For Minor Infractions, 6 Months Max Vacation instead Perma

[owenshooter]

I'm of the opinion that this is likely ready for a poll based on the 4 options we have been discussing of late. Time for some action.

i do agree with jp, it is time to take this a step further or at least for andy to create a new breakdown/discussion point... not sure if that is a poll... however, i'm also of the opinion that another thread is needed to deal with the dishonest hoodwinking of the forum community into creating a severe escalating scale for bigotry infractions, which are now used as a blanket scale for all infractions. nice work there admins!! i don't recall any point of that discussion being about applying the new bigotry punishment scale for all infractions...-0

[notyou2]

I'm of the opinion that this is likely ready for a poll based on the 4 options we have been discussing of late. Time for some action.

I agree, I hope the admins can incorporate some positive changes based upon what the players have put forth. I also sincerely hope that the admin/mod policy of silence on the administration of penalties will not remain as it currently stands and a policy of transparent reporting of infractions and penalties can also be put in place. There is no justice if it is a secret, it simply appears to be right wing dictatorship antics even if it was merited.

[owenshooter]

some good questions have yet to be answered since andy last came down from his tree to poke about the bushes...-0

[4myGod]

This is ridiculous the delaying that this post has gone through. We don't need everyone to say "I agree to option 4.2313 which states..."

Admins/mods can just read all the replies to this thread and formulate a pretty accurate idea of new forum guidelines that will make all the users content.

[PLAYER57832]

I'm of the opinion that this is likely ready for a poll based on the 4 options we have been discussing of late. Time for some action.

i do agree with jp, it is time to take this a step further or at least for andy to create a new breakdown/discussion point... not sure if that is a poll... however, i'm also of the opinion that another thread is needed to deal with the dishonest hoodwinking of the forum community into creating a severe escalating scale for bigotry infractions, which are now used as a blanket scale for all infractions. nice work there admins!! i don't recall any point of that discussion being about applying the new bigotry punishment scale for all infractions...-0

When did this happen? I don't remember seeing it?

I think one problem here is that there are infractions that bother a good many in CC -- bigotry, extreme language (debate later what that means), serious type threats, porn and other "graphic" pictures.

Then there are a whole ream of other issues that bother many people, but definitely not all. These range from foul language to plain expressing an opposing viewpoint.

Then there are a set of issues that don't bother most of us at all, but apparently do bother admin. Things like reviving dead threads and starting bogus threads are really just minor irritations for most of us. Sure, in extreme we can see where they can cause problems, but mostly .. if anything, its a sense of amusement. That said, most of us recognmize that admin has not only the right, but needs to set rules to limit their irritation/work/etc. I suspect (don't really know) that posting 100 identical threads uses a significant amount of server space, reason enough for a limit. Similarly, someone who just plain wants to get into constant arguments with admin takes time, causes irritation to volunteers, makes even finding mods harder (etc.). So again, those people need limits, at some point might need to just be silenced in various ways.

The problem, however, is that so much of that last part is subjective. Some mods do an excellent job, but others, others who have rather "unusual" ideas (as in, don't seem to put things they post through serious scrutiny, seem predisposed to particular ideas and just are not open to other ideas no matter how they are presented, etc.) do not always show restraint. Again, all mods are volunteers. People's tolerance for "baloney" is seriously diminished when they are not getting paid. Some "testiness" (for lack of a better word) is to be expected, is even OK (not wonderful, not what we would like in an ideal world, but OK .. not going to push people out of CC).

I guess the problem most of us have is when those sorts of issues -- issues that are just about "irritating" the mods, and often for pretty personal and highly subjective reasons, get very long bans, never mind permabans. That is, mods getting their ire up more because someone is disagreeing with their views, has pretty fundamental differences of opinion than really and truly because of the overall impact someone is having on the community at large. Further, becuase of the escalating structure, someone can have a series of essentially personality issues with one particular mod, get reprimanded and then ... it takes just another minor event to get a permaban. Even when that last step, the permaban, does go through review, it does not seem as though previous issues are really reviewed in depth. So, we are left with the distinct impression that certain mods go on the "warpath", target individuals. (Even if the final issue, the one "that broke the camel's back" was clear and a broad issue)

Worse, because different mods take completely different stances, someone can get chastised by one mod for something that is later accepted, but the ban will still hold. Others can get away with certain things and then find "poof" a new mod comes into town and they get reprimanded. If someone is not a frequent user and did not see the changes, this might be a complete surprise.

