Conquer Club

I like option 4 best and option 3 is reasonable.

AndyDufresne wrote:Hm, lets see what we've got so far:

I like how you lay things out like this. It helps the thought process, I think.

AndyDufresne wrote: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.

My thoughts on Option 1:
I think that for the minor infractions, a 6-month ban should replace the perma-ban. After all, they're minor infractions. I like the levels for the major infractions.

AndyDufresne wrote: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

My thoughts on Option 2:
I like it, except I don't believe the permanent ban for minor infractions is necessary.

AndyDufresne wrote: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.

My thoughts on Option 3:
I can sort of see the reasoning behind having the first major infraction be a permanent ban due to the past history of minor infractions...but it seems like there should be a major infraction warning first (and remember, I'm one of the hardasses in this discussion). After all, it's possible that someone could unintentionally break a major rule. Now if they've received a major infraction warning previously though...off with their head.

AndyDufresne wrote: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.

My thoughts on Option 4:
Nothing there I don't like. Probably depends on how much moderation time it would add, but if it's not significant, I think it's the best option.

Moderation time is definitely I think a variable that has to be taken into account---especially because all non-admins/staff are Volunteers. We certainly don't want to make a bulky and cumbersome process.

Somewhere around Options 2 - 3 I think have the most potential.


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:Moderation time is definitely I think a variable that has to be taken into account---especially because all non-admins/staff are Volunteers. We certainly don't want to make a bulky and cumbersome process.
Somewhere around Options 2 - 3 I think have the most potential.
--Andy

As far as Option 3, any thoughts on having some sort of a warning shot (even if the warning includes a 1-month ban, I might add) before the first major infraction becomes a permanent ban (after many prior minor infractions) rather than it jumping straight to the perma-ban?

Things can certainly be proposed and discussed. The options I presented, (aside from Option 1 which is what we currently have) are drafts.


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:Things can certainly be proposed and discussed. The options I presented, (aside from Option 1 which is what we currently have) are drafts.


--Andy

cc taking a suggestion is insane

this has happened how many times in the last year?

StiffMittens wrote:

bjc23 wrote:

F1fth wrote:
I have one suggestion for StiffMitten's draft: instead of resetting the ladder after the probationary period, I think the penalty should only decline a level. Otherwise, trolls could just go crazy once every month and never get more than a warning.

But do you really think they are just going to wait out their month to do a little trolling. B/c with couple clicks, BAM...no trolling for another month. I really don't think the trolls will actually care that munch to go back to their trolling for a couple hours again...

Some people might simply wait out the probation and return to their old tricks, but many people won't. This is why there will sometimes be a need for the history of a user to be available for consideration. This is also why the powers that be will probably not be convinced that DM should be reinstated (although he should ). But as long as it is clearly indicated exactly how and under what circumstances a user's "permanent" record may be used, both users and mods will understand the stakes better and (hopefully) act accordingly.

I agree, the record should be kept, I just think that a person should be able to "outlive" a few relatively minor offenses.

I know from kids, school, etc that having an option to "reset" generally leads to better behavior overall.

In a sense, that is really what I meant by a kind of "probation". If you have committed an offense, then duplicating that same offense (or even just committing any offense) within a certain period should actually give you an increased penalty, particularly if its blatant. (swearing might be an issue for some people.... and maybe needs its own standard). Then after x time, you revert back to normal and if you keep behaving, you might even "slide back" a bit on the penalty scale.

You could even make some kind of requirement, make people do something (other than simply pay) in order to get restitution. Something along the lines of if you insist on complaining about the dice for the 100th time in a row, maybe you should have to show you have read all the previous 100 posts

(seriously, there might be some kind of research Lack could use .. spending time on it might be a good "reform" type project for someone like DM -- particularly if it were somehow oriented toward his offense.)

I must applaud not only CC's mods and admin for taking this issue seriously, but also the players who have made this happen. I believe a perma-ban is too harsh and there should be a maximum ban of 6, 9, or 12 months ban.

JB

I would be in support of option 4 the most. It sounds like the closest to have a probational period.

