For Minor Infractions, 6 Months Max Vacation instead Perma

[stahrgazer]

So then as follows:
24-hour ban
3-day ban
1-month ban
6-month ban
1-year ban
Get the bleep out of here.

That seems to me to be VERY lenient, so I think it's probably a good compromise (I'm not a fan of leniency in these cases, but I do understand that my view isn't the only one).

I disagree that year and perma-bans is lenient for someone being stupid in a chat; just continue giving them the short vaca's. Eventually most will get tired of being obnoxious (i.e. eventually some of them will grow up, the rest will lose their fan followings as their fans grow up.)

Save year and perma-bans for those who multi or electronically sabotage the site; i.e., serious offenses only.

Give "noted" or "warning" anytime someone is offended, even if the 'offense' is borderline, as a way to encourage better sportsmanship; but also give "noted" or "warning" if someone is repeatedly reporting too many borderline offenses. Do not let repeated "warning" or minor vacas be additive to permabans.

That would:
Give the community some control ("When x complains about something being offensive, the guy is at least officially talked to").
Eliminate the complaints of "too harsh" when a popular (or unpopular, as the case may be) person is banned for something stupid.
Eliminate the possibility of members being permabanned because of baiting.

[colton24]

So then as follows:
24-hour ban
3-day ban
1-month ban
6-month ban
1-year ban
Get the bleep out of here.

That seems to me to be VERY lenient, so I think it's probably a good compromise (I'm not a fan of leniency in these cases, but I do understand that my view isn't the only one).

I disagree that year and perma-bans is lenient for someone being stupid in a chat; just continue giving them the short vaca's. Eventually most will get tired of being obnoxious (i.e. eventually some of them will grow up, the rest will lose their fan followings as their fans grow up.)

Save year and perma-bans for those who multi or electronically sabotage the site; i.e., serious offenses only.

Give "noted" or "warning" anytime someone is offended, even if the 'offense' is borderline, as a way to encourage better sportsmanship; but also give "noted" or "warning" if someone is repeatedly reporting too many borderline offenses. Do not let repeated "warning" or minor vacas be additive to permabans.

That would:
Give the community some control ("When x complains about something being offensive, the guy is at least officially talked to").
Eliminate the complaints of "too harsh" when a popular (or unpopular, as the case may be) person is banned for something stupid.
Eliminate the possibility of members being permabanned because of baiting.

nah it should be kinda like that but like this:
warning
24-hour ban
3-day ban
1-month ban
6-month ban
1-year ban
Get the bleep outta here ( we will take bribes of premuim )
Get the bleep outta here ( no bribes )

[stahrgazer]

So then as follows:
24-hour ban
3-day ban
1-month ban
6-month ban
1-year ban
Get the bleep out of here.

That seems to me to be VERY lenient, so I think it's probably a good compromise (I'm not a fan of leniency in these cases, but I do understand that my view isn't the only one).

I disagree that year and perma-bans is lenient for someone being stupid in a chat; just continue giving them the short vaca's. Eventually most will get tired of being obnoxious (i.e. eventually some of them will grow up, the rest will lose their fan followings as their fans grow up.)

Save year and perma-bans for those who multi or electronically sabotage the site; i.e., serious offenses only.

Give "noted" or "warning" anytime someone is offended, even if the 'offense' is borderline, as a way to encourage better sportsmanship; but also give "noted" or "warning" if someone is repeatedly reporting too many borderline offenses. Do not let repeated "warning" or minor vacas be additive to permabans.

That would:
Give the community some control ("When x complains about something being offensive, the guy is at least officially talked to").
Eliminate the complaints of "too harsh" when a popular (or unpopular, as the case may be) person is banned for something stupid.
Eliminate the possibility of members being permabanned because of baiting.

nah it should be kinda like that but like this:
warning
24-hour ban
3-day ban
1-month ban
6-month ban
1-year ban
Get the bleep outta here ( we will take bribes of premuim )
Get the bleep outta here ( no bribes )

Cute.