This is why, I believe, many of us are suggesting some sort of median punishments that don't escalate and/or a way of erasing past infractions.

[squishyg]

I guess the problem most of us have is when those sorts of issues -- issues that are just about "irritating" the mods, and often for pretty personal and highly subjective reasons, get very long bans, never mind permabans. That is, mods getting their ire up more because someone is disagreeing with their views, has pretty fundamental differences of opinion than really and truly because of the overall impact someone is having on the community at large. Further, becuase of the escalating structure, someone can have a series of essentially personality issues with one particular mod, get reprimanded and then ... it takes just another minor event to get a permaban. Even when that last step, the permaban, does go through review, it does not seem as though previous issues are really reviewed in depth. So, we are left with the distinct impression that certain mods go on the "warpath", target individuals. (Even if the final issue, the one "that broke the camel's back" was clear and a broad issue)

Worse, because different mods take completely different stances, someone can get chastised by one mod for something that is later accepted, but the ban will still hold. Others can get away with certain things and then find "poof" a new mod comes into town and they get reprimanded. If someone is not a frequent user and did not see the changes, this might be a complete surprise.

This is why, I believe, many of us are suggesting some sort of median punishments that don't escalate and/or a way of erasing past infractions.

Well said PLAYER. Some sort of checks and balances system is needed.

[stahrgazer]

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.

Well, yes, but... stipulate first warnings for each type of minor offense, and I'd still suggest a more escalating scale, with each type of offense having its own escalation:

Escalating Punishment Scale
Warning
24 Hour ban
1 Week ban
1 Month ban [repeat]

By each type of offense I mean, flaming where one should not flame is one offense to set off its scale, bigotry where one should not be a bigot is another offense with a separate-but-equal escalating scale; one could be week-banned for one thing that has repeated while receiving Warning for a different first-offense-of-that-type... rather than combined offenses like, "player z got warned for bigotted remarks somewhere, so now that he's flamed (even though this flame did not include bigotry) in a different thread he's on a 24-hour ban, and if he makes a third different offense he'll get a week ban" and so forth.

[notyou2]

Andy where are you????
*Waves a bunch of bananas in the air*

[AndyDufresne]

The weekend is a time I have to spend away mostly from Conquer Club. It's Monday and a new week, and I am back.


--Andy

[MeDeFe]

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

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

Option 1 is indeed being opposed. The problems have been pointed out in various threads in great detail.

Option 2 is option 1 painted in a new colour, it does nothing to address the problems.

Option 3 is an improvement, but it is hardly good. Repeated 6 month bans for minor infractions does also seem excessive. Even one 6 month ban can seem excessive, though it depends on the context, if one user has a long record of infractions and then spends a week being a complete pest to everyone (mods and users alike), derails, trolls or spams practically every thread... yes, then I can see a 6 month ban coming. But not for minor infractions spread out over a long period of time.

Option 4 is imo the best out of the listed since it addresses two problems, permanent bans for minor infractions and permanent records, but instead of a 6 month probation it should be a 1 month probation. And it should start counting after every ban.


Andy, we certainly can entertain radical schemes, and I think we should. There are fundamental problems with the way the fora are moderated, a little tinkering won't be enough or this discussion will never end. If the system itself fails, throw it out and get a new one.

The problems with permanent records have been pointed out as well, and the obvious remedy is that they need to go.

[PLAYER57832]

By each type of offense I mean, flaming where one should not flame is one offense to set off its scale, bigotry where one should not be a bigot is another offense with a separate-but-equal escalating scale; one could be week-banned for one thing that has repeated while receiving Warning for a different first-offense-of-that-type... rather than combined offenses like, "player z got warned for bigotted remarks somewhere, so now that he's flamed (even though this flame did not include bigotry) in a different thread he's on a 24-hour ban, and if he makes a third different offense he'll get a week ban" and so forth.

Although having each infraction individualized might be nice, Andy already said that would take too much of mods' time.

I think we would be better off trying to narrow things down a bit.

Here are my most recent thoughts:

4 levels:

1. Extreme offenses: Things that will cause people harm or seriously threaten the function and integrity of CC as a whole.
Punishment: IMMEDIATE ban at a minimum, law enforcement action if applicable.
Examples: posting people's personnal information publically (not in pm), threatening people in a serious way (not just game blather, I mean a real life threat, though in some cases could include threats CC does not really think will be carried out .. particularly if threats are repeated to many people), solicitation of minors, real gambling (? perhaps should be "serious" ?), posting directions for creating multis publically, hacking CC computers, posting kiddie porn or other extreme stuff (illegal or close to it), etc.

