Conquer Club

Concise description:

• The standard punishment now that is handed out for users who choose to violate a good code of conduct in the Game chat is to "Foe & Rate Accordingly" and then finally when they have been a nuisance that has been reported repeatedly it is a "Forum Vacation" to try to inform the user to clean up their act.
• While the forum guidelines are a broad baseline of how a user should act and the admin on this site do their best to uphold these standards to the best of their ability I believe an addition of a rule like this could help to effectively pin point a good punishment that fits the crime.

Specifics:

• To Foe a user or for them to get a Vacation from viewing or posting in the Forums because they cant control themselves in a game and choose to abuse others in the Chat doesn't solve the problem that the said user can and does in most cases still continue on with that behavior.
• The next course of action for a user who has exhibited Game Chat Violations which supersedes the obvious liberal stance that are the guidelines should be to ban them from doing this to serve as a lesson for the wrong doer.
• Add an additional rule that can be used by the ones who moderate this site to use if they deem it to be fit for punishment.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• By putting a correct punishment to this crime I believe it will help to get the point across that any and all violation of the rules in CC are not tolerated and will be dealt with accordingly.
• Instead of having a standard that allows users to abuse the Game Chat repeatedly this should in time show that good sportsmanship in Chat is recommended by all and if a user abuses the liberal stance of CC then they will have their privileges taken away.

Thanks for reading,
King Sam

king sam wrote:Concise description:

• The standard punishment now that is handed out for users who choose to violate a good code of conduct in the Game chat is to "Foe & Rate Accordingly" and then finally when they have been a nuisance that has been reported repeatedly it is a "Forum Vacation" to try to inform the user to clean up their act.
• While the forum guidelines are a broad baseline of how a user should act and the admin on this site do their best to uphold these standards to the best of their ability I believe an addition of a rule like this could help to effectively pin point a good punishment that fits the crime.

Specifics:

• To Foe a user or for them to get a Vacation from viewing or posting in the Forums because they cant control themselves in a game and choose to abuse others in the Chat doesn't solve the problem that the said user can and does in most cases still continue on with that behavior.
• The next course of action for a user who has exhibited Game Chat Violations which supersedes the obvious liberal stance that are the guidelines should be to ban them from doing this to serve as a lesson for the wrong doer.
• Add an additional rule that can be used by the ones who moderate this site to use if they deem it to be fit for punishment.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• By putting a correct punishment to this crime I believe it will help to get the point across that any and all violation of the rules in CC are not tolerated and will be dealt with accordingly.
• Instead of having a standard that allows users to abuse the Game Chat repeatedly this should in time show that good sportsmanship in Chat is recommended by all and if a user abuses the liberal stance of CC then they will have their privileges taken away.

Thanks for reading,
King Sam

Quite logical.

I agree. Great idea/suggestion sam. nator

this should be a no brainer... you get in trouble for in game chat, you should lose in game chat priviledges along with the ability to PM, etc (which a normal ban does)... wonder how hard this would be for Turtle Boy or the Big Robot to fix... great idea, wonderful suggestion, and as always, King Sam has it all covered...-0

Great suggestion, well thought out presentation and something that would service the entire CC community in regards to an abuser much more than simply asking someone who's already gone through the abuse to make sure it "doesn't happen again"... to them.

This suggestion is a great and logical replacement to the only alternative option: having each CC community member play the abuser once and foe'ing them.

Without chat the experience of diplomacy is then also removed from these players. This must be understood. You will find people who are dealt this charge using msn... email... etc to do diplomacy if they care enough to learn people's contacts. They will say:

"Secret diplomacy? Well duh! How can I announce in gamechat if I don't have access to gamechat."

But all in all I love this idea.

Jasmine

I fully agree with stiffer penalties for racist language (and voted as such), however there should be a panel that decides these things on a case by case basis. If left in the hands of one judge, snap decisions could be made, and the whole issue could turn into a witch hunt.

