Ideas for server rules

[greatgamer34]

1)Visitors

Ok so if youre new to this server, you are automatically a visitor. Here are a few of my rules
that you should follow as a visitor.

I'm implementing a 4 step warning system.

a)Warning 1, is verbal(please stop doing that)
b)Warning 2, is a kick
c)warning 3, is a tempban
d)warning 4, is a permban

This system is wonderful because if you are doing something wrong, that you didnt know was wrong you get a "get out of jail free card.", aka the verbal warning.


2)Guests

Guests are more trusted members of the community that are still not allowed to build on the server.

Their warning system will be the same as visitors except instead of a kick, they get demoted to visitor. I feel this is justifiable because you were once a trusted guest.

3)Members

Members are part of our community that can build and are usually very knowledgable.

This is their warning guidlines and is similar to visitors.

a)Warning 1, is verbal(please stop doing that)
b)Warning 2, is a kick
c)warning 3, is a tempban
d)warning 4, is a permban

4)Students

Students are part of our other server hosting the school server, they are usually not ver knowledgeable and are still learning.

Student warnings are the same as visitors

You are permitted to learn from other students, just remember that theose other students are still learning and my teach you wrong.
If someone of a higher rank informs you of this, they are just trying to help.
Do not think they are a bad person for telling you that the student that was teaching you was wrong.

5)Teachers

Since teachers have to be members on build to get this rank, they have the same warnings as build members.

6)Staff

Staff, are staff because they are trusted high ranking members in the community.

There is not a 'warning' system but more along the lines of how to handle things.

a)Respect other staff members decisions
b)Dont favor one side of a story over another without first having read the logs(not just screenshots)
c)If a staff member is misbehaving, PM them, then report on forums in the R-box. From there if the issue is big enough, it will go to the public.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now for everyone:

Racism is not going to be tolerated, the same goes with using any (gay) terms in a derrogatory way.

Keep religion out of debates on the server and on the forums.

Respect one another, if you are having a problem with someone report it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


IF YOU GET BANNED:

Think about why you got banned.

What you could have done to not get banned.

Was my ban necessary? Was there a reason I shouldnt have gotten banned.

Think about your ban before you appeal.

Bans are issues for a reason and if someone bans you they are not a 'badmin', they are simply doing their job.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[tyler569]

Not that I have any special input on policy anymore, but I simply must respond to this:

Whoa, dude, calm down a moment.

1.

I'm implementing a 4 step warning system.

Just taking control are we? No more productive admin debate?

2.

a)Warning 1, is verbal(please stop doing that)
b)Warning 2, is a kick
c)warning 3, is a tempban
d)warning 4, is a permban

Is way harsher than ORE/the RDF has ever been. I think I'm generally regarded as 'no-nonsense' and I would give more than 4 warnings. I usually used to give 2 or 3 before I would even kick someone.

3.
There is a disturbingly long thread over in incidents (reference) about how quick you are to snap at someone / kick them / ban them, and I notice you've started banning people on my forum as well, do you *really* think implementing a strict ruleset is what this community needs right now? If you ask me, (should you desire my advice) you need to lay the fuck off for a while, because all you'll end up doing is pissing people off and scaring away potential members.

~Tyler

[Guy1234567890]

^agreed

[redstonewarrior]

Something is wrong here, and there is has been no discussion before this announcement. I think staff needs to have a discussion about recent events, especially before posting something like this to the announcements section. People should, of course, both be decent and expect staff to get involved when people are acting poorly, but this post is more concerning than productive. I agree with tyler; this is scary. I think you should have a talk.

[Xeomorpher]

I've only ever been anywhere close to that hash with visitors alone. And that's only if they join and instantly make it known they're going to be arseholes.

Can we get some actual discussion in here too, because we've long been centred around the principles of openness, and simply banning ANY discussion involving religion goes violently against that.

Apart from that, I somewhat disagree with banning the use of any terms relating to homosexuality in a demeaning or insulting manner. Most of these are now quite literally plain insults, like most of our swear words, (motherfucker, cunt, bastard, bitch ...) and when used have no meaning beyond this.

We need a lot of serious discussion before we attempt an overhaul of this scale.

