A Proposal Concerning Ban Policy

[FlamingOwlOfDeath]

So over the past few months there has been some turmoil here at Critsandvich surrounding several bans. I believe that part of the recent trouble has been that the rules have been enforced inconsistently and the punishments for breaking the rules of the server have varied greatly—both based on the enforcing admin and the offending party. In this light, I think that it would greatly benefit our community in the future to adopt a set of guidelines concerning ban policy. I have outlined my thoughts below, but this is really just meant to open a dialogue and hopefully improve the way we approach enforcing the rules.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Part 1: The Rules
I think that most of us would agree that the Critsandvich rules are not that difficult to follow. As listed when joining any CSn server, the rules are as follows:

1. Don’t be a douche
2. No bigots or racists
3. Listen to admins
4. No hacking, griefing, or exploits
5. No mic spam
6. Play nice, and have fun!

Now, these rules really are not that difficult. However, if we intend to enforce these rules as a community, they should be posted clearly and in multiple places. As of this moment, the only place where the rules are posted is upon joining a server. My first proposal would be to make the rules more prominent in this location (larger text, bold font, etc.), so anyone joining our servers for the first time knows exactly what is expected of them.

A second thought is to implement some in game function to pull up a list of rules. I know on some other servers, “!rules” in the chat box will display a list of that server’s rules. I believe that this would be a good addition to CSn servers if it is not too difficult to code.

Finally, I believe it is important to have the rules clearly posted on our website. Right now the website has tons of valuable information, but there is not a single place where the rules are clearly outlined. Even when I asked some admins if the rules were written on the website, nobody could locate them for me. This is an easy fix and very important in establishing that Critsandvich has rules, and that it takes those rules seriously.

Part 2: Enforcing the Rules
Now, the easy part is establishing the rules, the more difficult part is effectively enforcing them. To that end, I propose a three strike policy. The idea behind this is to establish a standardized system of punishments that increases in severity with multiple infractions. First and foremost, if a player is breaking a rule, they must be clearly warned by an admin (“If you continue doing ________, you will be banned”). If the warning is disregarded, then the first offense would result in a ban of 1 day, after which the offending party would be allowed to return to the servers. If they break the rules again, they would receive a ban of 1 week. A third offense merits a permaban.

There are some situations, such as obvious hacking, which bypass this three step process and move directly to permaban. Additionally, in the case of more minor offenses, such as mic spam, it would be appropriate to mute the offending player before the first kick/ban. This gives the system different degrees of punishment based on the severity of the infraction.

Part 3: Contesting Bans
There has also been significant tension in the past during the process of contesting bans. I think that the best way to approach this problem is to limit the discussion of revoking a ban to the offending player and the banning admin. If other individuals need to be called in as witnesses, that can be done. However, until a witness is called for, neither other players nor admins other than the banning admin should comment on the case. Keeping the discussion strictly between the involved parties is the best way to maintain a calm and mature environment.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I believe that these guidelines could really help improve our community by keeping it both safe and fun for everyone. As always, the final decisions on bans and other policies are up to the admins, but I truly hope they will take this suggestion under consideration. I welcome any questions or comments you all may have. Thanks for listening.

~FlamingOwlOfDeath

[Arty_pn]

I Profile Name approve of this message.
I would also like to back up the !rules command, as I think I would serve for the perfect first warning to newer people. I would also recommend an admins have the right to ban/kick at anytime rule.

[Saber]

I'll type up a longer response if I get around to it, but can't we just make the MOTD thing DEMZ RULEZ? It's the first thing people see anyway.

[TheMcGib]

i Like this rules and i think that the !rules idea is really good

[medkitz]

I approve

[LitigationJackson]

I've seen these kinds of threads come up in clan forums before (I've posted a few) and somebody higher up the totem pole invariably takes issue with imposing rules that limit his/her ability to decide who should be punished and how.
Let me just say, to those who might think that this is too much of a pain in the ass, that a decision to permanently exclude someone from the server affects everyone, not just the individual being banned. I hate losing friends to bans that I feel are unfair, and I know I'm not the only person who has been in that position. Accordingly, I think everyone should have a say in what kinds of conduct can effect a permaban. These rules give us a framework to do just that.

This is a perfectly reasonable system. It's easy to understand, easy to enforce, and easy to obey.
Frankly, I'm surprised that a community as well-established as CSN can function without this kind of policy in place.
On that note, I'm curious as to how bans are currently decided...
If there's no system in place, then the three strikes policy could, and should, be implemented as soon as possible by the admin.
That'd be a great place to start.

Maybe certain rules like "Don't be a douche" and "Listen to admins" could be defined more clearly... if the purpose of all this is to avoid arbitrary rules, we should clarify ambiguous rules.
For instance, I think "Listen to admins" should only apply where the admins are enforcing an established rule. I've seen plenty of admin get frustrated with rule-biding players who won't obey their every command and kick/ban the person by the authority of some vague "obey the admin" or "respect admin" rule.
So... I hope people decide to give this proposition the attention it deserves and contribute to the discussion!

[Ninja]

Owl:
I like the idea of enforcing rules as a community,
But I have seen people try to do this in the pink server and try to enforce rules when an admin is on,
which I don't like at all.If an admin can't do their job they obviously shouldn't be an admin.

