The Permaban Penalty

[V.I.]

INK: You've made your point quite starkly. You believe the mods are doing their jobs well, and that we should stop whining when individuals are refused access to the forums on a website which they support monetarily.

Your argument: "Oh no, whatever will we do?" solidifies the lack of importance you place on the ability to express ideas and interact with individuals who share similar interests (like not playing RISK.)

I respectfully disagree with your sentiments. I also wouldn't expect someone with less than 300 posts to really care about posting in forums, so perhaps your opinion is, shall I say, less educated on the matter at hand.

[AAFitz]

You say its unfair and arbitrary, I say it isnt. The rules are clear. Warnings are always given for such actions. If someone ignores a warning, they may get banned. Its perfectly clear.

Even the US judicial system allows for varying punishments, so that a judge may use his discretion to decide the punishment that is specifically appropriate for a particular crime.

The rules are clear to me, as they are to any reasonable person in here. If you ignore warnings, the mods may decide to ban you. They will as a group discuss the case, possibly even vote, and then make a decision. These cases, are typically extreme, and unique in their own circumstances. The decisions arent made lightly, and though not all will agree with the decisions. Many will.

[Risktaker17]

Permabands don't work, if I got permaband I would just make a multi account, I would call it 71rekatksiR

[V.I.]

You say its unfair and arbitrary, I say it isnt. The rules are clear. Warnings are always given for such actions. If someone ignores a warning, they may get banned. Its perfectly clear.

Even the US judicial system allows for varying punishments, so that a judge may use his discretion to decide the punishment that is specifically appropriate for a particular crime.

The rules are clear to me, as they are to any reasonable person in here. If you ignore warnings, the mods may decide to ban you. They will as a group discuss the case, possibly even vote, and then make a decision. These cases, are typically extreme, and unique in their own circumstances. The decisions arent made lightly, and though not all will agree with the decisions. Many will.

Fitz, you're missing our argument. The rules are (somewhat) clear, however the way in which the rules are enforced allows for waffling on the part of the moderators.

To take your own words: "If someone ignores a warning, the may get banned." May? May get banned? That sounds about as clear as mud.

We are asking for consistency on the enforcement of the rules. This conversation has nothing to do with rules themselves.

[sully800]

Here's an example of Norse breaking guidelines in the past. This is from Cheating and Abuse when I correctly busted one of Norse's flaming pals, suggs.

This looks like bullshit.....how is this possibly proved by these fucking half-assed occurances?

You are shit sully, you fucking retard...cunts like you put 2 and 2 together and get 5..

Im going to get one of your seniors to review this, you peice of shit, because you cany be trusted to make these "big" decisions by yourself

Cock.

Faggots..

"oh sully, let me suck your cock"

[Risktaker17]

I don't see anything wrong....

[Frop]

Just waded through this confusing thread, but I think it comes down to the mods posting a list of punishments.

[Dancing Mustard]

Here's an example of Norse breaking guidelines in the past. This is from Cheating and Abuse when I correctly busted one of Norse's flaming pals, suggs.

This looks like bullshit.....how is this possibly proved by these fucking half-assed occurances?

You are shit sully, you fucking retard...cunts like you put 2 and 2 together and get 5..

Im going to get one of your seniors to review this, you peice of shit, because you cany be trusted to make these "big" decisions by yourself

Cock.

Faggots..

"oh sully, let me suck your cock"

*Sigh*

Nobody is saying that Norse didn't do things wrong... we're saying that the current system of sanctions is outdated and unfair.

I know that most permabans are greeted by "X was not that bad really", but this is a bit deeper than that. We agree Norse did bad things, but we think that the system itself is unfair for all posters, and that it needs refining and making more sophisticated, to better allow it to respond to the disciplinary needs of the CC community.

Coleman was on the right track with his comments, but a whole load of other (usually intelligent) posters seem to be missing the point of this one.




PS. Fitz, I'll get right back to you in the morning, but right now It's bedtime.

[AAFitz]

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.

Your definition of widely is perhaps not completely accurate. This thread represents a very small percentage of the population in here, and from what Ive read, the majority despise racist comments and offensive behavior in here. They would prefer more bans, rather to less, and it is the moderators you are complaining about, that insure an open, and liberal site.

I originally posted in here, only because wachica was dragged into this, who, as he explained, has a personal opinion of racism, and didnt deserve to be thrown into this situation.

I do not blindly back up the mods in their decisions. When I disagree with them, youll see I use just as many words to do so. I simply post my opinion, and try to be as unbiased as possible. In this case, I happen to think they have a fair system, and I know they put a lot of time into these decisions, and probably more energy than they should.

[V.I.]