No, the problem as I understand it is, a few people have received the shorter bans, then come back and offended - but offended LESS than they had before; then were still banned totally because of "the past."

Their improvement, therefore, was not rewarded. The lesser offense should've received a step back on the ban; say his prior offense was 6 months, he returned, offended again, but less; it should be 1 month, indicating, "okay, we see improvement, just not enough. Try again in a month."

[Woodruff]

There's something I'm a little unclear on. When you get a vacation, can you still play your games? Can you start/join new ones?

Yes. The only time you lose your access to the games is if you're given a complete website ban (a perma-ban is normally referring to a permanent forum ban).

[Woodruff]

So then as follows:
24-hour ban
3-day ban
1-month ban
6-month ban
1-year ban
Get the bleep out of here.
That seems to me to be VERY lenient, so I think it's probably a good compromise (I'm not a fan of leniency in these cases, but I do understand that my view isn't the only one).

I disagree that year and perma-bans is lenient for someone being stupid in a chat; just continue giving them the short vaca's. Eventually most will get tired of being obnoxious (i.e. eventually some of them will grow up, the rest will lose their fan followings as their fans grow up.)
Save year and perma-bans for those who multi or electronically sabotage the site; i.e., serious offenses only.

That was way back on page 1, stahr! <grin> I've moved past that position quite some time ago.

[squishyg]

=========================================


Hm, lets see what we've got so far:

Option 1

For Minor Infractions, the Disciplinary levels would remain unchanged:
Warning, 24 Hours, 72 Hours, 1 Week, 1 Month, Permanent
Major/Severe Infractions would remain unchanged:
Warning, 1 Month, Permanent
(Keep in mind, these levels don't just include Forums, but Live Chat as well as gaming on the website as well).

This is the system we have currently.

Option 2

1
For Minor Infractions, the Disciplinary levels would be as follows:
Warning, 24 Hours, 72 Hours, 1 Week, 1 Month, 6 Months, Permanent
Major/Severe Infractions would remain unchanged:
Warning, 1 Month, Permanent

My objection to Options 1 & 2 is that a perma-ban is too harsh for a minor offense, even a repeated one. Even if you troll the forums on a regular basis, I don't think you should lose the right to play the games.

Option 3

For Minor Infractions, the Disciplinary levels would be as follows:
Warning, 24 Hours, 72 Hours, 1 Week, 1 Month, 6 Months
Major/Severe Infractions would remain unchanged:
Warning, 1 Month, Permanent

We'd keep with the general current system we have no---no probationary periods, etc.

If a user comes back after a 6 Month Vacation, if their next Infraction was a Minor Infraction they would be hit with another 6 Month Vacation, no matter the period of time elapsed from the last Vacation. If their next Infraction was instead a Major/Severe Infraction, it'd probably lead to a Permanent Vacation.

Option 4

For Minor Infractions, the Disciplinary levels would be as follows:
Warning, 24 Hours, 72 Hours, 1 Week, 1 Month, 6 Months
Major/Severe Infractions would remain unchanged:
Warning, 1 Month, Permanent

Upon a user coming back after a 6 Month Vacation, if they go 6 months without a Minor or Major/Severe Infraction, their Disciplinary level could be bumped down to 1 Month for their next Minor Infraction. Should they then after those 6 months, have a Minor Infraction, they would get a 1 Month Vacation, and upon their return from the 1 Month Vacation, their next Minor Infraction would lead them to a 6 Month Vacation.

Then there are the even more radical schemes of sweeping rollbacks, but I don't think we can entertain any of those ideas at the current time.

Option 1 seems to have some current opposition, Option 2 is one proposed middle ground Option 3 is also a proposed middle ground, Option 4 is another proposed middle ground.

I think Option 4, however, may be getting to the point of making things too difficult or complex for a World Domination based gaming website.


--Andy

Something that I think might help here is actually setting up a Moderate Infractions list. Farming newbies does not seem as bad as attempting to hijack the site.