The admin rules are also in the help wanted section they are about 3 down from the top and all of them are there.
I am also not 100% sure they are correct as of now.

Jackson:
We do hold a 3 strike rule.
I am not saying all admins abide by it, but it is there.

[LegendarySurgeon]

The rules you have suggested have been in place for a long time. The only thing which needs be done is to have a "Rules" location on the website that can be easily accessed.

[medkitz]

Owl:
I like the idea of enforcing rules as a community,
But I have seen people try to do this in the pink server and try to enforce rules when an admin is on,
which I don't like at all.If an admin can't do their job they obviously shouldn't be an admin.

While this is true (I do my best to enforce) the full pink-mins aren't as on as we'd like them to be, and the trial-mins we have at the moment can only do so much. So it's not mainly on the admin's ability, but more of the situation of their ability to play.

[FlamingOwlOfDeath]

Owl:
I like the idea of enforcing rules as a community,
But I have seen people try to do this in the pink server and try to enforce rules when an admin is on,
which I don't like at all.If an admin can't do their job they obviously shouldn't be an admin.

Thanks for the feedback. I wasn't actually suggesting that non-admins attempt to enforce the rules, I was really just trying to say that I think CSn can do a better job of establishing the rules and enforcing them in a non-arbitrary manner.

Jackson:
We do hold a 3 strike rule.
I am not saying all admins abide by it, but it is there.

While I would love to say that I believe this is true, I haven't seen any evidence that there is a 3 strike rule in place. There is no written evidence of it anywhere. Also, the number of strikes given to different people has varied wildly. As you mentioned, it is possible that a 3 strike policy exists in theory and that admins are simply not adhering to it, but that is precisely why I proposed these guidelines. While there are certain circumstances in which the offense is so serious that a permaban is warranted immediately, the vast majority of cases should fall into the 3 strike category. I would like to see a more uniform enforcement of rules throughout CSn.

[Phantom]

K id like to address some of this
To the more rules posted around here and there, I totally agree with it. I mean we dont have them put around enough places. When you join it should be bigger and stay up longer.
This is to 1. prevent any ambiguity and 2. will prevent people from going "derp i dont thunk ther wer rules. derp"

Regarding the enforcement of rules. Admins should be left to deal with it how they see fit. In some circumstances I will ban somebody sooner than I may ban others. This is not based off personal or any other such thing, but to the level they are ruining the server experience for everyone else.

And regarding the ban section I also disagree it should redmins banning admin and related admins who might also be there or have delt with said person in the past.
EDIT you also forgot no offensive imagery to the rule list

[FlamingOwlOfDeath]

Regarding the enforcement of rules. Admins should be left to deal with it how they see fit. In some circumstances I will ban somebody sooner than I may ban others. This is not based off personal or any other such thing, but to the level they are ruining the server experience for everyone else.

I am afraid I disagree here. While of course the ultimate decision as to punishment and rule enforcement is, and always will be, at the discretion of the admins, I don't think it is appropriate to leave the admins free to deal with infractions in whatever way they see fit. I think it is important to have a set of guidelines that they follow so that disciplinary action is largely standardized across our servers, regardless of enforcing admin. Once again, there will be circumstances which are severe enough to bypass this protocol, but they should be the exception rather than the rule.

And regarding the ban section I also disagree it should redmins banning admin and related admins who might also be there or have delt with said person in the past.

As I mentioned in my proposal, other individuals may be called in as witnesses when appropriate. However, I would caution against allowing too many admins to comment on the case. In the past there have been incidents in which members of the community were prohibited from commenting on a ban appeal, and rightly so. But at the same time as regular players were not allowed to say anything, multiple admins wrote their opinions, regardless of whether or not those admins were directly related to the current incident. Additionally, some of the comments coming from the admins were extremely belittling and unprofessional. It was as if the admins were being allowed to gang up on the player contesting the ban, but he was not allowed to do anything about it. When incidents like this occur, it greatly undermines the credibility of the admins. Therefore, I maintain my previous suggestion that only the admin directly involved be allowed to comment on the case, but I will also expand it to include the red admins. However, other admins should not comment unless specifically called in as witnesses.

EDIT you also forgot no offensive imagery to the rule list

Thank you for bringing this up, I hadn't even noticed it. As of this moment, the rules listed when joining a CSn server make no mention of offensive or pornographic imagery. This certainly needs to be ammended.

[Phantom]

I am afraid I disagree here. While of course the ultimate decision as to punishment and rule enforcement is, and always will be, at the discretion of the admins, I don't think it is appropriate to leave the admins free to deal with infractions in whatever way they see fit. I think it is important to have a set of guidelines that they follow so that disciplinary action is largely standardized across our servers, regardless of enforcing admin. Once again, there will be circumstances which are severe enough to bypass this protocol, but they should be the exception rather than the rule.

As I said before some people just dont deserve the same level of punishment as others, but all admins warn first, how the person chooses to respond is their choice.
but If i mute someone for inappropriate language and then they change their name to the same phrase they got muted for, then we dont really want them in our servers.
It all comes to down to ruining the experience for all our players, if they want to continue to dig their own grave so be it, but they set how deep it is.