[PabloDons]

I will quote Ice (despite all dem requests not to): "if it's not broken, don't fix it, that will break it" (or something to that matter)
I think the current system is perfectly fine. The guidelines has been the greatest troublemaker filter since ORE was created. I think that staff members should decide what to do on the go, because making rules can lead to confusion like what Xeo (yes, he's actually alive) pointed out. As long as nothing is directed against another player or group of people, it shouldn't matter whatever you say, be it swear words or racial remarks. making rules for what should be punished and what shouldn't makes it hard to avoid punishing a comment that meant no harm.

To set this in perspective, I will go as far as to say that setting rules like "zero tolerance for racism" would encourage banning any and all who say the word "black" in a racial relation. That's absolutely unacceptable for me because not every sentence containing that word is racist and offensive.

[TSO]

I won't vote in this poll because it has little effect on me; but GG, overall, this policy is counter-productive to what you are tying to defend. It appears, from my point of view, you are trying to find a solution to the complaints in other threads about your style of administration. The goal of creating a defined pattern of warnings is a good solution to the problem, but their main complaint about your method is how fast you are to a ban and that you are seen as somewhat insulting to members. You may not see it the same way, but a totalitarian declaration of how you will ban members made immediately after you got tired of defending your position actually does nothing but prove their point.

The fast nature of your ban system doesn't help much either.

I will again say a set of rules should exist, but considering the complaints, they should be more along the following lines:

The staff represent the site. As such, they should conduct themselves in the most polite and concise manner of all members in the forums. The staff gives an impression of how others are allowed to behave, so the staff should not only follow the rules, the staff should also exemplify how a user should conduct themselves in a forum or server. I would advise the staff avoids the use of harsh language, and in the forums, the staff should try their best to use proper language to set a standard for other users. A forum is meant for discussion and communication. Text speak and 1337 are not conducive to the development of a forum.

As representatives of the site as a whole, the staff should encourage the use of public debate, and allow for non-staff to give input on their opinion about changes in administrative policy.

Administrative consensus should be encouraged before action is taken, especially before deciding when to make a permanent decision about banning a member.

If you need a set ban policy, it should encourage collaboration and "second chances." A decent base, but by no means a good final model, would be this. (I haven't even done the math to verify that some of the bans are physically possible.)

Multiple intentionally insulting comments will result in a three hour ban (which will be considered a kick), accompanied by an email describing why the kick occurred.

Spamming will be warned.
2 or 3 repeated warnings within the time span of a week will result in a three day temp ban.

Griefing will result in an immediate (possibly permanent) ban.

Now, the rest is the most important part.

Three kicks or two three day bans will result in an additional one week temp ban.

More than three one week bans within the span of six months will result in a one year ban.

Receiving another one year ban results in a permanent ban.

All bans will go on a six month record. Any year long ban goes on a permanent record.

Avoiding any ban for any reason reason will result in an immediate permanent IP ban.

All bans will result in an email explaining the ban

Any ban longer than three days must be discussed publicly with at least two staff members reaching a consensus.

Exceptionally serious infractions may skip directly to permanent banning, but only after a unanimous consensus from three staff members, one of which must be an administrator.

Any repeated ban longer than one week will revoke a member status, returning them to guest status.

Any repeated ban for a visitor longer than one week will result in a six month ban.

All repeats except year bans are constrained to six months maximum.

Any infraction that would qualify for multiple bans will receive them cumulatively and will be counted toward each distinct ban repeat.

[Xray_Doc]

I know it's kind of off topic, but with all the other types of conversations banned, will political ones be banned as well?

[mort96]

I'll go ahead and agree with the others here. I don't really have a lot to say here anymore, but banning subjects in discussions is as non-open as it gets. Why exactly religion? What if I, as a norwegian, get offended if anyone discusses vikings? Should we ban viking discussion? Or what about discussing historical events where religion was a major factor, would that be okay? To me, that rule seems highly ambiguous, as well as susceptible to becoming a slippery slope.

As for being racist or using homophobic swearwords in a derogatory way, that's already covered by the guidelines:

Maintain polite conversation (do not badmouth other players or engage in excessive swearing).

Generally be kind to others.

When it comes to enforcing stricter rules instead of the looser guidelines and the lack of discussion beforehand, I'll just go ahead and agree with the others.

[xdot]

^agreed

^agreed

[Nickster258]

Can we get some actual discussion in here too, because we've long been centred around the principles of openness, and simply banning ANY discussion involving religion goes violently against that.