Moderate Infractions:

Account Sitting Abuse
Intentional Deadbeating
Repeatedly Holding Players Hostage
Serial Teammate Killing
Systematically "Farming" New Recruits
Illegal Point Collecting

Point Dumping

Disciplinary actions: Warning, 24 Hours, 72 Hours, 1 Week site ban, 1 Month site ban, 6 Months site ban


Major Infractions:
Gambling
Bigotry
Cyber-bullying/Harassment
Personal Information Abuse
Hijacking Accounts

Disciplinary actions: 1 Week site ban, 1 Month site ban, Permanent site ban

I differentiate between bans, which still allow you to play games, and site bans, which do not allow you to participate on cc at all. Thoughts?

**revised to reflect feedback from my cohorts**

[Woodruff]

Something that I think might help here is actually setting up a Moderate Infractions list.

I don't see a problem with setting up a Moderate Infractions List...differentiation isn't bad as long as it's not taken to the extreme. However...

Moderate Infractions:
Gambling

I don't believe Gambling can EVER be considered only a moderate infraction. It's ILLEGAL in a big way, and the site could be completely shut down for it. This has to be a Major.

Major Infractions:
Cyber-bullying/Harassment
Personal Information Abuse
Hijacking Accounts
Disciplinary actions: 1 Week site ban, 1 Month site ban, Permanent site ban

You are, in my opinion, far too kind here. Only a 1-week site ban for HIJACKING ACCOUNTS? As far as I'm concerned, this is perma-site-ban material for the FIRST offense. It's inexcusable.

And for the other two items you listed, I don't believe you can have a "set punishment" because there is SUCH a wide divergence in the potential damage to someone. For instance, a "personal information abuse" could be practically unimportant or it could be HUGELY important. If that makes sense.

[owenshooter]

Moderate Infractions:
Bigotry
Account Sitting Abuse
Intentional Deadbeating
Repeatedly Holding Players Hostage
Serial Teammate Killing
Systematically "Farming" New Recruits
Illegal Point Collecting
Gambling
Point Dumping

Disciplinary actions: Warning, 24 Hours, 72 Hours, 1 Week site ban, 1 Month site ban, 6 Months site ban

sorry, you lost me with the first entry on your MODERATE INFRACTIONS list...-0

[squishyg]

Moderate Infractions:
Bigotry
Account Sitting Abuse
Intentional Deadbeating
Repeatedly Holding Players Hostage
Serial Teammate Killing
Systematically "Farming" New Recruits
Illegal Point Collecting
Gambling
Point Dumping

Disciplinary actions: Warning, 24 Hours, 72 Hours, 1 Week site ban, 1 Month site ban, 6 Months site ban

sorry, you lost me with the first entry on your MODERATE INFRACTIONS list...-0

I know, that was hard for me to put in the moderate category. I probably made the wrong call. And yes, gambling should probably be a major offense too. Thanks for the input guys. I'll revise the list to reflect your comments.

[4myGod]

it is beyond stage 1...-0

I have read them all, and have already posted what I thought about the options. What I mean is, I don't see what we do next, whether it be stage 2, 3, 4 or 5. Forgive me for being new to this. Where do we go from here? I posted the suggestion and many have debated it, we came up with the 4 options and I believe the majority of us have figured out option 3 and 4 are better because there is no perma-ban in them. Now many of the users replying to the thread aren't reading that far into the thread and are only debating mods personalities or something reply from page 1-2.

So should I be editing the original post with the options Andy posted? Where is the cutoff point of debating and we move on to the next stage, whatever it may be? Not everyone is going to agree, I believe if Andy took either option 3 or 4 people would be pretty darn satisfied.

[PLAYER57832]

So then as follows:
24-hour ban
3-day ban
1-month ban
6-month ban
1-year ban
Get the bleep out of here.

That seems to me to be VERY lenient, so I think it's probably a good compromise (I'm not a fan of leniency in these cases, but I do understand that my view isn't the only one).

I disagree that year and perma-bans is lenient for someone being stupid in a chat; just continue giving them the short vaca's. Eventually most will get tired of being obnoxious (i.e. eventually some of them will grow up, the rest will lose their fan followings as their fans grow up.)