As I mentioned in my proposal, other individuals may be called in as witnesses when appropriate. However, I would caution against allowing too many admins to comment on the case. In the past there have been incidents in which members of the community were prohibited from commenting on a ban appeal, and rightly so. But at the same time as regular players were not allowed to say anything, multiple admins wrote their opinions, regardless of whether or not those admins were directly related to the current incident. Additionally, some of the comments coming from the admins were extremely belittling and unprofessional. It was as if the admins were being allowed to gang up on the player contesting the ban, but he was not allowed to do anything about it. When incidents like this occur, it greatly undermines the credibility of the admins. Therefore, I maintain my previous suggestion that only the admin directly involved be allowed to comment on the case, but I will also expand it to include the red admins. However, other admins should not comment unless specifically called in as witnesses.

Tbh not much should be said in the unban request thred. The topic is brought up in the admin forums and discussed, pending the decision of the redmins or banning admins.
if a related admin has something to add that could be of value in the decision it should be brought up. The admins who post non helpful should be and were, warned.

[Heimlich]

Part 2: Enforcing the Rules
Now, the easy part is establishing the rules, the more difficult part is effectively enforcing them. To that end, I propose a three strike policy. The idea behind this is to establish a standardized system of punishments that increases in severity with multiple infractions. First and foremost, if a player is breaking a rule, they must be clearly warned by an admin (“If you continue doing ________, you will be banned”). If the warning is disregarded, then the first offense would result in a ban of 1 day, after which the offending party would be allowed to return to the servers. If they break the rules again, they would receive a ban of 1 week. A third offense merits a permaban.

There are some situations, such as obvious hacking, which bypass this three step process and move directly to permaban. Additionally, in the case of more minor offenses, such as mic spam, it would be appropriate to mute the offending player before the first kick/ban. This gives the system different degrees of punishment based on the severity of the infraction.

I'd second and endorse this recommendation completely. The admins here appear to very rapidly escalate to permanent bans and that is not a productive way to tend to a community. Admins should have a responsibility to show restraint, defuse situations when possible, and follow a policy that accommodates human error on both sides (players and admins). An escalating ladder of ban durations, with a minimum of 1 day is a reasonable way to accomplish that. It gives everyone involved time and space to calm down/sober up/sleep it off (as necessary), clearly indicates the seriousness of the breach in rules, and gives the offending player several chances to change their behavior.

The current policy allows for arbitrary admin behavior, rapid escalation, mocking banned players in appeal threads, and allows admins to escalate conflicts with players rather than defusing situations.

Part 3: Contesting Bans
There has also been significant tension in the past during the process of contesting bans. I think that the best way to approach this problem is to limit the discussion of revoking a ban to the offending player and the banning admin. If other individuals need to be called in as witnesses, that can be done. However, until a witness is called for, neither other players nor admins other than the banning admin should comment on the case. Keeping the discussion strictly between the involved parties is the best way to maintain a calm and mature environment.

Personally, I'd just as soon get rid of the ban-appeal forum entirely. Using timed-duration bans for all but the most serious rule-breaking would remove most of the need for it.

I've seen these kinds of threads come up in clan forums before (I've posted a few) and somebody higher up the totem pole invariably takes issue with imposing rules that limit his/her ability to decide who should be punished and how.
Let me just say, to those who might think that this is too much of a pain in the ass, that a decision to permanently exclude someone from the server affects everyone, not just the individual being banned. I hate losing friends to bans that I feel are unfair, and I know I'm not the only person who has been in that position. Accordingly, I think everyone should have a say in what kinds of conduct can effect a permaban. These rules give us a framework to do just that.

This is a perfectly reasonable system. It's easy to understand, easy to enforce, and easy to obey.
Frankly, I'm surprised that a community as well-established as CSN can function without this kind of policy in place.
On that note, I'm curious as to how bans are currently decided...
If there's no system in place, then the three strikes policy could, and should, be implemented as soon as possible by the admin.
That'd be a great place to start.

Maybe certain rules like "Don't be a douche" and "Listen to admins" could be defined more clearly... if the purpose of all this is to avoid arbitrary rules, we should clarify ambiguous rules.
For instance, I think "Listen to admins" should only apply where the admins are enforcing an established rule. I've seen plenty of admin get frustrated with rule-biding players who won't obey their every command and kick/ban the person by the authority of some vague "obey the admin" or "respect admin" rule.
So... I hope people decide to give this proposition the attention it deserves and contribute to the discussion!

I also wholly agree with Litigation Jackson here, especially the part that I bolded. Personally, I'd go even farther than his second sentence, i.e. I hate losing friends to bans even when I agree that the violated the rules.

[Maringue]

I am afraid I disagree here. While of course the ultimate decision as to punishment and rule enforcement is, and always will be, at the discretion of the admins, I don't think it is appropriate to leave the admins free to deal with infractions in whatever way they see fit. I think it is important to have a set of guidelines that they follow so that disciplinary action is largely standardized across our servers, regardless of enforcing admin. Once again, there will be circumstances which are severe enough to bypass this protocol, but they should be the exception rather than the rule

We do have a policy for rule infractions: warn, kick, ban. If the person decides to be a dick about it when you warn them, then it can just be expedited to warn then ban.