If this and all else said by the original staff members are correct, then great is overstepping his bounds as staff and forgetting that being staff means you communicate with other staff members. This can be seen in the reference that Tyler posted.

This is their warning guidlines and is similar to visitors.

a)Warning 1, is verbal(please stop doing that)
b)Warning 2, is a kick
c)warning 3, is a tempban
d)warning 4, is a permban

Also, members should be held to much higher standard than visitors. I have been a member for nearly 2.5 years yet a guy who hopped on the server the other day deserves the same ban guidelines? Sorry, no.

[Xray_Doc]

I think you guys should just go discuss WHAT IS BEING DONE In your private forums. Conversation about the situation I believe should still be allowed here.

[Xeomorpher]

We agree entirely, and that is what should have been done. A post like this however, warrants a response.

[greatgamer34]

this is in announcement's i guess for anyone who thought edits were needed. I should have made that more clear. I will update this with everyones opinions as it gets talked about and debated. I took quite a bit of time to type this up, but it was still only a rough draft.

[TSO]

I would highly advise you read my post, then.

[greatgamer34]

I've only ever been anywhere close to that hash with visitors alone. And that's only if they join and instantly make it known they're going to be arseholes.

Can we get some actual discussion in here too, because we've long been centred around the principles of openness, and simply banning ANY discussion involving religion goes violently against that.

Apart from that, I somewhat disagree with banning the use of any terms relating to homosexuality in a demeaning or insulting manner. Most of these are now quite literally plain insults, like most of our swear words, (motherfucker, cunt, bastard, bitch ...) and when used have no meaning beyond this.

We need a lot of serious discussion before we attempt an overhaul of this scale.

Nuupanani reprimanded me about saying terms like gay, faggot, homo. That is where this comes from..

[greatgamer34]

So what needs to be changed. I wanted the communities involvment in this topic. Please continue adding to what is being said, and can someone(perferably not me cuz i might mess it up and word it wrong) draft up another 'constitution' type of thing with ideas taken from this thread?

[Chibill]

I say delete this thread and leave it along Admins just need to start following the rules in place and enforcing them.

[greatgamer34]

is that the general consensus, if so, then it will be done..

[TSO]

I don't know; the problem is that there are some things that need to addressed.

I'll rewright the proposition for you if you need it to be done, but there isn't much that can be changed in it without altering the current intent.

My question for the staff would be the following: is it better to ban everybody for even the slightest infraction, or ban nobody for even the largest infraction?

@Everyone: I advise we don't just leave this to the staff. They are deciding their policy for banning us, and at least one of them has given us the opportunity to say how we think it should be done.

[greatgamer34]

My question for the staff would be the following: is it better to ban everybody for even the slightest infraction, or ban nobody for even the largest infraction?

can we meet in the middle? theres gotta be a way.

@Everyone: I advise we don't just leave this to the staff. They are deciding their policy for banning us, and at least one of them has given us the opportunity to say how we think it should be done.

that was my original intent, it just wasnt clear.

[TSO]

You can meet in the middle, but I am speaking of the tone and mindset of the system. To outside observers, yours would seem to lean toward the first. At the moment, mine tends to be more toward the latter, but mine is rather tedious.

[greatgamer34]

ill set up a drive document and give a shareable link in this post so anyone/everyone can be a part of this. Ill post my original crap in there, but anyone can modify it ofc..

Its just to get it started..

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xduo...sp=sharing

there it is

[Xray_Doc]

I hope everyone cuts GG a bit of slack. While his actions may not be viewed as the best by the admin team, his mind is in the right place. Also, the title of this thread says these were only ideas.

[greatgamer34]

I hope everyone cuts GG a bit of slack. While his actions may not be viewed as the best by the admin team, his mind is in the right place. Also, the title of this thread says these were only ideas.

i just changed the title.. Previously it was a bit...umm...Dictator-like. When i created this thread i had to leave for class so i rushed the title. Its renamed just to.. make it more friendly..

thanks doc' <3

[TSO]

The original title: "New Rules I am going to follow and expect others to aswell"

That out of the way, I think GG does his job pretty well for the most part. There are things that he should try to address, but they don't have an affect on his ability to do his job.

---

I can't modify it at all. (you have a spelling error.)

[PabloDons]

I'm still going to say that if it's not broken, don't fix it. that would break it.