Save year and perma-bans for those who multi or electronically sabotage the site; i.e., serious offenses only.

Give "noted" or "warning" anytime someone is offended, even if the 'offense' is borderline, as a way to encourage better sportsmanship; but also give "noted" or "warning" if someone is repeatedly reporting too many borderline offenses. Do not let repeated "warning" or minor vacas be additive to permabans.

That would:
Give the community some control ("When x complains about something being offensive, the guy is at least officially talked to").
Eliminate the complaints of "too harsh" when a popular (or unpopular, as the case may be) person is banned for something stupid.
Eliminate the possibility of members being permabanned because of baiting.

I like this.

Ideally, those who get chat warnings might have some sort of tag to their profile and perhaps be prevented from playing games with newbies. That said, I am not sure chat abuse should be only a slap on the wrist. Playing games is the whole reason for the site and people who are real jerks make the games unpleasant for the majority. I would say they have a huge impact on people leaving the site ... far more than those who play around in the Forums, etc.

I also think that at some point, there has to be the permaban option even for minor offenses. At some point, even "minor" infractions get very disruptive. However, I definitely don't think it should be a "1,2, 3 strikes -- you're out" type escalation. I think the scale should maybe be spread out and there should be opportunity for erasing past minor offenses.

Oh, if it has not already been done, I think making a serious threat in chat (or forums, of course) should be penalty-worthy. No, people don't have our personal information, but who wants to play a game only to get a series of Pm's saying "I hope you and your family die" becuase you played "too slowly" or simply won. (and that truly happened to me more than once.. the person wound up being a multis, but if he hadn't, apparently there was not much admin could do at that time).

[squishyg]

it is beyond stage 1...-0

I have read them all, and have already posted what I thought about the options. What I mean is, I don't see what we do next, whether it be stage 2, 3, 4 or 5. Forgive me for being new to this. Where do we go from here? I posted the suggestion and many have debated it, we came up with the 4 options and I believe the majority of us have figured out option 3 and 4 are better because there is no perma-ban in them. Now many of the users replying to the thread aren't reading that far into the thread and are only debating mods personalities or something reply from page 1-2.

So should I be editing the original post with the options Andy posted? Where is the cutoff point of debating and we move on to the next stage, whatever it may be? Not everyone is going to agree, I believe if Andy took either option 3 or 4 people would be pretty darn satisfied.

I think we keep engaging in dialogue. The bigotry issue moved along because there was so much excitement about that thread. We need to keep posting here and refining our ideas. Part of why I decided to throw some new ideas into the mix was to re-energize the conversation.

[stahrgazer]

Something that I think might help here is actually setting up a Moderate Infractions list.

I don't see a problem with setting up a Moderate Infractions List...differentiation isn't bad as long as it's not taken to the extreme. However...

Moderate Infractions:
Gambling

I don't believe Gambling can EVER be considered only a moderate infraction. It's ILLEGAL in a big way, and the site could be completely shut down for it. This has to be a Major.

hahahaha gambling...

Technically, one could say the win or loss of points for any game is a form of gambling; but a legal form because no money is exchanged.

Other than that, I think the most "gambling" that can be done on this site, through the site, is to bet the cost of premium - which is already done by those who offer premium for their tournaments; still, no actual money is exchanged, so no legal problem.

So, what am I missing? How could "gambling" through this site be an offense so grievous that it warrants banning?

Major Infractions:
Cyber-bullying/Harassment
Personal Information Abuse
Hijacking Accounts
Disciplinary actions: 1 Week site ban, 1 Month site ban, Permanent site ban

You are, in my opinion, far too kind here. Only a 1-week site ban for HIJACKING ACCOUNTS? As far as I'm concerned, this is perma-site-ban material for the FIRST offense. It's inexcusable.

And for the other two items you listed, I don't believe you can have a "set punishment" because there is SUCH a wide divergence in the potential damage to someone. For instance, a "personal information abuse" could be practically unimportant or it could be HUGELY important. If that makes sense.