Also, the reason people are admins here is because of their judgement. If it's something tricky to spot like aimboting, then an admin will record a demo before taking action, but otherwise each admin deals with things how they see fit. No one has ever gotten banned when they weren't breaking any rules.

We're not going to put in some three strikes rule. You get a warning for breaking the rules, because you might not know the rules. After that you get dealt with however the current admin feels is appropriate. If you are a regular, you don't get extra warnings. You know what the rules are and that's probably part of the reason you come play on our servers, so just don't break them and there won't be a problem.

[Heimlich]

Regarding the enforcement of rules. Admins should be left to deal with it how they see fit. In some circumstances I will ban somebody sooner than I may ban others.

A number of players here are chiming in to say that the current system does not work for them. Obviously it works for you as an admin, it does not work for us, as players.

This is not based off personal or any other such thing, but to the level they are ruining the server experience for everyone else.

The standard of "ruining the server experience" is inherently personal and subjective.

A series of escalating bans, starting with a 1-day minimum, gives you sufficient sufficient ability to enforce rules and maintain a pleasant environment. Effective discipline systems in schools and workplaces use escalating discipline effectively, I have no doubt that it would suffice for CSn's servers.

[Heimlich]

We're not going to put in some three strikes rule.

Fine, then I won't be back.

[Maringue]

A number of players here are chiming in to say that the current system does not work for them. Obviously it works for you as an admin, it does not work for us, as players.

Even HardAss TNT can manage to keep his mouth shut and not break the rules and he literally wants to yell racial or homophobic slurs at people so bad he foams at the mouth (but he doesn't), so I don't really see how it's a problem. People like DeBeezy got banned because they broke the rules, knew they were breaking the rules while they said what they said, and only did it because they thought they could get away with it because they didn't see an admin in the server.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is basically a request to give regulars more leniency with the rules. That's just not going to happen.

[FlamingOwlOfDeath]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is basically a request to give regulars more leniency with the rules. That's just not going to happen.

How did you come to this conclusion? The entire point of my proposal is to have the same rules apply to everybody. This would give no more leniency to any one person.

[Heimlich]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is basically a request to give regulars more leniency with the rules. That's just not going to happen.

That is not what this request is about. It's a request to follow a slower escalation path for rule-breaking (that ends in a perma-ban).

The proposed policy would:

* Tolerate human error by both players and admins.
* Make it crystal clear to everybody involved that a certain behavior is going to result in a perma-ban. Warning and kicking are not effective in communicating that.
* Under this policy, it will be clear to the rule-breaker and that person's friends that the admins show restraint and forgive short (i.e. less than a day) lapses in judgment. The current policy absolutely fails in this respect.
* Ultimately reduce the number of permanent bans while encouraging people to obey the rules.
* Make it clear that administrators have respect for players and the community at CSn. Within this thread, it appears that admins have little regard for players combined with very high regard for their own judgment.

[Phantom]

Regarding the enforcement of rules. Admins should be left to deal with it how they see fit. In some circumstances I will ban somebody sooner than I may ban others.

A number of players here are chiming in to say that the current system does not work for them. Obviously it works for you as an admin, it does not work for us, as players.

How does this not work for you, I work very hard to see to it that people have the most fun as possible on our server, whilst not breaking the rules. If someone is sitting in our server for an HOUR harassing everyone and what not, and finally an admin is called in, id warn him then ban him. no one wants to put up with him. Blatant disregard for rules and circumventing admin tools, is grounds enough for a ban IMO.

This is not based off personal or any other such thing, but to the level they are ruining the server experience for everyone else.

The standard of "ruining the server experience" is inherently personal and subjective.

A series of escalating bans, starting with a 1-day minimum, gives you sufficient sufficient ability to enforce rules and maintain a pleasant environment. Effective discipline systems in schools and workplaces use escalating discipline effectively, I have no doubt that it would suffice for CSn's servers.

No Its not personal, its my judgement of how much someone is ruining someone elses experience on our servers.

EDIT having set of rules for punishment will not account for how everybody (rule breakers) handles their warnings.

[Maringue]

Here's the final issue, people who can't follow the rules are like junkies. Junkies always need just one more chance and then they will behave. Unfortunately they never do and end up asking for just one more chance again.

If a verbal warning followed by being kicked from the server doesn't get the point across that breaking our rules is unacceptable, I don't know what will.

It's pretty simple, we've never banned someone here who was following the rules. They are not really complex rules either, just follow them and everyone gets to have fun.

And on a personal note, I've never banned someone where judgement was needed at all. Aside from obvious hackers, the only bans I've ever issued go something like this:
Player: "Hey you faggot/nigger, blah blah blah."
Me: "No racial or homophobic slurs in our servers."
Player: "Fuck you you faggot/nigger"
Me: !ban player 0 homophobic/racist (0 means it's a permaban)

[Vivi Hill]

I just want to say from a technical point of view that besides the !rules thing, which I guess could be a rebind to motd (which clearly has the rules on it), there isn't much we can do to increase the visibility of the rules. The chat window shows the rules from the beginning, and the rules are there on the MOTD when you join, every time. There is literally no other display method we could use to show the rules.