After the accusation has been levied, that someone is a racist (or witch, whatever), there's pretty much no way to prove that one is not. Therefore, such judgments should be handled with care, consideration, and a sense of due process.

I fully support any motion that makes CC a friendlier place. I come to this site to have fun, not to be verbally abused because someone disagrees with how I play. That being said, I don't think you can ban someone from in-game chat.

In-game chat is a critical component of the game. Without it, you can't make alliances or even congratulate someone for a game well played, which will only lead to the banned player getting more poor ratings for being silent and will force him or her to use other methods of communication, resulting in the dreaded secret diplomacy tag.

I think if you've done something to warrant a ban from in-game chat, then you've done something to warrant being banned from playing - period. No in betweens.


If this suggestion does go through, I would like to see the following addition to the recommendation:

Any player that has received a game chat ban has asterisks by their name, so other players know that he/she can't post messages. That way I don't waste my time asking them for an alliance, when they can't reply, and I don't give them a silent tag, when they had no other choice.

I think Jon_snow's post make some excellent points---he highlights some of the reasons why we have not included game chat vacations in the past---namely the critical component of the game sometimes is game chat. He also highlights that if someone is abusing their game chat privilege, their actions probably warrant one of our current vacations from live chat/the forum/ratings/playing on the website in general.


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:I think Jon_snow's post make some excellent points---he highlights some of the reasons why we have not included game chat vacations in the past---namely the critical component of the game sometimes is game chat. He also highlights that if someone is abusing their game chat privilege, their actions probably warrant one of our current vacations from live chat/the forum/ratings/playing on the website in general.

we all know this is about a certain member and his excessive chat abuse, and his never having paid a price for his violations. and if you aren't familiar with it, go to the C&A and look at this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=239&t=86167

there are other ways to communicate if someone is banned from game chat. i just had a month long ban during which i was unable to use PM's and that caused some hiccups in the tournament i was in, but i made it happen. if you look at the C&A and the people that are accused of abusive chat or bigotry in chat, there is rarely anything going on within that chat other than them abusing another member or members. i am truly sorry that losing in game chat privileges will make alliances, etc more difficult for the members that have lost the privileges, but perhaps that is why this is going to be such an EFFECTIVE PUNISHMENT that fits the offense. i am not concerned with abusive members losing in game chat privileges and their games possibly becoming more difficult, because i have lived with no forum and/or PMs for a month and i made it work.-0

The difficulty of vacationing someone from live chat---code wise---is more of the problem we are looking at I assume.


--Andy

jon_snow wrote:I fully support any motion that makes CC a friendlier place. I come to this site to have fun, not to be verbally abused because someone disagrees with how I play. That being said, I don't think you can ban someone from in-game chat.
In-game chat is a critical component of the game. Without it, you can't make alliances or even congratulate someone for a game well played, which will only lead to the banned player getting more poor ratings for being silent and will force him or her to use other methods of communication, resulting in the dreaded secret diplomacy tag.

If the in-game chat is what is being abused, it makes sense that is what would be removed. If that indivdual can then no longer make alliances, then they brought that on themselves.

jon_snow wrote:If this suggestion does go through, I would like to see the following addition to the recommendation:
Any player that has received a game chat ban has asterisks by their name, so other players know that he/she can't post messages. That way I don't waste my time asking them for an alliance, when they can't reply, and I don't give them a silent tag, when they had no other choice.

This makes sense. Good point. I might even further add that this should be the case if you have somoene on your foe list, as the same problem could arise there.

AndyDufresne wrote:The difficulty of vacationing someone from live chat---code wise---is more of the problem we are looking at I assume.


--Andy

Then maybe a more stern approach if code wise it cant be supported to properly punish offenders who disobey the rules should be implemented then.

As owen quoted the case in which this all derived from but not limited to, it seems more and more the hunters try and try to keep this place clean with limited arsenal at their helm. A Forum Vacation for being a complete and utter ass in the game chat cause the game is not going your way is not a way to allow players to run this site.