Clarify/specify pms are private from other users only. Admin reserves the right to read any pm and to take action on contents if appropriate .

Also -- while CC cannot be held responsible for monitoring the internet, CC reserves the right to take action against anyone posting private information in conjunction with another CC user's name. (example : "hey everybody, did you know that spamalot's is real name john quincy adams and lives at 123 American street, Big City, USA?) and to cooperate with /share information with other websites when deemed necessary to control such postings. (I'm obviously not a lawyer, but I think you get the giist).

2. Serious Offenses Things that make CC unpleasant for large groups of people, that go against the atmosphere administration wishes to create (i.e. "family friendly" )

Punishment: One month "cool off" ban (full -- games and forum, Or forum only and reduction , at admin discretion), followed by a "buy back" (buy back would apply to forum-only bans as well, even if they were not restricted from games)

Examples: Multism, serious bullying (things like posting nasty comments in every game someone is playing, multiple threatening pms that are not considered extreme, etc.), heavy bigotry (particularly if in many forums/threads at the same time, and games, etc.) , multiple abusive pms to mods/admin (not responses to multiple problems, or attempts to simply get other mods involved -- those would be lessor offenses) particularly abusive pms that are obviously just intended to clog the inboxes and cause havoc , extreme racism, posting real pornography (not "borderline" stuff -- that is a lessor offense), etc.

3. Moderate offenses:

Punishment: Current escalating , but with a 6 month ban inserted.

Examples: Bigotry, abusive pms to a few mods, large numbers of pms to mods and/or admin (with intent of clogging system, not simply someone who is trying to contact every mod in the hopes that one might agree or someone who does not understand that clicking "respond" will send out 100 pms); confirmed unannanounced alliances; posting less serious porn or highly graphic pictures, excessive foul language, some serious forum spamming (posting 20 purely spurious threads .. things that really obstruct, not just annoyances), too many accumulated minor offenses (LARGE numbers), "accidental" or "inadvertant" multism (this might be a sitter who forgets they are logged into another account and posts in the forums, etc ... but not anyone who actually plays a game against themsleves or who uses another account for any reason with obvious intent), etc.

POSSIBLE-- perhaps users can be allowed to petition to get their record "erased" or "reset" after one year (maybe even 2 years) of no abuses. There would be a limit to the number of appeals. For example, maybe only 1 every 6 months or every year.

4. Minor offenses: Anything that is mostly a "personality" issue with one or a few mods, things that are irritations, but not truly obstructive to CC/mods, repeated issues that concern only a few players (repeatedly ignoring requests to "watch language" in many games with many other players), reviving too many old threads, posting a few too many posts on "same" topic, posting material thats inappropriate ( but not necessarily porn -- some highly graphic "guts and gore" might be included), etc.

Punishment: A flat 2 day or 1 week ban (at discretion of mods). Offenses will be tracked (a check mark in the system or some such), but will NOT escalate except if there are very large numbers. In that case, the group of minor infractions will escalate to a moderate infraction and the tally for minor infractions will be "reset". (a compromise) In this way someone who is a constant trouble maker might actually be banned, BUT there is a definite distinction between minor and major offenses.

Summary: 4 levels: Extreme (essentially the "no brainers"), serious (changed to 1 month vacation AND "buy back" for all serious offenses, though some vacations might be forum-only vacations), Moderate (escalating with 6 month inserted AND the right to limited appeals after one fully "clean" active year), Minor (temporary bans that are tracked, but don't escalate; If too many minor infractions occur in a relatively short time period, then the group would bump up to a moderate infraction, BUT future infractions would still just be minor -- they would not escalate unless there were another group of infractions)

[squishyg]

This seems quite similar to my post on page 12. Is there a significant difference here that I'm missing?

[MeDeFe]

Player, I disagree with pretty much everything you just proposed, but it's getting late and I don't have the time to get to it right now. I'm posting this to give myself an incentive to come back at a later time (that's not too much later) and respond in detail.


The short version is that your proposal does not address the fundamental problems to a large enough degree, creates new fundamental problems, is clunky and unwieldy, and that the categories into which you put some of the offenses are... less than appropriate for the offense, to put it mildly.