If you're going to make rules, the openness of ORE is pretty much gone. The guidelines are perfectly fine and has worked out since the start of the server, it's what kept it up until today. If you absolutely must. Making rules is just making everything complicated. I am sure all staff are capable of making such decisions by themselves. It's not about teaching people a lesson, it's about making it better for others.

[greatgamer34]

The original title: "New Rules I am going to follow and expect others to aswell"

That out of the way, I think GG does his job pretty well for the most part. There are things that he should try to address, but they don't have an affect on his ability to do his job.

---

I can't modify it at all. (you have a spelling error.)

should be fixed

[Guy1234567890]

I think common sense can be a good guideline for how to deal with inappropriate behavior. In addition, staff should be held to the highest standard: meaning that whatever staff does should also be permissible for a member, visitor, etc.

[Xray_Doc]

Yeah I didn't realize it was an edit, I've been home sick all day and I'm tired

[TSO]

Does the server keep a record of bans? If so, I'm going to add in exceptions based upon time between infractions.

[greatgamer34]

yes there is a record IIRC

[TSO]

Okay, next question. Is the guest rank for the people approved for trial, but have not successfully completed the trial? If so, I think we can bundle them with students. If not, I'll separate the two again.

I also included a two day minimum after contestation before a ban may be revoked so that the administration may come to a consensus and so that the user may consider their actions.

[Xray_Doc]

Yes, that's what the guest rank is.

[TSO]

Then I just need to format and proofread, and the first draft of the banning process and terms of service will be complete. I did copy the old terms of service in, and I don't think I altered them, I merely added expectations for administrators and some advice for students.

If you are a member, it will take 8 warnings for your first ban, but you will be demoted to guest for a week after three warnings within three months.

I also added in a statement about intentionally misguiding students resulting in a ban.

The "additional staff guidelines" you'll probably want to review.
I'm also considering recall elections if an administrator has too many of their bans revoked in a period of time, but this isn't written in because that would be a large change to an unrelated portion of ORE policy.

[greatgamer34]

i changed the title from ban policy to disciplinary policy.

[Nickster258]

this is in announcement's i guess for anyone who thought edits were needed. I should have made that more clear. I will update this with everyones opinions as it gets talked about and debated. I took quite a bit of time to type this up, but it was still only a rough draft.

I call bullshit. The original post did not have 'Ideas for server rules' yet more of a statement of 'This is the new system'. Only after the community backlash did you change it.

[greatgamer34]

this is in announcement's i guess for anyone who thought edits were needed. I should have made that more clear. I will update this with everyones opinions as it gets talked about and debated. I took quite a bit of time to type this up, but it was still only a rough draft.

I call bullshit. The original post did not have 'Ideas for server rules' yet more of a statement of 'This is the new system'. Only after the community backlash did you change it.

this was the original idea.. Look at the poll no(please explain why so we can edit it).. or something along those lines... Believe what you wish.

[Nickster258]

this is in announcement's i guess for anyone who thought edits were needed. I should have made that more clear. I will update this with everyones opinions as it gets talked about and debated. I took quite a bit of time to type this up, but it was still only a rough draft.

I call bullshit. The original post did not have 'Ideas for server rules' yet more of a statement of 'This is the new system'. Only after the community backlash did you change it.

this was the original idea.. Look at the poll no(please explain why so we can edit it).. or something along those lines... Believe what you wish.

We needed NO new guidelines for enforcing bans. None whatsoever. It is, as Guy said, common sense.

[TSO]

You clearly haven't read what the document currently states. It describes the evolution of your ban, how you should conduct yourself (which has not changed from the original terms of service, except that I added a line about lying to students), how the admins should conduct themselves to help minimize situations such as the current one, and minimum required staff for certain types of ban. As a whole, users will not notice anything different about their experience, except that the administrative decisions are encouraged to be as public as possible, and you aren't allowed to deliberately lie to students about redstone stuff.

Staff are advised to conduct themselves with dignity and set an example for the users, but the restrictions on user's speech have been removed. A ban will only occur if the staff determine what you say has malicious intent.

[Nickster258]

You clearly haven't read what the document currently states. It describes the evolution of your ban, how you should conduct yourself (which has not changed from the original terms of service, except that I added a line about lying to students), how the admins should conduct themselves to help minimize situations such as the current one, and minimum required staff for certain types of ban. As a whole, users will not notice anything different about their experience, except that the administrative decisions are encouraged to be as public as possible, and you aren't allowed to deliberately lie to students about redstone stuff.