Just waded through this confusing thread, but I think it comes down to the mods posting a list of punishments.

That about sums it up, Frop.

When X occurs, Y will occur.

When X(2) occurs, Y(2) will occur.

Etc. etc. etc.

Consistency of enforcement.

[Dancing Mustard]

the majority despise racist comments and offensive behavior in here. They would prefer more bans, rather to less, and it is the moderators you are complaining about, that insure an open, and liberal site.

Please get it into your head that I am not arguing that Norse ought not have been reprimanded.

I am saying that the current system of automatically increasing bans is arbitrary, and forces moderators to hand out disproportionate punishments for relatively minor infractions. A more sophisticated system would be not only fairer, but better able to enforce discipline here. A permaban in this situation (and indeed in past situations) is disproportionate to what was required.

Do you follow that yet? Or are you still determined to have a "He said, she said" discussion of Norse's personal posting history?

[Frop]

Wacicha wasn't dragged in here, he posted first himself. V.I. just called him out on his moderator responsibilities, but I'm still not sure whether he has any. On one side he's talking about "his forum", "his neck in the woods" and "other mods", but when the shit really hits the fan he's not a moderator all of sudden.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm really not getting any of this. I think this thread ends abruptly if any of the mods puts up a list like "three strike is out for <random offense>", etc.

[V.I.]

Your definition of widely is perhaps not completely accurate. This thread represents a very small percentage of the population in here, and from what Ive read, the majority despise racist comments and offensive behavior in here. They would prefer more bans, rather to less, and it is the moderators you are complaining about, that insure an open, and liberal site.

I originally posted in here, only because wachica was dragged into this, who, as he explained, has a personal opinion of racism, and didnt deserve to be thrown into this situation.

Still missing the point, Fitz. Create all the rules you want, make a rule than any individual who uses the letters E, F, J, O, and the numbers 7 and 8 will receive a warning.

Ok, so they receive a warning. What happens if I break the rules again? Another warning? What about a third indiscretion? Yet another warning? Perhaps a temporary ban? How long will it last?

Our issue is with the fact that nowhere is it posted exactly how many warnings equal a temp ban, how many temp bans equal a perma ban. This is our concern. At the moment, there is a lack of consistency in the way in which offenders are dealt by the Mods.

Finally, Wachica was not dragged into anything. Go back and reread the first page if this is still in question.

[rebelman]

Seriously people can we please stay on topic, this thread is NOT ABOUT NORSE - it is meant be a balanced critique of the current disciplinary system operated on this site and especially the appropriate use of the option of last resort - the perma-ban, particularly but not exclusively relating to the forums.

[Risktaker17]

Seriously people can we please stay on topic, this thread is NOT ABOUT NORSE - its meant be a balanced critique of the current disciplinary system operated on this site, particularly but not exclusively relating to the forums.

[edbeard]

don't do / post stupid shit and then none of this matters

/thread

[V.I.]

Now that the actual issue has been identified, and the fog lifted, perhaps we can discuss ways to remedy seen deficiencies in the enforcement process.

I am in favor of complete transparency between rule-breakers and rule-makers. Should there be a clearly defined number of "warnings" that equal a temporary ban?

[AAFitz]

I fully understand what you are asking for. Youre asking for a strict outline of exactly how the mods will make decisions.

Ive already said, that you actually dont want that, and you will be the first to complain when it is used arbitrarily because two situations are not the same.

The number of warnings will not necessarily reflect a persons need to be perma banned. Its not the number of warnings thats important, its the content of the infraction.

As I posted before, even laws have flexibility when it comes to punishments, because every crime is different with different factors. On the books two people can commit the exact same crime, but one may recieve 10 years more than the other due to the circumstances of the crime, that were decided by a judge.

If the laws were unilateral, and inflexible, they would be more unfair, not more fair. Further, no player in here... not one has to worry about being perma banned. The only ones that do, are the ones that have been repeatedly warned. If someone gets banned after repeated warnings, whether its 3 or 13, they were still warned. Personally, I prefer the flexibility, so that if a person who doesnt deserve a permaban needs some less forceful warnings, and their number technically goes over the number, someone can decide if its not warranted, and not just act on a rule thats written down.

I dont think most are suprised in cases like this when someone is permabanned... I think its more likely that they are surprised that it didnt happen sooner.

In any case, the mods are doing a great job of trying to keep this place positive. Theyve made many changes, and are continuing to do so. They are putting their own energy and time into doing this, and I have no doubt they will come up with more clear rules in the future. But blaming them for situations like this, when they could be avoided by players purposefully breaking the rules, and ignoring rules is just not fair.

[wrestler1ump]

You people are slow. 9 pages of jibberish and you have resolved nothing.