As for the idea of a 3-strike rule, I personally think it would be a difficult thing to pull off effectively. First of all, if the person breaks our rules with an admin on, chances are they'll do it even more so when no admin is on. Secondly, once a strike is given, what procedure would we use to inform all the admins of this strike? It seems like it would be very difficult for our admins to have to keep track of everyone who has been given a first and second chance.

Though I'll admit I don't spend too much time policing the servers myself thanks to the work of our admins, my experiences here and in prior communities favor our current warn, kick, ban system. I don't see why someone should be given 3 strikes if they've already disregarded our rules enough to be warned, and kicked, and STILL do not follow rules.

The only obvious problem with this to me is the fact that the decision remains up to a single admin whether the person is disregarding the rules. I think this is more of a problem for people who don't have access to the admin lounge. Our policy is to post there when a ban is made. Granted, this is not always done properly, but it's supposed to happen, and it happens most of the time. Why do we put the post in private? We don't see the point of airing our bans in public, where they always end up in a criticism of the person or the banner. By putting it in private we can make the judgement as a team as to whether the admin was in the right to perform the ban. This seems to have worked very consistently.

The last thing we have is our ban contesting section. This for the last resort, when someone was banned unfairly and wants to prove why they were. This has happened before (see Konfy) and we've resolved it, IMO, beautifully. So all in all, I don't see what should be changed from our current system. Let me know how I'm wrong, though.


I'll add that in my experience with people I've banned, it's always been obvious that they were well aware they were breaking the rules and would be banned (like maringue says). I don't see how the warnings and kicks we give are not clear that the behavior is not tolerated. Our admins take bans seriously, because that's their primary job on the servers. If the person getting banned is given enough of a chance to actually get banned, maybe they shouldn't be wasting our time by causing the problem in the first place. If they are so invested in the server that a permaban is a problem, why were they breaking the rules consistently? If they really want to get unbanned, we have our unban request section and we take these requests seriously. As we mention in our rules, it's a privilege to play on the servers. There are plenty of servers out there you can play on if you want to be more free to be racist or whatever. It's difficult for us to have an elaborate 'trial' for each and every case we come across. This is why we have the current system. It's simple, effective, and there has been overall very little objection to it. The unban section is quite sparse compared to the amount of bans we've issued.

[Heimlich]

Here's the final issue, people who can't follow the rules are like junkies. Junkies always need just one more chance and then they will behave. Unfortunately they never do and end up asking for just one more chance again.

The proposal is for 3 chances total.

Additionally, I suggested removing the ban-appeal forum entirely, because I don't think it's productive and would not be necessary.

If a verbal warning followed by being kicked from the server doesn't get the point across that breaking our rules is unacceptable, I don't know what will.

I am suggesting something that I think will get the point across: an escalating series of bans, starting with a 1 day ban for a first offense, moving to a 1 week ban for second offense, and permanent for a third offense.

Your posts suggest that you treat me and my concerns, as a player, as a donator, and as a human, seriously.

[Heimlich]

...
Secondly, once a strike is given, what procedure would we use to inform all the admins of this strike? It seems like it would be very difficult for our admins to have to keep track of everyone who has been given a first and second chance..

As a technical solution, a search at http://slay1.critsandvich.com/ban/index.php?p=banlist should suffice. If the player has a previous (expired, obviously) ban, then those are listed there.

I don't see why someone should be given 3 strikes if they've already disregarded our rules enough to be warned, and kicked, and STILL do not follow rules.

Because some of your players are asking for that, that's why. Additionally, I don't think that kicking/muting/gagging or short-period (less than a day) banning does anything to defuse the situation and probably just makes things worse. Humans require time to settle down and let their tempers subside; kicking somebody in a way that lets them rejoin immediately or in an hour encourages them to come back angrier than before.

We don't see the point of airing our bans in public

I hate to tell you, but bans are already publicly-viewable at http://slay1.critsandvich.com/ban/index.php?p=banlist.

The last thing we have is our ban contesting section. This for the last resort, when someone was banned unfairly and wants to prove why they were. This has happened before (see Konfy) and we've resolved it, IMO, beautifully. So all in all, I don't see what should be changed from our current system. Let me know how I'm wrong, though.

I disagree strongly with this. This thread was started by an admin -- not the person banned -- to publicly air the reason for banning and the first reply is a Red admin saying "I want every moderator who sees a contest to this ban to just delete the post." That's not discrete, private, or respectful.

Additionally, there's this beautiful and mature reply from an admin in another appeal thread, which is neither constructive nor respectful.

Anyway, I've got one foot out the door on CSn already, but did think it was worth a chance to exercise the second option in Exit, Voice, Loyalty before the first. I've said my piece, whether anyone wants to hear or not.

[medkitz]

I believe that everyone deserves a second chance depending on the situation. If they made a mistake, then it should be warned rather a kick / ban. While the three warning seems like a good idea, there is the problem of the no-admins which is why there are those regulars (like myself) who can easily call an admin to come in. However there are issues that an admin cannot solve on some occasions. Just the other day there was a obscene spray which CLEARLY went against the rules. (for those who want to know what it was, it was meatspin. DO NOT SEARCH IT ON GOOGLE)

However when duck came into the love nest, he was unable to view the spray as it was there before he was there and the person had changed sprays. Despite it being on our screens, duck was unable to find the spray and was unable to ban the person on that offense. This is why we need a system or moderators who can resolve the issue quickly and prevent technological setbacks from stopping a ban of a rule breaker. NOTE: I personally told the person (forgot name) to take teh spray down and told the rule. If i remember correctly the person continued to spray the spray and just laughed at the rules.