Staff are advised to conduct themselves with dignity and set an example for the users, but the restrictions on user's speech have been removed. A ban will only occur if the staff determine what you say has malicious intent.

What I am saying is that there is currently no need to have a 'standard' to these bans. Common sense dictates what would be appropriate in that given situation. Also, the previous staff members all stated that there was no previous discussion of this topic in Rhodium Box. That, combined with the fact that the original wording never suggested this to be a topic for the community to discuss but instead a new set of rules for the community to follow, makes me believe that the community backlash has lead this to a 'discussion' thread.

Even the outcomes of the poll are 80% 'no' (as of writing this). That should be evidence enough that what was posted will not benefit the community at the moment.

[TSO]

As I said before, I have not voted and will not be looking at the pole. All I'm doing is making the rule set that fixes the problems that have been demonstrated this week.

If you aren't going to read it, I don't see why you should get to comment on it.

Also, most of the "no" votes were made either to the original "this is the new law" post, or to the contents in the OP. People don't read the threads they vote on.

[Nickster258]

People don't read the threads they vote on.

You had me then lost me.

I was saying that it seems almost blatantly obvious that greatgamer posted something he shouldn't not have until further staff discussion, and then tried to cover it up by making it a thread to discuss new standards.

For RDF and ORE history, there has not been these standards. In a way, it will work in the negative effect. Some users would have a temp ban after only a few minutes on the server. Others could take much longer.

This is a strict policy that will not benefit users. And quote frankly, it is common sense whether a situation needs a kick, temp ban, or perma ban.

[TSO]

I'm not talking about the OP, I'm talking about this document.
Dude, if you manage to get eight warnings within minutes, without trying to spam or grief, I'd be impressed. If you manage to grief without two admins calling it griefing, I'd be even more impressed.

I always have seen this as a discussion thread, mostly because the poll always said it was, and because it was blatantly obvious that he didn't actually talk to anybody.

The current document barely even relates to that policy anymore.

[LordDecapo]

I personally base my strictness about rules on who is online and if people are complaining. If it is just 2 people and me. And those 2 are making messed you jokes or something (as long as it's not griefing ) I'm not going to do anything. But if someone is online and asks them to stop, then I will take action and give them about 2 MAYBE 3 warnings before a kick. After the kick... if They still do it, I kick them again, and again and again, immedietly the next 3 times They join (this pisses them off more then temp ban and gets points across faster... thinking about trying to get a plug in for it)

Also, I am strongly strongly strongly against a ZeroTolerence kinda system. They never work and people get in trouble for the dumbest shit. Best thing to do is try and be a fair as possible and handle everything on a case by case basis

[Chibill]

Like communism it sounds good on paper but is not good.

[Magic :^)]

I personally base my strictness about rules on who is online and if people are complaining.

Decap has a good point. From the perspective of a member, this is actually how I conduct myself. If someone were to complain about my behaviour, I would stop immediately and apologise. This case-by-case approach seems to be the least complicated way of going about things.

[AltruismAndCake]

I think I read all the posts, so I figure I'll add some input.

PabloDons - you said "if it's not broken, don't fix it", but it appears to be broken to me. If someone spams, is that against the rules? If someone tries to crash the server, is it against the rules? Is it against the guidelines? Rules aren't written down as a zero-tolerance policy, but as a "You can't say I didn't know" policy. Also it can be a guideline for banning people, not for admins that are lenient but strict people for "This is the soonest I can kick/ban people who are breaking the rules".

I agree TSO, people usually vote or post before reading everything. Should I make a post asking a random question with a poll, and then make the post completely unrelated to it, just for fun's sake in off-topic? PM me a response, I have an idea in mind >

LordDecapo/The Magical Gentleman - I agree strictness should be based to the case, but shouldn't there be a lower limit of antagonizing before a person gets banned?

BTW I read the document, and while I'll don't want any admins to get punished, is there any way an admin can be punished/corrected? I've got the impression from someone that admins can't be replaced, because there is a lack of people with time and trust both. Is this true?

[Nickster258]

ill set up a drive document and give a shareable link in this post so anyone/everyone can be a part of this. Ill post my original crap in there, but anyone can modify it ofc..

Its just to get it started..

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xduo...sp=sharing

there it is

I'm sorry (not really) but close that document for editing. Someone will include 'penis/dick/fagget' anywhere and everywhere.

