+- Forums - Open Redstone Engineers (https://forum.openredstone.org)
+-- Forum: Announcements (https://forum.openredstone.org/forum-102.html)
+--- Forum: Announcements (https://forum.openredstone.org/forum-7.html)
+--- Thread: Ideas for server rules (/thread-4975.html)
RE: Ideas for server rules - Nickster258 - 10-29-2014
(10-29-2014, 05:37 AM)TSO Wrote: 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.
RE: Ideas for server rules - TSO - 10-29-2014
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.
RE: Ideas for server rules - Nickster258 - 10-29-2014
(10-29-2014, 06:10 AM)TSO Wrote: 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.
RE: Ideas for server rules - TSO - 10-29-2014
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.
RE: Ideas for server rules - LordDecapo - 10-29-2014
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
RE: Ideas for server rules - Chibill - 10-29-2014
Like communism it sounds good on paper but is not good.
RE: Ideas for server rules - Magic :^) - 10-29-2014
(10-29-2014, 11:43 AM)LordDecapo Wrote: 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.
RE: Ideas for server rules - AltruismAndCake - 10-29-2014
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?
RE: Ideas for server rules - Nickster258 - 10-29-2014
(10-28-2014, 11:52 PM)greatgamer34 Wrote: 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/1xduoJSsxABqiQ3TvaWL32CO5g5jgOxCuHdc4jTGjJRY/edit?usp=sharing
there it is
I'm sorry (not really) but close that document for editing. Someone will include 'penis/dick/fagget' anywhere and everywhere.
RE: Ideas for server rules - PabloDons - 10-29-2014
(10-29-2014, 04:09 PM)AltruismAndCake Wrote: 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