Cyber bullying/harassment frequently isn't even warned/noted; instead, the answer is, "use foelist" or "use ignore" - but you wish admin to suddenly make it a major offense?

No, I truly believe that if discipline was less for minor infractions, but more instances were considered infractions, the site would improve.

Current scenarios: mods ignore what some consider 'abuse' or 'harassment'
player A gets abusive in a game at player B. B reports A. Mods say, "A, use foelist and go away." A knows behavior is just fine, so does it again to someone else.

Suggested change: no ignoring; just repeated minor disciplines
player A gets abusive in game at player B. B reports A. Mods say, "A, you are noted as abusive, please refrain." A does one of two things: does it again, or refrains. Assuming A repeats behavior against player C in another game, player C reports it, mods should now say, "A, you were noted before, this is now a warning. Do refrain."

Let's say player A wants to make a habit of it. Eventually enough warnings go out that player A gets a day vaca, but still doesn't stop. Just keep giving the day vaca's. Word eventually spreads; those who don't care how he tantrums at moves he doesn't like continue playing with him, those who mind it have the satisfaction that "something" rather than "nothing" is done, and publicly, the message from admin is "do not" rather than, "we do not care if you do," but the penalties remain mild enough that player A cannot get banned just for being a poor sport.

Also in this suggested scenario, because "something" rather than "nothing" is done, player A's friends are less likely to campaign to bully whoever reports their friends, which can lessen the trend for harassment across the site.

[PLAYER57832]

Cyber bullying/harassment frequently isn't even warned/noted; instead, the answer is, "use foelist" or "use ignore" - but you wish admin to suddenly make it a major offense?

It depends a LOT on what the harassment involves. Simply swearing, saying you %&$# beat me! is, at worst, minor. I think it would be better dealt with in ratings, frankly, because its a personal choice/values issue. Also, if warnings or poor ratings are given, there should be leniency for come non-english speakers who, well, might actually think "shit" is proper and even f%^& is not truly bad language.

On the other hand, someone saying "f%$# you" I wish you would die, I plan to seek you out wherever you are deserves some sort of reprimand and, depending on the context (how serious the threat seems, etc.) might be ban-worthy.

Someone who goes into every game you have and declares "ZXY is a cheater/ homo/F%$#%^^%" deserves at least a temporary ban, if not something more serious. ("more serious" mostly if they are violating other rules as well or show a pattern of doing this over and over).

I think in this, we have to remember that games are what really and truly drive the site. Something that makes the games uncomfortable for a good many people needs to be kept within bounds or eliminated.

[PLAYER57832]

=========================================


Hm, lets see what we've got so far:

Option 1

For Minor Infractions, the Disciplinary levels would remain unchanged:
Warning, 24 Hours, 72 Hours, 1 Week, 1 Month, Permanent
Major/Severe Infractions would remain unchanged:
Warning, 1 Month, Permanent
(Keep in mind, these levels don't just include Forums, but Live Chat as well as gaming on the website as well).

This is the system we have currently.

Option 2

1
For Minor Infractions, the Disciplinary levels would be as follows:
Warning, 24 Hours, 72 Hours, 1 Week, 1 Month, 6 Months, Permanent
Major/Severe Infractions would remain unchanged:
Warning, 1 Month, Permanent

With the consensus, I dislike this.

Option 3

For Minor Infractions, the Disciplinary levels would be as follows:
Warning, 24 Hours, 72 Hours, 1 Week, 1 Month, 6 Months
Major/Severe Infractions would remain unchanged:
Warning, 1 Month, Permanent

We'd keep with the general current system we have no---no probationary periods, etc.

If a user comes back after a 6 Month Vacation, if their next Infraction was a Minor Infraction they would be hit with another 6 Month Vacation, no matter the period of time elapsed from the last Vacation. If their next Infraction was instead a Major/Severe Infraction, it'd probably lead to a Permanent Vacation.