[Maringue]

I disagree strongly with this. This thread was started by an admin -- not the person banned -- to publicly air the reason for banning and the first reply is a Red admin saying "I want every moderator who sees a contest to this ban to just delete the post." That's not discrete, private, or respectful.

Additionally, there's this beautiful and mature reply from an admin in another appeal thread, which is neither constructive nor respectful.

In both of these instances that you just pointed out, this was the second time the person was banned. Both of these people were unbanned, then they decided to be idiots so they got rebanned. We agreed to give both of these people a second chance and you can see how they handled it.

If you're going to act like an asshole to the admins here AFTER they give you a second chance (because you were banned), then laughing even harder at your request for a removal of you second ban is very appropriate.

[Heimlich]

... laughing even harder at your request for a removal of you second ban is very appropriate.

No, mocking somebody when they're down especially when that admin is not directly involved in the ban in question and is, therefore, breaking the purported rules of the forum is an abuse of the position.

Anyway, thanks for making my decision whether or not to continue playing on & donating to CSn easy. You've perfectly demonstrated the lack of respect and consideration that CSn admins have for us peons.

[FlamingOwlOfDeath]

In both of these instances that you just pointed out, this was the second time the person was banned. Both of these people were unbanned, then they decided to be idiots so they got rebanned. We agreed to give both of these people a second chance and you can see how they handled it.

If you're going to act like an asshole to the admins here AFTER they give you a second chance (because you were banned), then laughing even harder at your request for a removal of you second ban is very appropriate.

Regardless of the circumstances surrounding these bans, the behavior on the part of the specific admins was neither mature nor appropriate. When individual admins decide to comport themselves in this manner they damage the credibility of the admins as a whole.

[Maringue]

You've perfectly demonstrated the lack of respect and consideration that CSn admins have for us peons.

I've got all the respect in the world for the people who play here, which is why I am seriously engaging you in this conversation. The reason why I respect players here so much is that, on multiple occasions, someone has broken a rule and before I had the chance to warn the person, several other players in the server gave them a warning. I think that's awesome and have total respect for that.

On the other hand, I have zero respect for people who violate our rules knowingly.

[stanley]

looking at the 3 chance thing, we pretty much already have this....unless someone is hacking, the admin will warn, MOST admins will even let it happen again with just another stern warning. then kick, then ban. thats 3 chances already. if someone goes that far and gets banned, it means they're just an asshole. also, youre saying we should treat everyone the same, which i agree with, but thats simply not possible because the same situation almost never happens exactly the same, every situation will be different, and so the action will vary.
also, the whole thing about saying "i want every mod to delete a contest to the ban" thing was completely appropriate for the situation. he broke the rules, got banned, was lucky to be unbanned and then broke our trusting him that he would never do it again...he didnt deserve to be unbanned.

[Wakka]

I feel like this would be more productive if people could point to specific bans they feel were unjust (not really referring to ban threads).

also stanley is pretty much on point

[Heimlich]

looking at the 3 chance thing, we pretty much already have this....unless someone is hacking, the admin will warn, MOST admins will even let it happen again with just another stern warning. then kick, then ban. thats 3 chances already.

Stanley,

The warn, kick, perma-ban system doesn't appear to work very well to me. A warning is easily missed in text chat (and not everybody has voice chat enabled), kicking doesn't give the people involved any time to calm their tempers, and the perma-ban is harsh.

One problem is that the entire process can occur in minutes and that's not amenable to how humans work when they're agitated.

The first two steps in the policy you describe are inadequate to communicate the seriousness of their behavior and that results in unnecessary perma-bans that prevent friends from playing together.

An important part of this proposal (that is, a part that seems important to me) is to replace kicks, gags, mutes with an automatic 1-day ban. That gives the rule-breaker time to settle down and think about whether they really want to try their luck again. It tolerates human emotion and imperfect judgment by players and admins alike.

[Wakka]

I don't think warn/[mute/gag/]kick/ban necessarily means warn/kick/permaban

[Phantom]

I don't think warn/[mute/gag/]kick/ban necessarily means warn/kick/permaban

It dose not.
Basically this three chances is going to let more un-wanted behavior rain in our servers. I cant think of no possible way to patrol everyone.

[FlamingOwlOfDeath]

I don't think warn/[mute/gag/]kick/ban necessarily means warn/kick/permaban

So if it does not mean permaban, then when does perma come in to the equation? In other words, when is perma acceptable? Because I have seen instances with multiple warnings and kicks, and there never is a ban, and other instances in which a warning proceeds directly to a permaban. This is the essence of the problem, at least in my mind.

[Heimlich]

I don't think warn/[mute/gag/]kick/ban necessarily means warn/kick/permaban

Then I invite you to look at http://slay1.critsandvich.com/ban/index.php?p=banlist and tell me what apparent policy exists. I see about 120 permanent bans, one 9 year ban, one 500 month one, a 17-ish that are an hour or less (some of which are obviously tests), and 10 that are on the order of a day.

