The Permaban Penalty

[Napoleon Ier]

The wheels of change are turning

[V.I.]

Or part of the problem. Chump.

Thats not a threat.... its a statement.

Saying that if you aren't actively adding to the debate, then you are just adding clutter to the argument and making it more difficult for everyone else.

Go back and reread my original post. On the first page, when this discussion started. My questions regarding this issue have not been answered satisfactorily. What we have instead is a severe case of Moderator power-tripping.

In my humble opinion.

But enough. I'd like to know whether or not the moderators are willing to provide a consistent approach to dealing with inappropriate behavior, instead of doling out punishments willy-nilly.

Someplace where rules and decorum, with specific emphasis on penalties for not following forum rules, so that this community has complete understanding over what the consequences are for indiscretions.

Post the Laws of this land. Don't keep us in the dark.

[0ojakeo0]

it should be 21 22 i made a mistake. i didnt see it was unfair.

[InkL0sed]

This is actually about the right to property. This is Lack's property, on which he is allowing us to play some games. And he can kick us out if we get too rowdy.

Lack (and his mods/bouncers) are nice to you – if you're nice to them. Be nice, people.

PS Think of it like graffiti – Lack is allowing us to put up stuff on his wall because he's a nice guy, but he retains the right to erase some of it, and exclude some of us, because it's his property.

True. I'm just saying he, or rather his representatives, are going about that regulation in the wrong way.

And I'm just saying the freedom of speech argument holds no value.

Well it does. If the owner of the site has society's health at heart, and the principles of liberty in mind, he'll allos free speech and promote it.

So I'm at liberty to come into your house and say something incredibly offensive to you, and you have no right to kick me out?

[wacicha]

Or part of the problem. And please do not curse in any thread other than Flame Wars forum. This is a child-friendly site.

we did see that you reedited your cursing out of your first post. lol then had the nerve to tell some else not to curse. A hypocrite we will of course listen to

[Dancing Mustard]

Look, this thread really is being sidetracked a bit.

This isn't a "We love racism so can you not ban Norse" rant, this is a complaint about the somewhat inflexible approach CC takes to banning users for forum misconduct. The simple fact of the matter is that it's perverse to ban people for lengths of time determined by the amount of times they have previously been banned; to do so is frankly disproportionate to the actual 'wrong' they have committed.

I can't see why bans aren't calculated based on the actual 'harm' the users misdemeanour caused to the community, rather than calculating the penalty by simply counting the number of previous breaches.
To use the (obvious and admittedly trite) prison metaphor, you wouldn't send a three time petty thief to jail for the same amount of time you'd send a three time crack dealer.

The point is that users like Norse (and RK) do not pose a serious bar to the CC forum community functioning healthily, and as such there's no need to permanently remove them from our midst. Doing so is just heavy-handed and overzealous, it's simply not needed to keep the forum peace. What's really required is proportionate bans handed out in each individual case of a rules breach (and I'm not saying these might not in some way correlate to the number of past breaches perpetrated). The permaban only needs to come out of the closet if a poster is intentionally trying to ruing the entire forum experience for others and/or is making it impossible to use the forums with any degree of ease (see Xtratabasco for a good example).

This is why every permaban causes such an outrage, it's because the current system of automatically increasing bans is disproportionate and unfair. The penalty is unecessary except for the infrequent cases such as Xtratabasco's, where a user is purposefully ruining this forum for all others. People like Norse and RK will not change because of banning, but they don't need to be permanently removed, they just need to be given reprimands when they make their errors. Is our community really better off for the lack of the two of them? Or would we be better served by a more flexible moderating policy that refused to embrace the (no doubt appealing) lazy option of permabanning without regard to the gravity of the actual misdemeanour committed?




Disclaimer: It's fucking late here, and I'm hard at work. As such that post may be sketchy at best, but I figured I ought to add something before this well-intentioned (and highly relevant) thread was dragged off topic by a raft of point-missing tangents.

Did anybody other than Coleman see this?

Can I get a sensible reply please?

[InkL0sed]

Or part of the problem. Chump.

Thats not a threat.... its a statement.

Saying that if you aren't actively adding to the debate, then you are just adding clutter to the argument and making it more difficult for everyone else.

Go back and reread my original post. On the first page, when this discussion started. My questions regarding this issue have not been answered satisfactorily. What we have instead is a severe case of Moderator power-tripping.

In my humble opinion.

But enough. I'd like to know whether or not the moderators are willing to provide a consistent approach to dealing with inappropriate behavior, instead of doling out punishments willy-nilly.

Someplace where rules and decorum, with specific emphasis on penalties for not following forum rules, so that this community has complete understanding over what the consequences are for indiscretions.

Post the Laws of this land. Don't keep us in the dark.