Players like the one mentioned in that link are costing this place good honest players because of the dis pleasurable experience that they have during games with offenders. Banning forum abuse and/or PM access is one way to fit the crime, I just don't see it as the best way. Seeing as this does not inhibit them from carrying on in the same manner. And I could care less if the game might be a little tougher for them because they cant talk about truces in an open forum, that's the punishment for the poor behavior.

If it truly is a code problem that wont allow this to happen then maybe one needs to start going down the street of giving players that violate the liberal stance/intentionally annoying/bigotry rules with a temporary ban for a week from everything to do with the site and permanent for any violations there after.

Regards,
King Sam

AndyDufresne wrote:I think Jon_snow's post make some excellent points---he highlights some of the reasons why we have not included game chat vacations in the past---namely the critical component of the game sometimes is game chat. He also highlights that if someone is abusing their game chat privilege, their actions probably warrant one of our current vacations from live chat/the forum/ratings/playing on the website in general.


--Andy

Just throwing this out there-- but wouldn't the person still be capable of communication through private messages if it was that necessary? This way there wouldn't be a problem in regards to playing team games and not being able to communicate with one's teammates. If an alliance is disgusted in this manor, then obviously it would need to be announced by the other players involved within the game chat or it would be against the rules pertaining to alliances.

I understand the coding may be difficult, but it's really the only way to ensure vicious individuals like codeblue who continuously make the site a poorer experience for more and more people. While foeing IS an option with individuals like him, that doesn't save the individuals he typically (and not just him, people like him all the same) targets. The individuals typically getting it the worst are newer players who make common mistakes. Players in this situation wouldn't have had the time, knowledge, or foresight to foe such an individual and their experience would be detracted from due said individual's typical nature.

lgoasklucyl wrote:I understand the coding may be difficult, but it's really the only way to ensure vicious individuals like codeblue who continuously make the site a poorer experience for more and more people. While foeing IS an option with individuals like him, that doesn't save the individuals he typically (and not just him, people like him all the same) targets. The individuals typically getting it the worst are newer players who make common mistakes. Players in this situation wouldn't have had the time, knowledge, or foresight to foe such an individual and their experience would be detracted from due said individual's typical nature.

And lets not forget that this is a business, i would venture to say that a large amount of users that are/were abused by players like this choose to not buy a premium membership because of the bad taste they get in their mouth from abuse they take from these users.

king sam wrote:

lgoasklucyl wrote:I understand the coding may be difficult, but it's really the only way to ensure vicious individuals like codeblue who continuously make the site a poorer experience for more and more people. While foeing IS an option with individuals like him, that doesn't save the individuals he typically (and not just him, people like him all the same) targets. The individuals typically getting it the worst are newer players who make common mistakes. Players in this situation wouldn't have had the time, knowledge, or foresight to foe such an individual and their experience would be detracted from due said individual's typical nature.

And lets not forget that this is a business, i would venture to say that a large amount of users that are/were abused by players like this choose to not buy a premium membership because of the bad taste they get in their mouth from abuse they take from these users.

I wholly agree with you king sam.

king sam wrote:And lets not forget that this is a business, i would venture to say that a large amount of users that are/were abused by players like this choose to not buy a premium membership because of the bad taste they get in their mouth from abuse they take from these users.

More than likely. I wouldn't spend $25 on a subscription to a website where I was being verbally abused while going through a difficult learning curve.

Fortunately, I was lucky enough to have avoided Codeblue until I had already purchased premium and knew better than to let him get to me. After his tirade with me a foed him. Newer users, however, very well may be pushed away in a similar experience.

I think 32 to 4 says something

I made it 32


Yes! Yes! Yes!