[stanley]

The first two steps in the policy you describe are inadequate to communicate the seriousness of their behavior and that results in unnecessary perma-bans that prevent friends from playing together.

first off, when i say "dude im serious, dont say/do that shit again or im kicking" in green text chat, i think it gets the point across, and its rare that anyone ever misses green text chat. even if they do, and they get kicked, they come back, ask why they were kicked, and then its explained to them, no problems, point across.
also, i dont want to make assumptions, but if the friend that you played with here was dabeezy, he was banned for like a week...and the point apparently didnt sink in. also, we dont have a warn kick perma ban system, we have a warn, mute/gag, kick, ban system. if the person isnt being a complete ass, they probably wont even get perma'd.

[Vivi Hill]

I hate to tell you, but bans are already publicly-viewable at http://slay1.critsandvich.com/ban/index.php?p=banlist.

I didn't word that very well. I didn't mean we don't like to air our bans in public, I meant we didn't like starting threads about it, which always leads to useless arguments and youtube posts.

Though it is possible for an admin to do a search before any bans he makes, this sounds like it would make an admin's job very difficult. It's hard enough as it is to keep track of the person's actions in one session. Having to go to the bans site and cross-reference every time seems, to me, to be a bit steep. Admins aren't paid for their services, so if they're in-game, they want to deal with the issue in the server and get back to their own game. Adding another layer to this process seems like it would encourage people to be more open to disobeying the rules, if they are given so much leeway.

As stanley says above, we do give people a lot of chances. Both voice chat and text chat in TF2 is opt-in, push to talk. The person should NOT be holding down V or pressing Y once they're warned. They can vent all they want outside the server in their own home, but they should quit it with the racism, sexism, and homophobia transmitted to the servers. I have so much trouble trying to understand how human error can be translated to the text chat system. I mean, you have to press enter to send the message.


It seems to me like most of the complaints here are due to a lack of knowledge of the history behind these bans. You can take lots of things out of context by looking at forums. We're very generous about ban lengths, however when someone is banned they might not be able to see how long the ban lasts, which gets them thinking it's a permanent ban when it may just be a week. As Wakka says, I can't find a good example of the system not working well. So far your examples have just appeared to you to be good examples due to being taken out of context.

Then I invite you to look at http://slay1.critsandvich.com/ban/index.php?p=banlist and tell me what apparent policy exists. I see about 120 permanent bans, one 9 year ban, one 500 month one, a 17-ish that are an hour or less (some of which are obviously tests), and 10 that are on the order of a day.

This is because our ban system is new, and most of these are imported from our old system which didn't support temp bans very well. We only have about 60 bans with the new system including temp bans. Look at the icons to see when the system came into use. Plus, these previous bans are almost all from hacks of some sort, and they're from about a year and a half of server operations. Some might even be from TFGN days. (and the weird 9 year ones are from when some admins couldn't permaban through the system)

[Failhorse]

Our rules are very simple. People are not.

We give latitude to the people who police our servers. Most of our rules were community created. Every Admin has their own take on said rules. Some will let certain things go, others won't. This is their choice. In the end the rules are posted, and if someone feels like violating them, they will get banned. There is a procedure. If you've been warned and keep going. Guess what? Kick or not you don't deserve to be here. This is a great community, and 99.4% of the players spend every moment here not creating problems.

FYI
Verbal warnings, from an admin, are just as potent as a kick.
Mutes and gags, though in the procedure as a corrective measure. Do nothing. Bad mic? yes. Childish behavior? no.
Any warnings given by an admin continue until the player has acknowledged. They are not missed.

I've heard some shitty ass excuses to get unbanned. And most of the time we will give someone another chance. But if you were banned, get unbanned. and fuck up again... Well there are no warnings. This is especially true for Csn's 2 magic words.

Just think. When we started this 3 years ago we had a 0 tolerance policy. Oddly our ban list (less hackers) was a lot smaller.

Another FYI. Drop the Fa- bomb on an admin. Don't expect to get unbanned again.

[Snowsickle]

Seriously? The rules here are about as simple and straightforward as they come. If you need three chances to follow a set of rules which can honestly be summed up as "respect other players and don't be a raging douche", then frankly I don't think you belong here.

Second, I see no reason to sit around and hold people's hand through figuring out what the rules are. I don't walk into someones house and start doing stupid shit until someone tells me not to. I figure out what is and isn't expected of me, and I do it. Our admins are nice enough to make it clear when you're breaking a rule and it really should only take one warning.

[Wakka]

a lot of those permas are imported or hacks. recent ratios are not near what your post suggests

[stanley]

also, you said that people take time to cool down, and thats more than a few minutes. thats why theres a gag/mute. if someone is gagged or muted, that gives them some time to cool down itself. a ban doesnt have to be enforced when we have a gag/mute feature

[FlamingOwlOfDeath]

I just wanted to say that this really didn't begin in protest of any particular bans. Have I been influenced by the recent bans? Absolutely. The bottom line is that I have noticed that a large section of the CSn community has become increasingly unhappy with how the rules are being enforced.

As I have said, the rules are not difficult to understand--they are pretty intuitive. However that does not mean that admins should be given free reign to impose whatever punishment they feel like at the moment. Can someone explain to me what is so problematic about having a specific order of penalties that admins should adhere to?