Option 4

For Minor Infractions, the Disciplinary levels would be as follows:
Warning, 24 Hours, 72 Hours, 1 Week, 1 Month, 6 Months
Major/Severe Infractions would remain unchanged:
Warning, 1 Month, Permanent

Upon a user coming back after a 6 Month Vacation, if they go 6 months without a Minor or Major/Severe Infraction, their Disciplinary level could be bumped down to 1 Month for their next Minor Infraction. Should they then after those 6 months, have a Minor Infraction, they would get a 1 Month Vacation, and upon their return from the 1 Month Vacation, their next Minor Infraction would lead them to a 6 Month Vacation.

Then there are the even more radical schemes of sweeping rollbacks, but I don't think we can entertain any of those ideas at the current time.

Option 1 seems to have some current opposition, Option 2 is one proposed middle ground Option 3 is also a proposed middle ground, Option 4 is another proposed middle ground.

I think Option 4, however, may be getting to the point of making things too difficult or complex for a World Domination based gaming website.


--Andy

I like option 4, though I would perhaps add a year vacation for moderate offenses.
Also, I do think some SERIOUS offenses should be a permaban AND I am not sure that truly minor infractions Should escalate. I think repeats of a month or even a week vacation might be better. That might be easier than "roll backs".


Also, I think the definitions of minor/moderate, etc need tweaking. I mentioned one concern above.

I think you need 3 levels. Moderate gets the above, though possibly add in a 6 month ban. Truly serious stuff (posting person info, threatening site integrity, etc, anything even halfway close to a real law enforcement issue) is ban no questions asked.

Also, because some people here are quite young, maybe there should be an appeal process for all but the really serious stuff, though only after, say a year or two and only if the person can really show somehow that they have changed. (maybe even some kind of "jury" could decide, so its not left just to admin... also there should absolutely be a limit to the appeals and if someone appeals again too soon, that will result in an automatic extension of the time before they can appeal again).

[AndyDufresne]

I'll review this next week, and some of the other topics.

Keep in mind we are listening, however, we want to keep things from adding too much time to moderation for our volunteers, and additional keep from making things unnecessarily complicated and intricate for a World Domination website.


--Andy

[Woodruff]

Something that I think might help here is actually setting up a Moderate Infractions list.

I don't see a problem with setting up a Moderate Infractions List...differentiation isn't bad as long as it's not taken to the extreme. However...

Moderate Infractions:
Gambling

I don't believe Gambling can EVER be considered only a moderate infraction. It's ILLEGAL in a big way, and the site could be completely shut down for it. This has to be a Major.

hahahaha gambling...
Technically, one could say the win or loss of points for any game is a form of gambling; but a legal form because no money is exchanged.

I suppose...but given that it's not illegal, I don't really care about it.

Other than that, I think the most "gambling" that can be done on this site, through the site, is to bet the cost of premium - which is already done by those who offer premium for their tournaments; still, no actual money is exchanged, so no legal problem.
So, what am I missing? How could "gambling" through this site be an offense so grievous that it warrants banning?

Two points:
1. Tournaments with premium prizes aren't in any way gambling. If anything, it would equate to a free raffle. The participants would have to be charged something for it to in any way relate to gambling.

2. You don't believe it's plausible for two people (or a group of people) to pass money back and forth via PayPal, based on the outcome of games on this site? It's not happening that I'm aware of, but it damn well better be something the administration and moderators are aware of because there's no question at all that it could result in the site being shut down and lack seriously fined.

Major Infractions:
Cyber-bullying/Harassment
Personal Information Abuse
Hijacking Accounts
Disciplinary actions: 1 Week site ban, 1 Month site ban, Permanent site ban

You are, in my opinion, far too kind here. Only a 1-week site ban for HIJACKING ACCOUNTS? As far as I'm concerned, this is perma-site-ban material for the FIRST offense. It's inexcusable.
And for the other two items you listed, I don't believe you can have a "set punishment" because there is SUCH a wide divergence in the potential damage to someone. For instance, a "personal information abuse" could be practically unimportant or it could be HUGELY important. If that makes sense.