[Woodruff]

1. Extreme offenses: Things that will cause people harm or seriously threaten the function and integrity of CC as a whole.
Punishment: IMMEDIATE ban at a minimum, law enforcement action if applicable.
Examples: posting people's personnal information publically (not in pm), threatening people in a serious way (not just game blather, I mean a real life threat, though in some cases could include threats CC does not really think will be carried out .. particularly if threats are repeated to many people), solicitation of minors, real gambling (? perhaps should be "serious" ?), posting directions for creating multis publically, hacking CC computers, posting kiddie porn or other extreme stuff (illegal or close to it), etc.

I tend to agree with you on these, but there's one exception. I don't think that "posting directions for creating multis publicly" should be considered an extreme offense. I personally would put it at the moderate level. Oh, and yes gambling's gotta be here, simply because it could potentially lead to CC being shut down entirely.

2. Serious Offenses Things that make CC unpleasant for large groups of people, that go against the atmosphere administration wishes to create (i.e. "family friendly" )
Punishment: One month "cool off" ban (full -- games and forum, Or forum only and reduction , at admin discretion), followed by a "buy back" (buy back would apply to forum-only bans as well, even if they were not restricted from games)

You have to have a warning in there, in my opinion, prior to the one-month ban if you're going to do that.

3. Moderate offenses:
Punishment: Current escalating , but with a 6 month ban inserted.

For this stuff, I'd get rid of the permanent ban end of things.

Examples: Bigotry

Bigotry's gotta be moved up a scale, in my opinion. It's much more severe than this level warrants.

And I still find it inconceivable that someone can be forum-banned for in-game abuse, rather than being banned in-game. That has to be addressed.

[PLAYER57832]

I tend to agree with you on these, but there's one exception. I don't think that "posting directions for creating multis publicly" should be considered an extreme offense. I personally would put it at the moderate level. Oh, and yes gambling's gotta be here, simply because it could potentially lead to CC being shut down entirely.

I am not overly attached to the specific criteria for each level.

The reason I put "posting multis directions in public" is because even though I suspect people with extensive computer knowledge can probably do this anyway, things like what Wicked apparently did have the potential to destroy pretty much any integrity of the site. No, I don't consider it on a par with putting out government espionage details or anything as far as the "real world" is concerned, but it is a major CC issue.

And I still find it inconceivable that someone can be forum-banned for in-game abuse, rather than being banned in-game. That has to be addressed.

I think we have to remember that this is fundamentally a gaming site. You can be a game-only member, but CC just is not about "forums only"...even though there are a very broad range of topics/forums and even though some people do come largely for the forums. So, if you are not eligible to play games, you are not eligible. You can violate your rights to the forums, though, without violating gaming rights.

I agree. I probably need to make that part clearer.

[PLAYER57832]

This seems quite similar to my post on page 12. Is there a significant difference here that I'm missing?

It is similar.

The main differences are as follows:

1. I specify extreme cases ... I am not sure that some of that is even directly specified. A lot of it comes under the heading of "well.. duh". I mean, if someone posts specific directions for bombing the Vatican, I don't think any site in the "free" world or even much of the "not -so-free" world would allow it. On the other hand, I do think someone who not only creates a bunch of multis, but who puts out details where everyone can see is causing enough havoc to CC that they just don't need to be here ... period.

2. Multis and other serious offenses receive a ban for a month before they are allowed a "buy back". For forum-only abuses, the ban might include just a forum ban, but the buy back provision would still apply. Whether a person could receive a forum ban, buy back and then a full site ban (for a game abuse) is a another question. I can see arguments for both sides. On the one hand, these are serious offenses, things you pretty well have to work to do and do we really want people who do those things here? On the other hand, forum and game issues differ.

3. I combine redefinition of minor offenses with the idea for a non-escalating punishment. However, because someone who constantly breaks/skirts the rules is really no longer just a minor issue, I allowed for a "bump up" if the minor offenses get too many (I was thinking something like 20 strikes or 10 in a month, but that can be debated).

4.I put down specific offenses as guides, but I think I "firmed up" the real defining criteria. I am open to debate it all.

That is an extreme offense can cause serious and lasting harm to real people or the site.

Serious offenses will drive large numbers of people away or violate basic tenets of the site in a major way (i.e. family friendly stuff does not bother everyone, but it is a basic standard of the site).

Moderate offenses cause problems, but not so much as serious offenses

Minor issues are pure "personality issues" or just being an excessive jerk (but not as much as above). Basically, jokesters, pains in the arses, but not really "bad" or "destructive" or truly obstructive.