[PabloDons]

PabloDons - you said "if it's not broken, don't fix it", but it appears to be broken to me. If someone spams, is that against the rules? If someone tries to crash the server, is it against the rules? Is it against the guidelines? Rules aren't written down as a zero-tolerance policy, but as a "You can't say I didn't know" policy. Also it can be a guideline for banning people, not for admins that are lenient but strict people for "This is the soonest I can kick/ban people who are breaking the rules".

ok, I'm going to reply to get you into my train of though. first of all I don't want rules to be implemented because staff is surely capable of making decisions themselves. That's what I tried to point out.
The other reason is that rules make administration a lot stricter. yes, spamming is really annoying, but there's certain things that isn't against the guidelines like repeating something because you're trying to reach someone not noticing the chat. maybe not the best example, but it will do. About trying to crash the server, the guidelines are more than enough to deal with that. if you try to crash the server, you're being a dick and breaking multiple guidelines.
If you're going to implement guidelines for banning, it's going to become stricter over time. There's no doubt about that. People become too quick to issue warnings/punishments because they'd rather not be too easy on anybody because that would be unfair. If there's limits to how quick you may issue warnings/punishments, it would mean people would keep close to those rather than be too easy.

Not only sub-consciously, but staff would also expect others to keep to those rules to the word. which means of you step just a tiny bit over the line, there's no excuses or second chances. There's basically no room for apology. If you're going to draw a red line, you're limiting the room players can play on.

All in all, the guidelines are all you need to make a good and fair decision. If you're being annoying or disrespectful (that line is very clear, you have no idea), guidelines make room for apology and it's a clear way of showing respect and politeness to make yourself worthy of a second chance. That's what I love the most about the current system

[greatgamer34]

Anyone who is editing this. Lets hold off as there is a debate in te R-box rightnow. Plus it is a little lengthy. Dont delete anything either. My apologies.

[TSO]

I already have a copy from 10/28/14 23:28 UTC-7 (The time I posted that I was done editing)

Now, as for what you are saying about "having to remember policy" because of the mathematical nature of the flow of the system, I am already creating a bash script for it. All that would happen is you would type status [option] [username] <warning content>; with options being -w for warn, -b for a specific immediate ban, -p for a permanent ban, -v,g,s,m,t,a ta assign usergroups, -r will revoke a ban, and -s for their current status information. I will make it so that a -p requires three separate administrators to authorize within a three day time span and -b brings up a ban dialogue and requires two administrators to create the same ban. You might also be able to directly execute this from the chat line in minecraft if I can learn plugin-fu, then the warning content immediately gets sent to the user from the chat line. If you were to not type the status command, nothing would happen to the user. You also can't war a user while they aren't online.

Again, as far as user rules are concerned, the only change to the rules are that you aren't allowed to lie to students. As far as administrators are concerned, those extra eight or nine key strokes will probably be enough to inhibit excessive warning it takes eight warnings to ban a user for three days, so I think the users will be just fine anyway. I could include a minimum time between warnings if you think it is needed.

If you want it to be even harder to ban a user, I could make the command require a bunch of extra characters no admin would remember, so they would have to go out of their way look them up in order to actually ban someone.

[JeremyG]

If you want it to be even harder to ban a user, I could make the command require a bunch of extra characters no admin would remember, so they would have to go out of their way look them up in order to actually ban someone.

Thus admins that are more ban-happy will be able to keep banning, and the admins who don't ban a lot will be able to ban less? Not sure if that's a good idea.

[TSO]

I don't know. I could keep it in the shell and not a plugin, that would also slow down banning.

But, as I said, to ban a user requires two different admins give identical bans (I'm thinking within a span of one day); so if you're a ban happy admin, you're going to have to team up with another ban happy admin and both pf you must agree that this ban will make you both feel happier and both agree on identical bans.

I can raise the number of required admins if needed, too.

The whole goal is to make banning structured, but warning convenient. If warnings accumulate to an automatic ban, two admins are still needed, but the ban will be based on the automatic duration.

[LordDecapo]

LordDecapo/The Magical Gentleman - I agree strictness should be based to the case, but shouldn't there be a lower limit of antagonizing before a person gets banned?

The number of warnings I stated was a random number I said.
That is also a case by case. If a person gets a warning and They r a dick about the warning and start causing issues after that in a rude manner.. They may only get 1 or 2 warnings.