As to the warn, mute/gag, kick, ban comment, part of my issue is that I have never seen this implemented properly. As I mentioned before, I have seen on multiple occasions that some players get placed in a warn-mute/gag loop, while others go directly from warn to permaban for very similar behaviors. If this were not the case, I would be much happier supporting the current system, but in my mind the system we have in place has failed.

[stanley]

I just wanted to say that this really didn't begin in protest of any particular bans. Have I been influenced by the recent bans? Absolutely. The bottom line is that I have noticed that a large section of the CSn community has become increasingly unhappy with how the rules are being enforced.

As I have said, the rules are not difficult to understand--they are pretty intuitive. However that does not mean that admins should be given free reign to impose whatever punishment they feel like at the moment. Can someone explain to me what is so problematic about having a specific order of penalties that admins should adhere to?

As to the warn, mute/gag, kick, ban comment, part of my issue is that I have never seen this implemented properly. As I mentioned before, I have seen on multiple occasions that some players get placed in a warn-mute/gag loop, while others go directly from warn to permaban for very similar behaviors. If this were not the case, I would be much happier supporting the current system, but in my mind the system we have in place has failed.

it doesnt sound like its the system that makes you unhappy,but the enforcement of it.

[cloud]

+1
I approve. There has been alot of turmoil over current events in the lovenest as well.

[Heimlich]

also, you said that people take time to cool down, and thats more than a few minutes. thats why theres a gag/mute. if someone is gagged or muted, that gives them some time to cool down itself. a ban doesnt have to be enforced when we have a gag/mute feature

I strongly disagree with this claim. Gag/mute does not necessarily encourage people to cool down, it can easily do the opposite. If somebody's pissy, drunk, or having a bad day, then when you stick a gag/mute on somebody for 10 minutes, they're more likely to stew and get angrier than they are to calm down.

[stanley]

also, you said that people take time to cool down, and thats more than a few minutes. thats why theres a gag/mute. if someone is gagged or muted, that gives them some time to cool down itself. a ban doesnt have to be enforced when we have a gag/mute feature

I strongly disagree with this claim. Gag/mute does not necessarily encourage people to cool down, it can easily do the opposite. If somebody's pissy, drunk, or having a bad day, then when you stick a gag/mute on somebody for 10 minutes, they're more likely to stew and get angrier than they are to calm down.

nothing calms me down more than waiting 30 seconds for a map to change, but thats just me. and i dont mean to sound like a dick, but if someone gets mad because THEY break the rules and get mad about how its being handled, so much so that they decide they need to rage for 10 minutes, i dont think we want these people on our server...

[LegendarySurgeon]

also, you said that people take time to cool down, and thats more than a few minutes. thats why theres a gag/mute. if someone is gagged or muted, that gives them some time to cool down itself. a ban doesnt have to be enforced when we have a gag/mute feature

I strongly disagree with this claim. Gag/mute does not necessarily encourage people to cool down, it can easily do the opposite. If somebody's pissy, drunk, or having a bad day, then when you stick a gag/mute on somebody for 10 minutes, they're more likely to stew and get angrier than they are to calm down.

Why do you keep bringing up people being angry and needing to calm down?

[Vivi Hill]

I'm not going to name the community (it would be relatively easy to look it up) but what they did once when they had a problem was literally permaban everyone in the related group (I was in this group at the time). At first I used to think this was absurd, but in the end it solves the problem. A ban is not a huge deal. It's not a mark on your permanent criminal record. It gets the problematic people off the server, and they move on.

This is certainly an effective way to solve problems on the server, but it's much more blunt than what we do here. I don't think it's something we should do as we're more friendly than that, but you should realize that we're surprisingly open with our system compared to other communities. I'm not going to ever claim our admin system is perfect, but I'm not sure there is any way to improve it much. Bans are very circumstantial, and I think a centralized 3 try system will just make things worse.

Stanley has another good point. Our admins are in no way infallible. It does seem like things would be helped if the admins who are causing the problems are talked to, and maybe even removed if it comes to it.

And yes, the whole "getting angry" thing doesn't make much sense. Will they be less angry if they are banned and they don't know how long the ban lasts? I doubt it. It's the Internet. You have complete control over what emotions you expose to people. To me the point seems moot.

[Failhorse]

The rules are very straight forward. If you're mad by recent bans, or say "a lot" of people are. Tough shit. Almost every permanent ban on the system is a hacker. Keep in mind, everything there that says "banned by console" was an imported ban. All of those were steam IDs of known hackers .

There are a handful that are bans for other reasons. And all but 2 have gotten a second chance and blew it. If you get unbanned then drop the fa-bomb on an admin. You're done. Period.

The vocal minority doesn't move me. We have 25k people in our steam group. Some 1100 people play our servers every day. Less than 15, total, can't get beyond their childish nature. They absolutely don't belong here.

Edit - I noticed a bunch of people viewing, possibly writing replies when I locked this. If you saved the text, message it to me and I'll add it. Otherwise, too far off topic, and we're done. Owl, thanks for trying.

If you have concerns about this thread being locked. Feel free to start a thread "A proposal concerning forum moderation."