Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2019 20:49:47 GMT
I think permanent bans should be view-able by the public. I agree with you, permanent bans should be able to be viewed publicly. If an OP was involved in the events that got someone permanently banned, they should be able to see why that person was permanently banned and also they should be able to defend the player, and describe reasons as to why they shouldn't have been permanently banned in that instance. Another issue I see OPs have is their IP being exposed. IPs are public information, and I don't see an issue. I think something should be implemented where Executives can permanently ban and unpermanenty ban a player in-game and not have to rely on someone with FTP access for a while. The ban list can get purged, and the player can just come back online and cause havoc again. Also, I think the Permanent Ban request template should be more of a questionnaire then a "do-it-yourself" (for instance our admin application templates). A minimum amount of proof should be stated as well as their punishments in the past (as we can check them now).
|
|
|
Post by Fluffasaurus_Rex on Jun 15, 2019 20:53:12 GMT
I've been starting to feel like every minor thing has been blown out of proportion from many admins. I find that many admins either exaggerate the rules to favor themselves and/or constantly question what a player says and does. I think our rules are fine, but they need more exact explanations as to what right and wrong are on this server. I also just believe that there needs to be a reevaluation of the rules over time to make sure that there are rules that are fair along with their punishments. Completely agreed with everything you said. An example of this that irks me endlessly is this line in the conduct policy: "a. Ethnic, racist, religious, sexual, sexual orientation type slurs, insults, and harassment. However, if the slurs, insults, or harassment is clearly a joke with no negative intent, then nothing needs to be done." How the fuk are you supposed to determine whether or not it's a joke with "negative intent" (whatever that is) I almost fall 100% on the other side of the fence on this. If you make the rules too tight, you leave no room for first offenses, admin discretion, etc. I've heard a police officer tell me once that if he follows you for long enough, and pays attention, you are going to break a rule and get in trouble eventually. I know discretion is a hot subject right now, but completely removing it from the equation is probably a bad idea. I do love the idea about re-evaluating and updating the rules though. Maybe re-look at the rules every month or every other month for amendments and the like to make sure we are all up to date on them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2019 21:02:06 GMT
Completely agreed with everything you said. An example of this that irks me endlessly is this line in the conduct policy: "a. Ethnic, racist, religious, sexual, sexual orientation type slurs, insults, and harassment. However, if the slurs, insults, or harassment is clearly a joke with no negative intent, then nothing needs to be done." How the fuk are you supposed to determine whether or not it's a joke with "negative intent" (whatever that is) I know discretion is a hot subject right now, but completely removing it from the equation is probably a bad idea. I never advocated removing it entirely, but considering the vast amount of permban requests that involve a very particular interpretation of a comment is astounding, so therefore I see it nessecary to establish what constitutes a "joke", or at least make it abundantly clear that it's the individual Admin that gets to decide that, the "Joke police"
|
|
Fleek
Veteran Member
Posts: 3,548
|
Post by Fleek on Jun 15, 2019 23:35:24 GMT
To be honest, it should be called “long term ban”. “Permban” doesn’t fit in how we use it.
Vouch.
|
|
StevenNL2000
Forum Admin
Posts: 6,415
| Likes: 6,936
IGN: StevenNL2000
Timezone: UTC+01:00
Member is Staff. Need immediate assistance? Send a PM
|
Post by StevenNL2000 on Jun 16, 2019 0:18:11 GMT
Your interpretation is that the system is supposed to be used the way it was meant in 2012 and we drifted away from proper usage. My interpretation is that we're looking at an entirely different system that happens to have the same name as the one from 2012 because the infrastructure was already in place.
With the "proper" interpretation, there is literally nothing in between a ban length of 24 hours and infinity; that seems like a pretty big span to me. We (subconsciously) developed a solution for this: instead of only permbanning players we don't want back at all, we also permban players we do want back, just not in 24 hours. How do we distinguish them? Players we don't want back will receive objections unless it has been a very long time, players we do want back will receive vouches even if hasn't been that long. In other words, your analysis that we're letting people off the list very easily is correct, but that's exactly how this system is supposed to work.
Having said that, I'm not saying this is a good system, even if it's just because the intended ban length is not on paper. Do you (anyone reading this, not just Wilee) think we need something new in between a GTFO and a permban if we implement this? If not, I can't vouch on this suggestion in good faith.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2019 0:34:20 GMT
Having said that, I'm not saying this is a good system, even if it's just because the intended ban length is not on paper. Do you (anyone reading this, not just Wilee) think we need something new in between a GTFO and a permban if we implement this? If not, I can't vouch on this suggestion in good faith. I think we should have two different entities in terms of permanently banning someone and an indefinite ban. I think the permanent bans that we have been submitting since the forums first started should fall under the indefinite category - we allow players to appeal their permanent ban thus not making it "permanent". A permanent ban should fall under the category of, let's say UYScutix - doxed admins, etc. He should never come back into the community because of his actions. This could also be someone who has been indefinitely banned several times but still cannot get their act together. An indefinite ban should fall under someone who has committed major acts but has done it only a few times, if they continued their indefinite ban should turn into a permanent ban. This is also something that has probably been suggested for years, heck, it should have existed from the start.