You want the rules? Go to the Rules section then.

Here, I'll make it easier for you:
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7785
Scroll down to the section that says "Actual no-no's."

Nobody ever reads the Instructions or Rules...

[V.I.]

"Chump" is not a curse word. "Ass," on the other hand, is a curse word. You cursed, I did not curse.

I edited the post because I didn't want to denigrate the conversation with personal insults. My apologies for that.

More to the point, I find it interesting that you have no responses to my questions regarding rules, consequences and moderator power. Let's promise one another to keep the conversation on track.

I'll ask again:

"I'd like to know whether or not the moderators are willing to provide a consistent approach to dealing with inappropriate behavior, instead of doling out punishments willy-nilly.

Someplace where rules and decorum, with specific emphasis on penalties for not following forum rules, so that this community has complete understanding over what the consequences are for indiscretions.

Post the Laws of this land. Don't keep us in the dark."

INK: I know the rules, I've read the rules section, however there isn't any place where the CONSEQUENCES of those who refute the rules are posted. I think 100% clarity on this issue is paramount.

[AAFitz]

Or part of the problem. Chump.

Thats not a threat.... its a statement.

Saying that if you aren't actively adding to the debate, then you are just adding clutter to the argument and making it more difficult for everyone else.

Go back and reread my original post. On the first page, when this discussion started. My questions regarding this issue have not been answered satisfactorily. What we have instead is a severe case of Moderator power-tripping.

In my humble opinion.

But enough. I'd like to know whether or not the moderators are willing to provide a consistent approach to dealing with inappropriate behavior, instead of doling out punishments willy-nilly.

Someplace where rules and decorum, with specific emphasis on penalties for not following forum rules, so that this community has complete understanding over what the consequences are for indiscretions.

Post the Laws of this land. Don't keep us in the dark.

The rule was simple. No racism. If you break it, and are warned that you will be banned if you continue to break it... You will be banned. It could not be more clear. While you are surprised that norse got banned, I doubt he is. He knew what he was doing, and he took the risk anyways.

They have a consistent approach. Every ban has always been preceded by many warnings. Every person banned has always gone against those warnings.

There does not need to be a strict explanation of the rules, because they are straight forward. If they warn you, stop what you are doing, or you may be banned. Those who have gone against the warnings have been banned.

A few people that are willing to overlook common decency, and defend racism, does not constitute a problem with the system, but with themselves. There will always be a minority of people that want to buck the system, but there will always be many more who will thank it for its protection.

This site is as liberal with its policies as I think it possibly can be. Most of the complaints are actually that they allow too much.

The rules are simple. Everyone knows what they are. If you break them, you will be warned. If you continue to break them, you will be banned. If you continue to break them after that, you will be perma banned.

Seems pretty clear to me.

[InkL0sed]

INK: I know the rules, I've read the rules section, however there isn't any place where the CONSEQUENCES of those who refute the rules are posted. I think 100% clarity on this issue is paramount.

If you are caught losing your head (because you would never actually mean to do any of these things) we will first request that you cease and desist as the say in “the biz.” If you cannot find your head, or continue to mis-place it, we will be happy to put you on a forum time-out to give you time to go looking for it and if REALLY need be we will remove that which seems to disagree with you – i.e. The forum. Not that we like doing any of these things, of course.

Maybe it isn't clear – that's debatable, I guess. I think it's clear enough to anyone with brains. But then I guess they're usually not the problem.

[Dancing Mustard]

You want the rules? Go to the Rules section then.

Here, I'll make it easier for you:
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7785
Scroll down to the section that says "Actual no-no's."

He means actual objective applicable regulations, not a non-conclusive list of purely subjective things which a moderator may arbitrarily ban you for, should they be in the frame of mind to classify your post as such a thing that particular morning. He may also have had in mind a public record of the banning policy/tariff, which I am currenlty calling idiotic and disproportionate.

Come on, if you're going to post so much here at least try to make some sense or to add something constructive. Trite "Teh rulez R teh rulez and alwayz hav bean" statements aren't helpful, this is a thread about reform, not about blind adherence to a set of, quite frankly, outdated and inadequate regulations.

[V.I.]

Enforcement
The Guidelines wrote:

"A warning from any mod is the same as a warning from Lackattack himself, asking mommy because daddy said no wont work here. If you chose to disobey a direct request from a mod, expect to be put on a 24 hour freeze from the forum. Further action against the warning will result in longer time-outs, and eventually permanant banning (banding as some would say) from the forum. A mod will always warn you of the consequences if there will be any."

I take issue with the lack of consistency of applied enforcement. Some are given more leeway than others, which is neither fair nor just. Norse's permaban is a perfect example of this lack of fairness.

