Moderator: Community Team
squishyg wrote:So how should we move this forward? It seems the majority is open to options 3 and/or 4 out of Andy's proposal. What's next?
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.
Artimis wrote:Woodruff wrote: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.
Woodruff wrote:Artimis wrote:Woodruff wrote: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 disagree. After-action correction for individuals like him is not sufficient at all. It's fine for most cases, yes...but not for those who make it routine to abuse people as he does.
squishyg wrote:So how should we move this forward? It seems the majority is open to options 3 and/or 4 out of Andy's proposal. What's next?
Strife wrote:Mutlis? What are those, how come multis don't get banned?
AndyDufresne wrote:From this date forth, users will be handled accordingly as issued by this. At Conquer Club, we've never issued any Rollback clauses for anything.
--Andy
I was referring to your typo.AndyDufresne wrote:Strife wrote:Mutlis? What are those, how come multis don't get banned?
They do get banned. Repeated Multis are unable to even buy back.
--Andy
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:My first thought upon reading your post, Andy, was that considering that only an estimated 2% (I think that is the number that is regularly circulated) of all players on the site regularly visit the fora, the fact that 20% of all website bans are due to infractions on the fora seems odd. Us forumgoers are banned from the site way more often than what's statistically likely.
MeDeFe wrote:Considering that in the past infractions that were not against the guidelines (not even implied by the guidelines) but only introduced as infractions after they were committed for the first time have led to bans, I think that in the name of fairness previous permabans from the fora should be reevaluated and either revoked or changed into 6-month bans.
Kotaro wrote:That's bs Andy. Adding brand new rules and not applying them to the past offenders makes sense; they weren't aware they were breaking rules at the time. However, if someone changed how severe laws were, they wouldn't leave killers on death row if death row was now legalized; they would apply the current laws.
GENERAL STONEHAM wrote:Paying members should receive no more than a 1 month ban, unless it has to do with a REAL CRIME such as racism
Criticizing or a simple flaming of a Moderator or one of their thin-skinned supporters is considered to be capital offense right now and that's silly.
GENERAL STONEHAM wrote:One more thing I'd like to add. Having posters banned from using their pm use is totally off the wall.
MeDeFe wrote:AndyDufresne wrote:Hm, lets see what we've got so far:
Option 1For Minor Infractions, the Disciplinary levels would remain unchanged:
Option 2Warning, 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.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 3For 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 4For 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 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.
The problems with permanent records have been pointed out as well, and the obvious remedy is that they need to go.
slowreactor wrote:Hmm... I'm not sure if someone asked this already, but what happens to members who were perma-forum-banned under the old scale? Do they still get a chance to come back if they only have repeated minor infactions?
Return to Archived Suggestions
Users browsing this forum: No registered users