Conquer Club

Gillipig wrote:

Evil Semp wrote:

Symmetry wrote:How about something as simple as a petition? If enough members of the community sign up for a player to be reinstated, then their case should be reconsidered as perhaps not being as detrimental to the community as previously thought?

Pretty easy to implement, no?

Define community.
1] The CC community-all members of CC.
2] The active CC community-those that are active on the scoreboard.
3] The forum community-Only those that post in the forums.
4] The vocal community-the posters who have X number of posts.

Where do you draw the line on how many members have to sign the petition?

Maybe a poll would be better? Create a thread in general discussion and ask people if they think a certain person should be given a chance to come back. If a clear majority says yes then he/she gets a second chance. If not he/she stays permabanned for life and the discussion is over, the community has spoken. Sounds fair?

Evil Semp wrote:

Symmetry wrote:How about something as simple as a petition? If enough members of the community sign up for a player to be reinstated, then their case should be reconsidered as perhaps not being as detrimental to the community as previously thought?

Pretty easy to implement, no?

Define community.
1] The CC community-all members of CC.
2] The active CC community-those that are active on the scoreboard.
3] The forum community-Only those that post in the forums.
4] The vocal community-the posters who have X number of posts.

Where do you draw the line on how many members have to sign the petition?

notyou2 wrote:Perhaps Semp will be kind enough to sticky it...........

Army of GOD wrote:Anyway this can get stickied mods?

shanksdigs wrote:Canada. 'nuff said.

notyou2 wrote:

shanksdigs wrote:Canada. 'nuff said.

What do you mean by this?

Symmetry wrote:Yup- I like the idea of a petition system bringing a case to the attention of the mods, or perhaps to a sub-forum where it can be discussed. I don't see any major issue in discussing or dismissing cases on their own merits. We're pretty good at that already. See the cheating and abuse forum- plenty of sharp people around, plenty of discussion over the various merits of an argument. It's not perfect, but we can talk about why it's not perfect fairly reasonably.

So here's my tentative suggestion:

If a player can gather (let's say for the moment) 20 other posters for a petition to reinstate someone, then that poster's case should be up for re-examination. I would suggest either by a mod panel, or perhaps better, in a sub forum where people could raise objections before a final decision need be made.

Army of GOD wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Yup- I like the idea of a petition system bringing a case to the attention of the mods, or perhaps to a sub-forum where it can be discussed. I don't see any major issue in discussing or dismissing cases on their own merits. We're pretty good at that already. See the cheating and abuse forum- plenty of sharp people around, plenty of discussion over the various merits of an argument. It's not perfect, but we can talk about why it's not perfect fairly reasonably.

So here's my tentative suggestion:

If a player can gather (let's say for the moment) 20 other posters for a petition to reinstate someone, then that poster's case should be up for re-examination. I would suggest either by a mod panel, or perhaps better, in a sub forum where people could raise objections before a final decision need be made.

The problem with the petition is that the banned user might not even know the petition is in existence. That's why I thought it would be better if the banned user would send an e-ticket to show that he's interested in coming back, and then maybe we could have a petition to see if the users actually want him/her back.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Just saw this thread, not reading the whole thing today.
The max punishment is now 3 months? I am not sure that is always appropriate, but if so, then I would say all prior punishments should simply be reduced retroactively.

That said, I think we DO need permabans for people who really and truly do nasty stuff. Someone intetionally posting links with viruses, the most severe multis cases (this will have to be defined, but I mean people who have a lot of multis).

Also, I think we need some way to categorize or quarantine people who show over and over they are just plain nasty individuals to play with. (a lot of them wind up being multis, but that is irrelevant). I know those are seperate topics.. sort of overlapping the farming issue in some ways.

Army of GOD wrote:
Multis technically are permabanned I think but that's only until they buy premium with their first account

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:
Multis technically are permabanned I think but that's only until they buy premium with their first account

Unless its changed, they only get to rebuy one account. Then they keep getting banned.

However, I am not so concerned with the multis. The folks I want to see lasting permabanned are truly harmful folks. Multis are a pain, need to be curtailed, but not the same as putting viruses that can hurt people's computers or posting serious threats to people.

safariguy5 wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:
Multis technically are permabanned I think but that's only until they buy premium with their first account

Unless its changed, they only get to rebuy one account. Then they keep getting banned.

However, I am not so concerned with the multis. The folks I want to see lasting permabanned are truly harmful folks. Multis are a pain, need to be curtailed, but not the same as putting viruses that can hurt people's computers or posting serious threats to people.

I don't think it's necessarily carte blanche to allow everyone back. Appeals process would definitely require a good deal of community support to even be considered, and ultimate say still goes to the admins. I think having that option open is nice, and I think the standards of the community have changed as the site has evolved.