Count Grishnackh wrote:
> Separate bans
Adding that option to the system would cost a bunch of development time. In order to do what, make sure people who misbehave don't suffer too many consequences? That seems a mighty strange goal to aim for.
I have a counter-proposal: behave properly on the forums and behave properly in the game, that's a great way to not get a suspension in either of them!
> Ban appeals
> There are countless instances when bans were unfair. There should be a ban appeals
> section on the forums where one can petition a ban to be revoked or reduced. Nothing
> should be final, opinions change, new evidence comes in. Ban reasons are subjective
> anyway.
Hell no, that's a horrible idea! :-o It would probably take all of three seconds for somebody to register an alt, go way overboard on unacceptable behaviour, then go to the appeals forum to post lengthy messages along the lines of "I should totally be allowed to say [horrendous racial slur]" or "Oh come on, I agree that [outrageous homophobia] was out of line, but it should only get me a one-week suspension at most; the two weeks I got would be more appropriate if I had said [something even worse]". And they'd be immune to further sanctions, because "they didn't really say it, it was only part of the discussion".
Of course some things should be final. How about the outcome of the appeal; if that weren't final, you could appeal the appeal (ad infinitum). Opinions might slightly shift, but won't completely turnaround. If there truly is new evidence (where exactly did it come from though?) which considerably changes matters, I'm sure Fizzer would be open to an appeal... in private correspondence, not on the forums.
Just because there is a "grey area" (some subjectivity) doesn't mean the suspensions given out aren't clearly "black" (way out of line). If the rule is "don't injure other people", you could argue about whether a slap in the face counts (or whether it's merely "hurting", not "injuring"). However, that argument is utterly irrelevant when somebody empties a machine gun on another person; sure, a grey area exists... but nowhere near that case!
> Clearly defining rule-violating behavior
> (..) Also, bans should spell out which rule was violated instead of quoting things
> you said.
Oh yes, because it would be awesome if people could very carefully read the rules, find a tiny glitch and completely break the spirit of the rules without technically breaking the exact phrasing of the rule. Sure, "be respectful" is rather non-specific, but it's a lot better than "no racism, no sexism, no homophobia", because then Trump *) could come on here and call Mexicans murderers and rapists ("Mexican" is a nationality, not a race, so technically not a violation of this rule).
Going by Fizzer's reply, if all you get as justification for your warning or suspension is a few quotes, you can probably assume you broke the "be a decent person" rule...
*) For my fellow Dutchmen: yes, in our system I would have used "Donald T.". Off-topic: is there anybody who can explain me why that clown isn't in jail yet...!?
> Eliminating favoritism
While you are completely right that favouritism is bad, you have only explained why it's bad; you have not made a case it currently exists on WL. If you have the impression it does, there are a few things to keep in mind:
- If you see somebody get a suspension for something like "jeesh, are you stupid!?", it's entirely possible that's the worst thing you've seen them say, but there is no way to verify it actually is what the suspension was for. They might very well have said far worse things in private chat (or team chat, if you weren't on their team), in another game, in a private message on the forums or in a forum thread you didn't read.
- Warnings are invisible to other players: if you see "a friend of Fizzer" say something bad, there is no way for you to know whether they got a warning for it.
- Suspensions ("temporary bans") become invisible to other players as soon as they've ended: if you see "a friend of Fizzer" say something extremely bad, the only way for to know whether they got a suspension for it is to keep refreshing their profile page.
This also means you can't go back to old games and actively search for favouritism; it will seem like nobody ever gets a suspension for anything.
- Real bans ("permanent bans") are visible to everyone and remain that way. However, I'd hope that these are extremely rare...
Prussian Monarchist wrote:
> Separate bans is a basic feature on almost every single gaming site on the web.
That reasoning is flawed: just because "almost every single gaming site" chooses a certain approach, does not automatically mean it's the best one! How would new ideas ever get off the ground if you could only do things the way everybody else does them?
Nogals wrote:
> Once I got banned for saying "who cares". No profanity, just "who cares".
Interesting story; did you accidentally forget to include what nobody cares about, or was that on purpose? I can think of several contexts in which the reply "who cares" is worthy of a sanction, even without profanity.
> Banned for a week. Tomateo uses offensive and racist language several times and
> nothing happens.
While I'm very allergic to racism (and commend your finding it unacceptable), I'm afraid I'll have to play devil's advocate here: "nothing happens
in a way visible to you". That's a big difference with nothing happening at all. There's a more detailed explanation earlier in this post; see the bulleted list in my reply to Count Grishnackh.