Scroll through many threads on this site, especially in FW, and you will find individuals who do NOTHING but troll on and on, with zero enforcement. I appreciate that consistent rebuke of said "Rules" results in stricter penalties, however the way in which we approach and eventually reach that "final warning" seems entirely too arbitrary a process.

[InkL0sed]

You want the rules? Go to the Rules section then.

Here, I'll make it easier for you:
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7785
Scroll down to the section that says "Actual no-no's."

He means actual objective applicable regulations, not a non-conclusive list of purely subjective things which a moderator may arbitrarily ban you for, should they be in the frame of mind to classify your post as such a thing that particular morning. He may also have had in mind a public record of the banning policy/tariff, which I am currenlty calling idiotic and disproportionate.

Come on, if you're going to post so much here at least try to make some sense or to add something constructive. Trite "Teh rulez R teh rulez and alwayz hav bean" statements aren't helpful, this is a thread about reform, not about blind adherence to a set of, quite frankly, outdated and inadequate regulations.

You were fastposted; and I don't appreciate the mocking of my grammar, as it is actually better than yours.

[wacicha]

As Stated on numerous occasions I am not a mod...

Altough I have a few powers in this forum only, i am not privey to all things mod. I handle this forum only I ban no one. I did not know norse, I do not read the flame forums.

At the begining of this topic I stated that they can have this topic in here. And since i do not know what is going on could I be enlightened also.

[InkL0sed]

Scroll through many threads on this site, especially in FW, and you will find individuals who do NOTHING but troll on and on, with zero enforcement. I appreciate that consistent rebuke of said "Rules" results in stricter penalties, however the way in which we approach and eventually reach that "final warning" seems entirely too arbitrary a process.

Flame Wars is hardly a good example – it invites the trolls. I think if I were a mod I'd be more lenient on trolls in Flame Wars than anywhere else.

[V.I.]

Maybe it isn't clear – that's debatable, I guess. I think it's clear enough to anyone with brains. But then I guess they're usually not the problem.

Your ignorance is both unhelpful and dangerous. The statement that "Anyone with brains" should be able to determine what constitutes tempbans or permabans does not advance this debate one iota. Shame on you for not questioning authority, especially in cases where law enforcement is at issue.

[AAFitz]

Enforcement
The Guidelines wrote:

"A warning from any mod is the same as a warning from Lackattack himself, asking mommy because daddy said no wont work here. If you chose to disobey a direct request from a mod, expect to be put on a 24 hour freeze from the forum. Further action against the warning will result in longer time-outs, and eventually permanant banning (banding as some would say) from the forum. A mod will always warn you of the consequences if there will be any."

I take issue with the lack of consistency of applied enforcement. Some are given more leeway than others, which is neither fair nor just. Norse's permaban is a perfect example of this lack of fairness.

Scroll through many threads on this site, especially in FW, and you will find individuals who do NOTHING but troll on and on, with zero enforcement. I appreciate that consistent rebuke of said "Rules" results in stricter penalties, however the way in which we approach and eventually reach that "final warning" seems entirely too arbitrary a process.

Well, if they put in an exact number of warnings, before a perma-ban, and someone got banned, I guarantee youd be the first one saying there should be some flexibility and that it wasnt fair. I myself trust that the moderators took the time to discuss the situation, and decided the ban was the only possible appropriate action. The fact that you did not witness the discussion, is irrelevant.

[Dancing Mustard]

The rule was simple. No racism. If you break it, and are warned that you will be banned if you continue to break it... You will be banned. It could not be more clear. While you are surprised that norse got banned, I doubt he is. He knew what he was doing, and he took the risk anyways.

The rules are simple. Everyone knows what they are. If you break them, you will be warned. If you continue to break them, you will be banned. If you continue to break them after that, you will be perma banned.

Seems pretty clear to me.

Well joyous as it may be to point out that CC's approach to banning was advertised and has been applied in the past, it's kind of beside the point. A point, which might I say, your post spectacularily missed.

This isn't about 'Why did Norse get banned'; it's about 'Why is the banning policy here so outdated and arbitrary'. We're campaigning for a change to that policy (along the guidelines Coleman suggested) not saying that Norse didn't (or ought not have) fallen foul of it.

We know that the policy here states that 'warnings preceed bans preceed permabans', but the point is that the system gives rise to disproportionate punishments and unfairly onerous sanctions for many people. There are far better ways to punish misdemeanours here, and there's no need to permaban permanent offenders unless they are physically ruining the forum for everyone.

Rules are not simply self-justifying. The current system of sanctions that we have (while consistent) is crap. We need a more flexible and sensible system, rather than the blunt instruments we are currently governed by.

