe wrote: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?
MeDeFe wrote: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.
ender516 wrote: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.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
4myGod wrote: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.)
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.
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.
AndyDufresne wrote: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?
@ 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.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
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"