You don't need to code in those probation periods, all you need to do is next time you catch the users commiting an infraction then you just look at his history, if it's x amount of days from last infraction then give him a punishment according. The cool down/probational period would be the same for all minor offenses. Maybe 3 months without commiting an offense and it goes back down a level.

With Option 3 some bad egg could get a 6 month ban within months of being here, then come back a changed man and a year or 2 later get another 6 month ban for going off-topic.

kylegraves1 wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:Things can certainly be proposed and discussed. The options I presented, (aside from Option 1 which is what we currently have) are drafts.
--Andy

cc taking a suggestion is insane
this has happened how many times in the last year?

this is the second major overhaul of a rule, if this happens. the first was the bigotry guidelines (ahem...). when the community is focused and sincere, change can take place. i am still catching up on the proposals, this is looking like a great start.-0

Andy,

I think it's also important for us to discuss consistency of rulings between the different modes on the site. For instance, a statement made in a forum is treated completely differently than the same comment in game-chat. This doesn't seem to make sense to me. I think this ties in directly with this subject since we are talking about how to keep things fair while also maintaining the site's interests.

4myGod wrote:I would be in support of option 4 the most. It sounds like the closest to have a probational period.

You don't need to code in those probation periods, all you need to do is next time you catch the users commiting an infraction then you just look at his history, if it's x amount of days from last infraction then give him a punishment according. The cool down/probational period would be the same for all minor offenses. Maybe 3 months without commiting an offense and it goes back down a level.

With Option 3 some bad egg could get a 6 month ban within months of being here, then come back a changed man and a year or 2 later get another 6 month ban for going off-topic.

I thought the objection was to a previous suggestion that people have a parole "officer". I, too, fail to see that coding would be an issue. You already track offenses. This would either be just another box or, as 4 suggested, you could look and see how long since the last infraction. The problem with the last is that it would allow less flexibility, but it would still work.

Woodruff wrote:Andy,

I think it's also important for us to discuss consistency of rulings between the different modes on the site. For instance, a statement made in a forum is treated completely differently than the same comment in game-chat. This doesn't seem to make sense to me. I think this ties in directly with this subject since we are talking about how to keep things fair while also maintaining the site's interests.

I agree consistency is important, but I am not sure chat should be treated the same as forum discussion. Similarly, I don't necessarily think each forum should have absolutely the same criteria. What is perfectly OK in turtle would not be in Suggs and Bugs or GD.

Chat, too is a bit different, I think, because people may say things to friends who have a "certain" type of humor (as an example), but not elsewhere.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Andy,

I think it's also important for us to discuss consistency of rulings between the different modes on the site. For instance, a statement made in a forum is treated completely differently than the same comment in game-chat. This doesn't seem to make sense to me. I think this ties in directly with this subject since we are talking about how to keep things fair while also maintaining the site's interests.

I agree consistency is important, but I am not sure chat should be treated the same as forum discussion. Similarly, I don't necessarily think each forum should have absolutely the same criteria. What is perfectly OK in turtle would not be in Suggs and Bugs or GD.
Chat, too is a bit different, I think, because people may say things to friends who have a "certain" type of humor (as an example), but not elsewhere.

I'm not talking about things that may be questionable. I am speaking of out-and-out flaming. There is no reason why something that is sanctioned in Off Topics shouldn't also be sanctioned in game-chat. After all, where are new users going to be verbally assaulted first? It's not likely to be in the forums.

And I really don't see any reason why game chat should be viewed differently than the forums. An action that is against the interests of the site is an action that's against the interests of the site.

Game chats essentially fall under the same precedents as the Forum. Trolling game chats will get you punished just as much as trolling forum topics. The same goes for PM's, Walls, etc. No matter where you troll, etc, you will get punished.

Live Chat is a different beast we have set aside.

And Ratings has it's own specific precedents as well.

=========

As for the options, I'll look over those again as well. I'm keeping in mind what is being said in this topic, as well as Team CC feedback as well---in addition to my vision of everything too.


--Andy

Andy, I think the bottom line is, that perma-bans are kind of dumb in the grand scheme of things. People change over the years. If I left now, and came back to this site (which somehow managed to survive) in 5 years, I'd be a completely different person, and my online responses would change with that. 6 months is a very, very long time, and in that time, I'm sure the user will have missed PMing abilities, the ability to know their own points, and a lot of other things.