Cyber bullying/harassment frequently isn't even warned/noted; instead, the answer is, "use foelist" or "use ignore" - but you wish admin to suddenly make it a major offense?[/quote]

There's a tremendous difference between someone being annoying and someone cyberbullying. I have not yet seen an instance of anyone being cyberbullied where the administration didn't take action against it. I'm not saying it HASN'T happened...just that I'm not aware of it.

No, I truly believe that if discipline was less for minor infractions, but more instances were considered infractions, the site would improve.

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that...I can see that perspective. It would depend on how it was laid out, but it could work.

[stahrgazer]

No, I truly believe that if discipline was less for minor infractions, but more instances were considered infractions, the site would improve.

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that...I can see that perspective. It would depend on how it was laid out, but it could work.

Currently, if "the wrong person" complains about something either borderline or by a "right person - remember, all this is relative to the particular mod's feelings about the incident(s), frequently nothing is done. No note, no warning.

That can add to the "nyah, nyah, you can't touch me!" aggravations carried on by some members. While a generally decent person having a bad day shouldn't be totally slammed, if the site wants a rep for not tolerating that sort of thing, something should be done...

Now, if something is done to a generally decent person having a bad day - that can add to that generally decent person getting totally banned, well, in those instances, no wonder mods don't wish to do anything.

But.. if all instances were dealt with reasonably, as in, "if one of our 'customers' finds something offensive we at least note it, in order to curb some of the b.s." - without risk of that sort of silliness causing total bans, maybe even the "unreasonable" people would become a little more reasonable because there would be less indication of "preferential treatment." Still, to eliminate the rep for "preferential treatment" then none of the silliness should merit total bans, unless it violates a law (your gambling thing), totally tears down the site (as in hacking), or shreds game play (multis).

What occurs now is, some can curse and flame with nothing said while others get their knuckles rapped even if it's "less" than what some do. Even more frequently, nothing is said unless the person flamed at retorts; then, frequently, the mods treat the retort as badly if not worse than the original offense. Thus, the ideas of "favoritism," and "pets" have some credibility.

I still think 6 months is too long for a silly curse or flame, but more important to me is to have the treatment be totally equitable; "No pets allowed"

[4myGod]

No, I truly believe that if discipline was less for minor infractions, but more instances were considered infractions, the site would improve.

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that...I can see that perspective. It would depend on how it was laid out, but it could work.

Currently, if "the wrong person" complains about something either borderline or by a "right person - remember, all this is relative to the particular mod's feelings about the incident(s), frequently nothing is done. No note, no warning.

That can add to the "nyah, nyah, you can't touch me!" aggravations carried on by some members. While a generally decent person having a bad day shouldn't be totally slammed, if the site wants a rep for not tolerating that sort of thing, something should be done...

Now, if something is done to a generally decent person having a bad day - that can add to that generally decent person getting totally banned, well, in those instances, no wonder mods don't wish to do anything.

But.. if all instances were dealt with reasonably, as in, "if one of our 'customers' finds something offensive we at least note it, in order to curb some of the b.s." - without risk of that sort of silliness causing total bans, maybe even the "unreasonable" people would become a little more reasonable because there would be less indication of "preferential treatment." Still, to eliminate the rep for "preferential treatment" then none of the silliness should merit total bans, unless it violates a law (your gambling thing), totally tears down the site (as in hacking), or shreds game play (multis).

What occurs now is, some can curse and flame with nothing said while others get their knuckles rapped even if it's "less" than what some do. Even more frequently, nothing is said unless the person flamed at retorts; then, frequently, the mods treat the retort as badly if not worse than the original offense. Thus, the ideas of "favoritism," and "pets" have some credibility.

I still think 6 months is too long for a silly curse or flame, but more important to me is to have the treatment be totally equitable; "No pets allowed"

I agree. If the max punishment was smaller and just repeated, not escalating then it would be easier to be very strict with it. Perhaps 6 months is too much, maybe something like 1 month for minor infractions.

