Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Deathblade
Did you even read what you typed or did you copypaste it from some forum?

Maybe you are confused what a disciplinary hearing is, and/or just chose the wrong words for your post?

I typed it all out, I believe we have different connotations of disciplinary hearing. I laid out what I was thinking the entire system would look like in the above thread, I was not envisioning a set court date with everyone having to be logged in and on a certain issue at a certain time.

I take it you haven't played LoL but that is the general discipline system there called the tribunal

And as I said, I partially agree with it for "big deal" bans, like gaming the system, cheating, game ban for breaking too many rules.

I think it is completely ridiculous for forum suspensions. Spend 2 days on "trial" for a suspension that last 1 or 2 days, while being able to freely post to your hearts content. Just dumb.

I have no problem with transparency, and I think there should be more of it, but setting up a trial for a suspension that is shorter than my digestive period just seems dumb as hell.

-1 to OP I do not think the Mods are abusing their powers. people that get banned usually deserve it or atleast I have most everytime I caught a ban. so basically I do not need to have a court/jury or discipline review to go over what I did wrong. If someone breaks the rules then they should be grown up enough to accept the penalties for breaking thoise rules.

But even in the "big deal" ban cases, you have the admins publicly making a case against users. Just reeks of a PR nightmare, and seems it would create even more resentment and bitterness than the current system.

I mean, how paranoid would Dub J be if he was on trial and an admin was the state prosecutor?

He already thinks they are "out to get him". Imagine if they put up a little rinky dink court case against him.

Then you also have the "this post wasn't allowed to be posted in this public forum, so we moved it to another public forum for your court case".

There's also "favoritism" of the user base.

All of RM's fans would flock to his court case to let him free because they don't think saying an entire race lives in dirt huts is racist, or because they just like RM, and the people that RM told to go vouch for him. Other random people won't see it.

Unless of course you incentivize the entire process. Then you'll have people just going through clicking +1 on everything to get their free flex or whatever.

Originally posted by Deathblade
And as I said, I partially agree with it for "big deal" bans, like gaming the system, cheating, game ban for breaking too many rules.

I think it is completely ridiculous for forum suspensions. Spend 2 days on "trial" for a suspension that last 1 or 2 days, while being able to freely post to your hearts content. Just dumb.

I have no problem with transparency, and I think there should be more of it, but setting up a trial for a suspension that is shorter than my digestive period just seems dumb as hell.

Add a provision in there that while under review, you are under forum probation and any additional infraction is an immediate suspension, something like that? Not entirely foolproof but we could hammer that out.

Also, try a bit of fiber.

Originally posted by hatchman
-1 to OP I do not think the Mods are abusing their powers. people that get banned usually deserve it or atleast I have most everytime I caught a ban. so basically I do not need to have a court/jury or discipline review to go over what I did wrong. If someone breaks the rules then they should be grown up enough to accept the penalties for breaking thoise rules.

You dont have to have one, its for people that want one. I took my last suspension, no argument, because I didnt feel I needed to argue it. Take it and go on with your day, or open one, see how it goes, and start serving your suspension when it closes if you are determined to deserve it

Originally posted by Deathblade
But even in the "big deal" ban cases, you have the admins publicly making a case against users. Just reeks of a PR nightmare, and seems it would create even more resentment and bitterness than the current system.

I'd hope we could be more professional than that. I would expect less "this asshat constantly does shit like this" and more "In my opinion, this was offensive to _____, and on that ground I think a suspension of posting privileges is necessary"

Originally posted by rams78110
Also, try a bit of fiber.

I've tried, but it doesn't really help.

It's not even that it's hard to pass, it's generally fairly soft, it just takes DAYS for it to happen.

Originally posted by rams78110
I'd hope we could be more professional than that. I would expect less "this asshat constantly does shit like this" and more "In my opinion, this was offensive to _____, and on that ground I think a suspension of posting privileges is necessary"

How is user X going to feel, even if he "gets away with it", if the admins presented a bunch of info to the public while calling him a cheater?

How are all of the "jurors" going to feel? You'll have "they didn't listen to me!" regardless of the outcome. See: the huge amount of butthurt about Mod Wars and people's selections not being chosen.

It just seems to create more room for butthurt to me.

Originally posted by Deathblade
There's also "favoritism" of the user base.

All of RM's fans would flock to his court case to let him free because they don't think saying an entire race lives in dirt huts is racist, or because they just like RM, and the people that RM told to go vouch for him. Other random people won't see it.

Unless of course you incentivize the entire process. Then you'll have people just going through clicking +1 on everything to get their free flex or whatever.

That is where the 'in good standing' part comes in. You dont let any and all posters have free reign to a case, you let the less biased, more competent posters sort something out, and dont let biased parties argue unless they had a direct part in the banning.

Example:
Rams78110: Fucking (insert offensive epithet) always (insert stereotypical activity) and they wonder why people treat them like that.
Hatchman: You trite (insult), how dare you etc etc etc flame war ensues between the 2 parties.
Mod: *banhammer*
Rams78110: I'd like to appeal that, I didnt do anything wrong.

The appeal starts there. Now obviously that isn't one that would last too long in the appeal process, but you get the jist.

JohnnyMulti860 wouldn't be allowed to post in it. However Mod #2, unrelated to the actual incident, could weigh in. Deathblade could at that point come in, say whether or not he thought it was racist, whether or not he thought it deserved a ban. Hatchman, being biased in this instance, would not be allowed to post.

Seem a little clearer?

Originally posted by Deathblade
How is user X going to feel, even if he "gets away with it", if the admins presented a bunch of info to the public while calling him a cheater?

How are all of the "jurors" going to feel? You'll have "they didn't listen to me!" regardless of the outcome. See: the huge amount of butthurt about Mod Wars and people's selections not being chosen.

It just seems to create more room for butthurt to me.

Fair point. We could add separate private tiers with access granted only to mods/admins/reporter/reported/specially designated jury-type people who have access to these tiers based on constant good standing, rare abuses of rules, etc.

This is a complicated issue which is why I put it in the suggestions and asked for feedback, so we would get into the nitty-gritty like this. Flesh it all out, hopefully come out with a system where everyone is happy, because if the forums now are any indication, people aren't

Originally posted by rams78110
JohnnyMulti860 wouldn't be allowed to post in it. However Mod #2, unrelated to the actual incident, could weigh in. Deathblade could at that point come in, say whether or not he thought it was racist, whether or not he thought it deserved a ban. Hatchman, being biased in this instance, would not be allowed to post.

Seem a little clearer?

Who decides who is "in good standing" and not biased?

Who decides JohnnyMulti860 isnt allowed? I mean, if it is an obvious multi, it should already be banned.

What about Rams friends Goat, Bull, Chicken, Sheep, and Kangaroo? Won't they clearly be biased? How do you determine who people's friends are?