Perma-Vacations will always have at least some role on Conquer Club. There are some Infractions, malicious in nature, which I think will always warrant them.


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:Perma-Vacations will always have at least some role on Conquer Club. There are some Infractions, malicious in nature, which I think will always warrant them.


--Andy

Obviously. Creating multi's a few times, purposely going around the rules, etc, will always be warrant for a perma-ban. But trolling? Getting a bit heated and flaming? Getting drunk and spamming? Not really.

Perhaps, Kotaro---that is why there are a few draft options that have 6 months as the Max for Minor Infractions, which Common Trolling, Common Flaming, Spamming, etc, fall under. (Bigotry, Cyber-bullying/Harassment can be forms of flaming, trolling, and spamming, but they are different beasts and are classified as Major/Severe Infractions).


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:Game chats essentially fall under the same precedents as the Forum. Trolling game chats will get you punished just as much as trolling forum topics. The same goes for PM's, Walls, etc. No matter where you troll, etc, you will get punished.

Perhaps trolling...but reported game-chat abuse does not seem to get the same reaction as forum abuse, however. Otherwise, how is codeblue1018 (to point out a clear example) still about to post in game-chat when others far less offensive have been removed from the forums?

I like option 4 a lot, and agree that it doesn't seem to difficult to reference the date of the last infraction, but I also like option 3 along with this suggestion:

Woodruff wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:Moderation time is definitely I think a variable that has to be taken into account---especially because all non-admins/staff are Volunteers. We certainly don't want to make a bulky and cumbersome process.
Somewhere around Options 2 - 3 I think have the most potential.
--Andy

As far as Option 3, any thoughts on having some sort of a warning shot (even if the warning includes a 1-month ban, I might add) before the first major infraction becomes a permanent ban (after many prior minor infractions) rather than it jumping straight to the perma-ban?

I think either is a vast improvement over option 1.

AndyDufresne wrote:Perma-Vacations will always have at least some role on Conquer Club. There are some Infractions, malicious in nature, which I think will always warrant them.


--Andy

For MAJOR INFRACTIONS, such as posting hardcore porn and rabid bigotry, then yes a permanent vacation is merited(after repeated offences of course. )

For Minor Infractions however, a permanent vacation is heavy handed to say the least. I think the max penalty for Minor Infractions should be a 6 month ban maximum. That's quite long enough for them to sit in silent contemplation of their predicament.

i like option 4... and andy, can i get clarification. if we wanted to separate the infractions into different areas to prevent something like a member getting a lengthy ban for their first infraction in live chat (an example), but having it snowballed up into one big "violation pool", we would need to start a separate suggestion thread? that is the only thing that i see missing from this. each infraction/violation should be separate and not snowballed. you get a warning for PM abuse, you do it again, and you go up the next rung, that makes sense. however, if you get a warning for PM abuse, and then get a warning for live chat and a combo vacation, i thing that should be changed. so, to summarize, i like option 4 and i want to know if another suggestion needs to be made to have infractions only step up the scale of punishment, if the same rule is violated. is that at all clear? where is my coffee... these mid-day naps make me groggy... getting old is hard... sigh...-0

Lots to read here. I like what Owenshooter is saying except that there are a lot of minor types (flaming, baiting, signatures, live chat, avatars, and so on....). Someone who breaks 15 different minor infractions would not get punished? I have a hard time with that, especially after say 7 warnings about different areas. If you can't figure out what to do after 3 warnings and how to behave, then we have an issue.

jpcloet wrote:Lots to read here. I like what Owenshooter is saying except that there are a lot of minor types (flaming, baiting, signatures, live chat, avatars, and so on....). Someone who breaks 15 different minor infractions would not get punished? I have a hard time with that, especially after say 7 warnings about different areas. If you can't figure out what to do after 3 warnings and how to behave, then we have an issue.

yes, but to receive a major warning for forum violations, and then to receive a ban for your first game chat or PM or live chat violaion, due to the cumulative method the admins/mods employ, just does not make sense... so i am asking if that is going to be addressed or if a separate suggestion needs to be started...-0