[AndyDufresne]

I don't think we will be going down the road of adding any other level of Infractions for the time being, for any number of reasons: Minor and Major I think needs time to work, additional levels create a gigantic and unruly system for what we want to achieve on Conquer Club and makes things more complex than necessary.

I'm going to have some final discussions with Team CC this week about it all to further get their input, and then take into account the discussion that has gone on in this topic, and perhaps next week we may have a Middle Ground.


--Andy

[Woodruff]

I tend to agree with you on these, but there's one exception. I don't think that "posting directions for creating multis publicly" should be considered an extreme offense. I personally would put it at the moderate level. Oh, and yes gambling's gotta be here, simply because it could potentially lead to CC being shut down entirely.

I am not overly attached to the specific criteria for each level.
The reason I put "posting multis directions in public" is because even though I suspect people with extensive computer knowledge can probably do this anyway, things like what Wicked apparently did have the potential to destroy pretty much any integrity of the site. No, I don't consider it on a par with putting out government espionage details or anything as far as the "real world" is concerned, but it is a major CC issue.

As I understand things, Wicked went far beyond simply posting "how to create a multi" stuff. Though that could be bad information on my part, certainly.

And I still find it inconceivable that someone can be forum-banned for in-game abuse, rather than being banned in-game. That has to be addressed.

I think we have to remember that this is fundamentally a gaming site. You can be a game-only member, but CC just is not about "forums only"...even though there are a very broad range of topics/forums and even though some people do come largely for the forums. So, if you are not eligible to play games, you are not eligible. You can violate your rights to the forums, though, without violating gaming rights.
I agree. I probably need to make that part clearer.[/quote]

I'm not saying they should be banned from playing games, I'm saying they should be banned from posting chat in-game. After all, that's where the offense occurred. People are currently getting forum-banned for in-game chat when they've NEVER SET FOOT IN THE FORUMS. That's just dumb because it's no punishment at all.

[PLAYER57832]

I'm not saying they should be banned from playing games, I'm saying they should be banned from posting chat in-game. After all, that's where the offense occurred. People are currently getting forum-banned for in-game chat when they've NEVER SET FOOT IN THE FORUMS. That's just dumb because it's no punishment at all.

Oh, in that case, I agree. However, the only solution seems to be banning from games. On that note, though since chat is semi-private, I think only the very worst offenses or repeated offenses should warrant punishment. That's basically what foe lists are for!

[Woodruff]

I'm not saying they should be banned from playing games, I'm saying they should be banned from posting chat in-game. After all, that's where the offense occurred. People are currently getting forum-banned for in-game chat when they've NEVER SET FOOT IN THE FORUMS. That's just dumb because it's no punishment at all.

Oh, in that case, I agree. However, the only solution seems to be banning from games. On that note, though since chat is semi-private, I think only the very worst offenses or repeated offenses should warrant punishment. That's basically what foe lists are for!

Ever played codeblue1018? The foe list doesn't do that justice.

[Artimis]

Ever played codeblue1018? The foe list doesn't do that justice.

The foe list is sufficient, we just need to advise new players who are unlucky enough to come into contact with such unsavoury individuals on how to foe them.

[PLAYER57832]

Ever played codeblue1018? The foe list doesn't do that justice.

The foe list is sufficient, we just need to advise new players who are unlucky enough to come into contact with such unsavoury individuals on how to foe them.

I would also like to see folks on huge numbers of foe lists (like over 100) excluded from playing new people, but I believe that idea was rejected earlier.

[PLAYER57832]

Player, I disagree with pretty much everything you just proposed, but it's getting late and I don't have the time to get to it right now. I'm posting this to give myself an incentive to come back at a later time (that's not too much later) and respond in detail.


The short version is that your proposal does not address the fundamental problems to a large enough degree, creates new fundamental problems, is clunky and unwieldy, and that the categories into which you put some of the offenses are... less than appropriate for the offense, to put it mildly.

I am not sure why you feel this way, but it looks like I was overruled anyway, so the point is now mute.

[AndyDufresne]

I think your system, PLAYER, and some of the other indepth ones have merit. Unfortunately, I think for now, keep things simpler is the better route.


--Andy

[PLAYER57832]

I think your system, PLAYER, and some of the other indepth ones have merit. Unfortunately, I think for now, keep things simpler is the better route.


--Andy

Oh, I am not irked or anything, I was just saying it did not seem that we should discuss it further if the decision is made. I disagree, but no decision is going to please everyone, completely.