But if it's spamming "hoopla!" I'll warn them. And like say a ccouple hours later They spam someone's name to get there attention. And there response to the first warning is "sorry" then the second time They are like "oops my bad" I'm more likely to give them 3-4 warnings in a day before kicking them.

Also generally I kick and then give yet another Warning and an additional kick or 2 before a temp ban.. I like giving people the benefit of the doubt usually unless They are taking advantage of my lieniency.

[LordDecapo]

Off to the Rbox I go!

[AltruismAndCake]

pablo - NP keep on chugging that train . A few questions though.

1) first of all I don't want rules to be implemented because staff is surely capable of making decisions themselves. That's what I tried to point out.

I agree for most of the staff, but what about GG? (sorry about bringing it up GG) I think what he's looking for is a guideline he can follow so he knows how he should behave in cases where people agitate him personally. We tell him to follow the guidelines and when he ask how, do we just ignore the question?

2) About trying to crash the server, the guidelines are more than enough to deal with that. if you try to crash the server, you're being a dick and breaking multiple guidelines.

How about it breaks only one of the guidelines? Generally be kind to others. I'm getting that from http://openredstone.org/rules/ If it's breaking multiple guidelines, then are there unwritten ones we don't know about? That's my main concern... assuming something's universal and it's not.

3) If you're going to implement guidelines for banning,

There is one already, it's for plagiarism. But that's probably just me being nit-picky xD

On the rest, I'm not saying hard and fast "These are the rules. Deal". I'm saying maybe the guidelines are missing something. Maybe we should be talking about what the guidelines should be, instead of what the rules should be?

Decapo - So you issue a minimum of one warning? Isn't that in itself a basis for proper staff conduct in the worst case scenario?

Edit: I find it ironic that tyler signed that he was against the rules idea when he corrected nuup on an unwritten rule

[LordDecapo]

Decapo - So you issue a minimum of one warning? Isn't that in itself a basis for proper staff conduct in the worst case scenario?

yes, yes it is XD that is why i said i give generally more, cause most offenses are not that bad at all, and get solved with a couple warning,, MAYBE a kick, but we generally speaking have a great community that needs little "looking over" only a couple people start shit regularly, and those ppl are used to a kick or 2.
The only people of problem are the random people that come back on after being gone for a year and think they can just start shit, or new first comers that think that they can be rude and misbehave and we wont care.

[TSO]

Okay, so far, the script is able to add warnings.

[slugdude]

I agree with Tyler's post, but I think that maybe political debates should stay out of chat too? It got pretty intense yesterday, between myself (admittedly) and crazy.

EDIT: Command idea! (Staff only) /warn <player> <reason> and (staff only) /warncheck <player>

/warn <player> <reason> would add an line to a text file on the server or something, with something like this:
<player> was warned on (date of warning) at (time of warning) for <reason>.

/warncheck <player> would scan said file for all lines matching <player> and would display it for the staff to see in their chat.

This would add a formal way of keeping track of warnings, and quick for a staff to check a player's warnings ingame.

What do you guys think? Yay, nay, or this should be in the command suggestion subforum?

Edit 2: Ya,imma post this in the command suggestion subforum.

[TSO]

@Slugdude:
Look up exactly 9 posts, I've already formalized all of that and more into one command. I'm making exactly that as a bash script using vim and grep to make the text file. Mine keeps track of ALL of the player's status AND their warnings. All I need is knowledge of how the server interacts with a ban list, which might require a C subroutine or a plugin for Java (bleh).

[Crazyninja2000]

i dont think we really have much to change about the rule system. things havent been "that" intense. just, try to be reasonable. also, i know this might be hard, but u should use this thing called common sense.

"first rule, dont be an idiot"- Mr. Wellen, 7th grade teacher

[AltruismAndCake]

i know this might be hard, but u should use this thing called common sense.

w0t is this common sense you speak of?

[LordDecapo]

I love u altruism xD.. such a great follow up

[Nickster258]

i know this might be hard, but u should use this thing called common sense.

w0t is this common sense you speak of?

This is actually quite retarded.

Staff should have common sense. That is what the original post by Guy said. Common sense.

[tyler569]

Oh wow, this kept going the last few days.