Escalating Punishment Scale
Warning
24 Hour ban
1 Week ban
1 Month ban

Semi-Escalating Punishment Scale
Warning
1 Week ban (repeat)

You could just get rid of escalating all together and punish all minor infractions with a 1 week ban, no warning. Or 1 warning then week bans from there on out for each infraction.

The only reason I can see for a warning is because some new people who come to the site may not know how strict the admins/mods here are with punishment, or what crosses the line or where the line is. Yeah, it's in the community guidelines, however they don't know how strictly the mods plan to follow those guidelines. So the 1 warning is like "this would have been a 1 week ban." Then they know and can see that the mods are there and reacting to people who break the rules.

So after they get that first Warning they never need it again, there is no reason for it to go back to just a warning again, because now the user should know where the line is drawn for the rest of his time on the site.

[Woodruff]

No, I truly believe that if discipline was less for minor infractions, but more instances were considered infractions, the site would improve.

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that...I can see that perspective. It would depend on how it was laid out, but it could work.

Currently, if "the wrong person" complains about something either borderline or by a "right person - remember, all this is relative to the particular mod's feelings about the incident(s), frequently nothing is done. No note, no warning.
That can add to the "nyah, nyah, you can't touch me!" aggravations carried on by some members.

I pretty much agree with everything else you said in your entire post, except that I haven't seen any of these aggravations, that I can recall...are they doing it privately?

[AndyDufresne]

show: 4mygods post

Though a novel idea, I think for now we will be working with the current escalation disciplinary scale, in some varying form of operation we decide.

show: squishygs post

I don't think the addition of another Disciplinary Level actually helps---in fact, I think it'll end up making this more complicated, and make it seem like things are further dealt with inconsistently. I think Minor Infractions and Major/Severe Infractions, for now at least, will be the scheme we will be using. Lets let these get into their own, before we decide if we want to ditch the method.

show: My Original Post

Further discussion? I'll see if some Team CC Volunteers would like to weigh in as well, since I appreciate their input additionally.


--Andy

[clapper011]

I am more inclined to go with option 3 or option 4..but maybe as suggested.. with a 1 year in there before perma... I mean if a user even comes back after a year..and still doesn't want to follow the rules...... then perhaps they don't need or really desire to truly be here.

[timmytuttut88]

I am more inclined to go with option 3 or option 4..but maybe as suggested.. with a 1 year in there before perma... I mean if a user even comes back after a year..and still doesn't want to follow the rules...... then perhaps they don't need or really desire to truly be here.

Well I think that if you ban someone for a year and they break a minor rule and you ban them for another year. That's pretty much just as good as a perma-ban. Plus then you can always tell the community that "they'll be back in a year so stop whining".

[jpcloet]

However, that is what most of the recent problems have been perceived as. Going from 6 month to a 1 month for something relatively minor is not something I like.

I'd rather it be bumped back down to a week under option 4, to be reviewed by admin. If the minor issue is an oopsie (honestly could be), then 1 week is the punishment, otherwise if the minor (after 6 months) is a repeated offense, then the 1 month is given out.

[PLAYER57832]

However, that is what most of the recent problems have been perceived as. Going from 6 month to a 1 month for something relatively minor is not something I like.

I'd rather it be bumped back down to a week under option 4, to be reviewed by admin. If the minor issue is an oopsie (honestly could be), then 1 week is the punishment, otherwise if the minor (after 6 months) is a repeated offense, then the 1 month is given out.

I think the key here is minor issues. There just does not seem to be that much of a distinction between minor issues and major ones.

I also think fixing the rating system will help when it comes to game chat issues. The whole issue of swearing and "bullying", etc. is just too subjective to be subject to moderation. However, they are serious issues for some people, as are a variety of other issues. The tags just don't cover many of those situations. I know that's a whole can of worms itself, but every time you tell people that they have to "conform", you get a bunch who will rebel. Games are relatively private. That is, you have to seek out a game to read the chat. Some time ago, I suggested a "flame game" option, where people could choose to play games with "no holds barred" .. and no complaints allowed. I am not sure that would be the answer, but there needs to be some way to say "hey, I just don't like swearing" and "hey, I like to play and talk aggressively"