I see what you are saying Andy, back on page 1 but the truth is that if they have abused part of the site, they have to lose it, even if it hurts their rank

If a pilot is caught drinking on the job his piloting license is revoked, not his drivers' license =P

lgoasklucyl wrote:If a pilot is caught drinking on the job his piloting license is revoked, not his drivers' license =P

Where I live if I get caught (too) drunk on a bike they'll take my drivers licence.

lgoasklucyl wrote:If a pilot is caught drinking on the job his piloting license is revoked, not his drivers' license =P

If you kidnap a child your status as a human in the eyes of the police is revoked

What I mean is specific examples cannot apply

sailorseal wrote:

lgoasklucyl wrote:If a pilot is caught drinking on the job his piloting license is revoked, not his drivers' license =P

If you kidnap a child your status as a human in the eyes of the police is revoked

What I mean is specific examples cannot apply

It was an applicable analogy to the situation, seeing as it actually made sense.

Your analogy would not make sense in the situation, especially since it's entirely relative.

Quit posting random bs to raise your post count and attempt at seeming more relevant, you're not fooling anyone.

i still think this is a very logical suggestion... i hope it moves forward... CC seems to have really made some big moves these past few months to deal with cheaters... this could be another...-0

Here is case and point that the system in place currently does not work.

And for the record I wasn't stalking codeblue1018, I just knew if I looked this up he wouldn't disappoint me.

codeblue1018 Forum Ban

king achilles wrote:Fri May 22, 2009 3:00 am
The sum of this report just goes back to codeblue1018's game chat abuse.

Since he has been warned before, he is again, on a short vacation. Even though he was not cussing, based from those game chats that have been posted here, he was equally as being abusive to those people. I don't know what his reasons are for being like that but he is now on a short forum vacation and hopefully, think and evaluate this type of behavior.

We know trash talking is a part of the competitive game, but unfortunately antics like this are already above and beyond what is usually acceptable.

A couple of games that took place after the punishment of "Forum Ban" was served where he exhibited the same behavior he was punished for:
Game 4975654
Game 4938277
Game 4935463

I'm sure there's more games out there that exhibit the exact kind of behavior that he got a Forum Ban for, but I think you get the point. Had their been in place a Game Chat ban or permissions to use more extreme punishments like vacation from the site then maybe the wrong doer (in this case codeblue1018) would stop his antics. But without a proper punishment he and all others like him are able to continue their abuse.

Hence why I feel the addition of this rule is key to the success of this site.

Regards,
King Sam

king sam wrote:Here is case and point that the system in place currently does not work.

And for the record I wasn't stalking codeblue1018, I just knew if I looked this up he wouldn't disappoint me.

codeblue1018 Forum Ban

king achilles wrote:Fri May 22, 2009 3:00 am
The sum of this report just goes back to codeblue1018's game chat abuse.

Since he has been warned before, he is again, on a short vacation. Even though he was not cussing, based from those game chats that have been posted here, he was equally as being abusive to those people. I don't know what his reasons are for being like that but he is now on a short forum vacation and hopefully, think and evaluate this type of behavior.

We know trash talking is a part of the competitive game, but unfortunately antics like this are already above and beyond what is usually acceptable.

A couple of games that took place after the punishment of "Forum Ban" was served where he exhibited the same behavior he was punished for:
Game 4975654
Game 4938277
Game 4935463

I'm sure there's more games out there that exhibit the exact kind of behavior that he got a Forum Ban for, but I think you get the point. Had their been in place a Game Chat ban or permissions to use more extreme punishments like vacation from the site then maybe the wrong doer (in this case codeblue1018) would stop his antics. But without a proper punishment he and all others like him are able to continue their abuse.

Hence why I feel the addition of this rule is key to the success of this site.

Regards,
King Sam

Oh my. People have issues. Just a game. Wow.

Thezzaruz wrote:

lgoasklucyl wrote:If a pilot is caught drinking on the job his piloting license is revoked, not his drivers' license =P

Where I live if I get caught (too) drunk on a bike they'll take my drivers licence.

No kidding? That seems like a very...odd...policy.