I'll say 2 things:

1. What's wrong with what worked for the last 3-4 years without issue on the RDF/ORE?

2. Hosts would need to audit TSO's code before we allow it on our computers, especially seeing as he's mentioned writing things in C, which makes me super nervous, especially seeing I've never heard of him before.

[AFtExploision]

What is this thread. It should of been "use common sense / what has worked since the RDFbegan </thread>"

[TSO]

Tyler, it is being audited already, and it looks like I won't need anything in C.

[greatgamer34]

you guys are fucking harsh, holy shit.. The thing WRONG with ORE (Yeas i said 'wrong') , is that people are outraged when they are temp banned.. Thats why this started.

Would you like to contribute? @Tyler/ aft? Or are you just gonna bash ideas??

[LordDecapo]

i vote for a plug in that just kicks someone when they join for like a set amount of time
a 10min time on that would be 10x worse then like a 24hour tempban,, as u have no idea how long it is for and it just tempts u with YES... no...

[AFtExploision]

you guys are fucking harsh, holy shit.. The thing WRONG with ORE (Yeas i said 'wrong') , is that people are outraged when they are temp banned.. Thats why this started.

Would you like to contribute? @Tyler/ aft? Or are you just gonna bash ideas??

Can't disagree a lot of people think they are exempt from punishment

[tyler569]

Would you like to contribute? @Tyler/ aft? Or are you just gonna bash ideas??

I'm simply trying to be (what I perceive as) a voice of reason, considering during my year+ as an RDF/ORE admin nothing even close to these ideas have ever been sustained more than to dismiss them. Maybe something major has changed in the last 2 months, but it seems to me current admins' attempts to enforce rules more strictly *is* the problem, and increasing this/sustaining this thread would only add fuel to the fire.

I do not have time (between schoolwork and my social life (IknowomgIhaveRLfriends)) to keep up with every development or put a lot of effort into ideas. I also don't think I need to, I haven't seen a compelling argument why change is necessary.

EDIT: Especially considering you've convinced a grand total of 2 people to agree with you (according to your poll)

[greatgamer34]

Would you like to contribute? @Tyler/ aft? Or are you just gonna bash ideas??

I'm simply trying to be (what I perceive as) a voice of reason, considering during my year+ as an RDF/ORE admin nothing even close to these ideas have ever been sustained more than to dismiss them. Maybe something major has changed in the last 2 months, but it seems to me current admins' attempts to enforce rules more strictly *is* the problem, and increasing this/sustaining this thread would only add fuel to the fire.

I do not have time (between schoolwork and my social life (IknowomgIhaveRLfriends)) to keep up with every development or put a lot of effort into ideas. I also don't think I need to, I haven't seen a compelling argument why change is necessary.



EDIT: Especially considering you've convinced a grand total of 2 people to agree with you (according to your poll)

Im just fucking pissed that i get fucking yelled at and called a badmin when i do my job... So ok... We dont need new rules. But i am not gonna tolerate getting reprimanded for temp banning someone.. Simple as that..

[Xray_Doc]

I want to throw some of my two cents in here. I play on a sandbox garrys mod server and they are very strict on their rules. They expect you to be aware of their rules found when you join and on their loading screen. You only get warning or if the damage is bad enough it's an instant permanent ban. And you know what? They're the most popular sandbox server on gmod. My point is, you either have to define your server as one that can easily connect to new people with not just admins, but all admins. Or a server that strictly enforces rules and expects all new users and even members to uphold to them. Memebers shouldn't get special privileges, but neither should visitors or guests.

[PhysoniumI]

So... warn them about them reprimanding you and follow your standard course of action GG...

TBH set-in-stone rules are stupid as there are always case-by-case variances.

Altruism hit the nail on the head.

You can't have "specific" rules when no one ever enforces them at the same level. Without uniform enforcement, people get butthurt and yell. People being overly harsh? People get butthurt and yell. Simple as that...

Everyone has their 'friends'. Say, GG, you REALLY like this one person. They can fuck around and be rude when you're on. Say they overstep the bounds of another admin and they get booped so hard they get kicked off the server (maybe for a week).

Favoritism is the downfall of any system (as it also introduces the aformentioned inconsistiency).

Yeah, I want carousing through the forums as I was bored. Shh.

TBH, this is not meant to be harsh if you were referred to in this post. You were used as an example, nothing more (and maybe ficticiously). Not at all passive-agressive. (Nor sarcastic)

[Apuly]

Thank god its just a bot