Come on Fitz, I know you're a big lover of mods, and I expected you to rock up to defend them sooner or later. But let's stick to the actual topic at hand, rather than straying of piste eh? Perhaps you might want to go back and re-read what I said at thetop of this page to get you back on track.

[V.I.]

I am asking for consistency, Fitz. Across the board consistency in moderator approach to warnings, bans and (especially) permabans.

And I'll thank you not to guarantee anything on my behalf.

[0ojakeo0]

I'll ask again:

"I'd like to know whether or not the moderators are willing to provide a consistent approach to dealing with inappropriate behavior, instead of doling out punishments willy-nilly.

Someplace where rules and decorum, with specific emphasis on penalties for not following forum rules, so that this community has complete understanding over what the consequences are for indiscretions.

Post the Laws of this land. Don't keep us in the dark."

QFT

if your gonna call it , call it both ways

[decoulombe]

First off, when we get back to the subject at had, we ask ourselves, "Is the current moderating system unfair?" The correct answer is "it doesn't matter." When you sign up for a club, you go by that club's rules. It doesnt matter what you personally think. If you play the game, you have to go by the rules. If you think CC is not going according to the first amendment, or just a plain unfair, kindly write to your congressman (or minister if your in Canada) about the matter, express your concerns, and ask them to do something about it. But don't go bashing the mods pointing fingers about them and calling them unfair. No system of government is fair because no system is perfect. No system is perfect because they were started by people, and people by their very nature are imperfect. So to point to the mods telling them they aren't perfect is by its own rite, "HYPOCRISY" CC is not a democracy. You can't vote them out, and making protests won't always work.

P.S. The best way for Norse to get back into the system is for him to make an apology letter to the mods and humbly asking him to be let back in. On that note, I ask the mods to lock this topic since obviously it is "off-topic" and does nothing but cause hate between members.

Respectfully,
Decoulombe

[InkL0sed]

Maybe it isn't clear – that's debatable, I guess. I think it's clear enough to anyone with brains. But then I guess they're usually not the problem.

Your ignorance is both unhelpful and dangerous. The statement that "Anyone with brains" should be able to determine what constitutes tempbans or permabans does not advance this debate one iota. Shame on you for not questioning authority, especially in cases where law enforcement is at issue.

Law enforcement? Give me a break. Oh yeah, and read my post about property. Seriously, your rights are not being violated, that is just ridiculous. This isn't a government. This is the Internet. It's not like Norse can't play games anymore, he just can't post on one of the millions of forums on the Internet anymore. Oh no, whatever will we do.

EDIT: Severely fastposted. Might as well ignore this post. Oh and I agree that this is getting off-topic, so I'll stop this argument. Which, I add, I thought was respectful (except for moments )

[Dancing Mustard]

Well, if they put in an exact number of warnings, before a perma-ban, and someone got banned, I guarantee youd be the first one saying there should be some flexibility and that it wasnt fair.

Of course he would.

Why is that? Because it's not what he's arguing for, obviously.

Come on Fitz, you're a clever guy really. But at least respond to what we're actually saying, rather than what you imagine we're talking about.

I myself trust that the moderators took the time to discuss the situation, and decided the ban was the only possible appropriate action. The fact that you did not witness the discussion, is irrelevant.

I myself don't.

The community did (and would) run just fine with Norse as a member; there were just a few occassions when he crossed a line. Those breaches deserved reprimand, but did not require him to be removed from our midst. Popular opinion shows that, and there's been nothing stated to the contrary by the mods. As such we can only presume that such a ban has not been justified, and is simply a mechanical necessity given the current system of sanctions.

If the mods care to show us some genuine reasons that CC's community could not continue to run smoothly with Norse present, then I'd be happy to accept that. But currently they haven't, and I don't think that any such reasons exist.

Until that happens however, this remains an example of yet another widely oppossed permaban, that has arisen as the result of an outdated and ridiculous system of sanctions.

[richardgarr]

Or part of the problem. And please do not curse in any thread other than Flame Wars forum. This is a child-friendly site.

NO it is not , so get out of the sandbox already. Children should not be surfing these forums without parental supervision, and if allow your children into a competitive and aggressive environment, be prepared for them to pick up all the nuances of said environment. Swearing and unfriendly language, as well as generally insulting and lude remarks, IS part of the seedier side of any sport or competitive game.
Hire a babysitter, and leave CC free speech alone already.

OH ya ASS , is an animal, and poo comes out of it, every few hours.

[Dancing Mustard]

When you sign up for a club, you go by that club's rules. It doesnt matter what you personally think. If you play the game, you have to go by the rules.

Humbug.

You petition the club's owners for change, and hope that they have the good sense to realise it is long overdue.

If we all went along with your way of thinking then we'd still be dunking-witches... after all, you gotta "go by the rules".