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Jun 16, 2019 0:47:36 GMT
Your interpretation is that the system is supposed to be used the way it was meant in 2012 and we drifted away from proper usage. My interpretation is that we're looking at an entirely different system that happens to have the same name as the one from 2012 because the infrastructure was already in place. With the "proper" interpretation, there is literally nothing in between a ban length of 24 hours and infinity; that seems like a pretty big span to me. We (subconsciously) developed a solution for this: instead of only permbanning players we don't want back at all, we also permban players we do want back, just not in 24 hours. How do we distinguish them? Players we don't want back will receive objections unless it has been a very long time, players we do want back will receive vouches even if hasn't been that long. In other words, your analysis that we're letting people off the list very easily is correct, but that's exactly how this system is supposed to work. Having said that, I'm not saying this is a good system, even if it's just because the intended ban length is not on paper. Do you (anyone reading this, not just Wilee) think we need something new in between a GTFO and a permban if we implement this? If not, I can't vouch on this suggestion in good faith. Is there even a reason why it has to work this way? It worked fine in 2012 & 2013, I can't come up with a reason why we *need* it to work this way other than just because it currently does.
|
|
fionn
Club 4000 Member
Admin Officer
elmon sucks
Posts: 6,157
| Likes: 4,775
|
Post by fionn on Jun 16, 2019 9:52:53 GMT
vouch
|
|
StevenNL2000
Forum Admin
Posts: 6,415
| Likes: 6,936
IGN: StevenNL2000
Timezone: UTC+01:00
Member is Staff. Need immediate assistance? Send a PM
|
Post by StevenNL2000 on Jun 16, 2019 10:00:43 GMT
Your interpretation is that the system is supposed to be used the way it was meant in 2012 and we drifted away from proper usage. My interpretation is that we're looking at an entirely different system that happens to have the same name as the one from 2012 because the infrastructure was already in place. With the "proper" interpretation, there is literally nothing in between a ban length of 24 hours and infinity; that seems like a pretty big span to me. We (subconsciously) developed a solution for this: instead of only permbanning players we don't want back at all, we also permban players we do want back, just not in 24 hours. How do we distinguish them? Players we don't want back will receive objections unless it has been a very long time, players we do want back will receive vouches even if hasn't been that long. In other words, your analysis that we're letting people off the list very easily is correct, but that's exactly how this system is supposed to work. Having said that, I'm not saying this is a good system, even if it's just because the intended ban length is not on paper. Do you (anyone reading this, not just Wilee) think we need something new in between a GTFO and a permban if we implement this? If not, I can't vouch on this suggestion in good faith. Is there even a reason why it has to work this way? It worked fine in 2012 & 2013, I can't come up with a reason why we *need* it to work this way other than just because it currently does. Well, clearly the 2012 system was not perfect, because the definition of perfect is that there can't be any reason you would want to deviate from it. I'm proposing a possible explanation for the fact that we did, and also conjecturing that reverting the system is actually solving a problem by creating another, which doesn't look like anything to me.
|
|
|
Post by Tyler C. (Seal) on Jun 16, 2019 10:10:25 GMT
I've basically described a cycle which can be summed up as simple as this: - user commits noticeable offense or non-offense which 'appears malicious' - someone submits a permban request - the admin bots necessary to approve it all throw in their vouches which at this point is just post count incrementing - permban request approved - user may submit an appeal which looks apologetic - the admin bots vouch unless the appeal was submitted too fast after being permbanned or there is a concern raised where that specific appeal may be rejected - user inevitably ends up free and this cycle can repeat Fucking true this. Admin bots sum it up nicely, Oh a senior vouched? Fuck I better as well! Vouch, we're getting too ban happy, and I myself have noticed this for a while.
|
|
tozzit
Veteran Member
Posts: 2,329
| Likes: 1,709
|
Post by tozzit on Jun 16, 2019 12:26:57 GMT
I agree- especially with xnoah's situation, i didnt get to comment on his permban but he was essentially requested for being a little too annoying now and then
|
|
Gommeh
Veteran Member
dammit ryan and rylie
Posts: 2,744
| Likes: 778
|
Post by Gommeh on Jun 16, 2019 18:18:21 GMT
Vouch for all of this.
|
|
? Shyrix ?
Veteran Member
00111010 01011110 00101001 00001010
Posts: 1,567
| Likes: 645
|
Post by ? Shyrix ? on Jun 16, 2019 18:35:27 GMT
Fat vouch
|
|
CoolJWB
Veteran Member
Cool guys don't look back at explosions.
Posts: 734
| Likes: 330
|
Post by CoolJWB on Jun 17, 2019 5:30:31 GMT
I fully agree.
|
|
ItsZekrom
Veteran Member
oof
Posts: 364
| Likes: 131
IGN: ItsZekrom
Old IGN: Zekrom1644763
Discord: ItsZekrom
Birthdate (MM/DD): 09/22
Timezone: UTC-04:00
|
Post by ItsZekrom on Jun 26, 2019 12:56:52 GMT
vouch
|
|