I see hecter dragged my name into this discussion (way back on the first page):

What I want to know is this:
Why is it that people who nobody (or few) like and would rather they be permanently banned from the CC forums are allowed to roam free (wrestler1ump, for example) whilst members that were loved by many are band (Norse and RK)? Is it not the job of the moderators to keep the community happy?

If any of you need an example of a good forum user, look to me. I may push things a little bit, but I don't cross the line. Quite frankly I don't care if none of you like me. I am here and I am here to stay. I know better than to do something idiotic like what Norse did. I have said some racist, sexist, profane and even slanderous things. I have been busted with a multi. I have been put on a forum ban. I have been kicked out of live chat. I have been on two separate feedback bans. The reason I'm still here? Because I know when to put a lid on it.

Many of you liked Norse during his time here. That's fine and peachy. The bottom line is that it doesn't matter how any of you feel. For the purpose of consistent rules enforcement, Norse had to be banned. People think that Norse should stay here because he was popular amongst a small portion of the Conquerclub community. Does that mean that anybody who you "like" should be allowed to break the rules? Should Sully be allowed to create multis because she is well liked by most? Should Clapper be permitted to spam live chat because she is popular? I shall point to the rule of law in stating that nobody, no matter how prestigious or popular, has the right to break rules.

It's not a difficult concept folks. Break the rules, disregard the warnings, get perma banned. Quit being so biased and get a clue.

Oh and by the way Norse:

[Frop]

You're calling everybody slow even though you missed the point? Congrats.

[AAFitz]

Wacicha wasn't dragged in here, he posted first himself. V.I. just called him out on his moderator responsibilities, but I'm still not sure whether he has any. On one side he's talking about "his forum", "his neck in the woods" and "other mods", but when the shit really hits the fan he's not a moderator all of sudden.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm really not getting any of this. I think this thread ends abruptly if any of the mods puts up a list like "three strike is out for <random offense>", etc.

Yes, three strikes youre out, would be very easy.. Problem is, then you get a situation where someones one strike was ten times worse than another players 3 strikes combined. Youre asking for a fair system to be put into place, but want to remove the flexibility of human judgement, which will actually make it more unfair.

The mods will always use their discretion when it comes to things like this. If you think people are being banned unfairly, then making the rules more strict, and less flexible, is not what you really want.

[Frop]

I was only posting here because so many people seemed to miss the point.

Wicked mentioned there was such a list of punishments up somewhere, but the mods still have to publicize them. If that elusive list isn't elaborate enough to cover at least 75% of the common offenses they should be amended and/or rewritten (most offenses are mentioned in the rules anyway). Once they are clear enough you would avoid those nasty situations you keep mentioning and I'm sure nobody minds the occasional admin discretion if it's motivated properly.

[wacicha]

Wacicha wasn't dragged in here, he posted first himself. V.I. just called him out on his moderator responsibilities, but I'm still not sure whether he has any. On one side he's talking about "his forum", "his neck in the woods" and "other mods", but when the shit really hits the fan he's not a moderator all of sudden.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm really not getting any of this. I think this thread ends abruptly if any of the mods puts up a list like "three strike is out for <random offense>", etc.

Do not know how to say it, I am a babysitter for lack of a better word.. I babysit GD. The mods mod even me. they are the oversite committee. I just watch this particular area. Now that is said. I have no problem with the discussion as long as it follows the Guidelines set out in this Forum.

If I get out of line even i will be reprimanded. But all i asked in this discussion was for both sides to be represented. Instead certain individuals decided I was a power hungry mod.

I am far from power hungry, but if Things get out of hand it will be handled by the mods, so I do put in my 2 cents worth to try and keep this area in the right format.

[unriggable]

If any of you need an example of a good forum user, look to me. I may push things a little bit, but I don't cross the line.

There's an ego on the loose. FYI this is a reason people dont like you. No guts, no glory.

That's what makes norse so likeable. And yes, punishment needs to be based on offence, not if its the nth's time its been done.

[wrestler1ump]

If any of you need an example of a good forum user, look to me. I may push things a little bit, but I don't cross the line.

There's an ego on the loose. FYI this is a reason people dont like you. No guts, no glory.

That's what makes norse so likeable. And yes, punishment needs to be based on offence, not if its the nth's time its been done.

I don't understand what you mean by the statement "no guts, no glory". I'm not hiding anything that I've done. If you're implying that it takes guts to get banned, well I find getting banned on purpose to be plain dumb.

Your second paragraph is a good point, but the thing to keep in mind that whatever the standards are, one has to know how to abide by them. If a series of warnings are issued before giving out a ban, then that's the system they use.