Rule Revision?

[tf_allen1104 36 / 523]

I see we have rules on punishments in Discord and that's fine.  I only suggest that if punishments can be stacked from past infractions, a brief explanation of that should also be included in the rules section.  Just so people can see that their punishments can be increased/decreased based off past actions.  Just so people aren't confused about their punishment and could limit the possibility of future confusion or arguments. 

[annoying furry 6,300 / 63,955]

I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Do we not already have this?

 

 

Like take spamming:

 

 

(same deal in Discord too)

 

 

 

It's rather clear how that stacks up. (2nd minor spam is 4 hours, 3rd is 12 hour, etc).

 

And, of course, for more complex situations, such as those involving multiple types of infractions or individuals who its obvious just are around to cause problems, the moderators can exercise reasonable discretion. These sorts of things are also noted:

 

Quote

Please note that guidelines are only guidelines. Moderators may not follow them in special cases.

 

Quote

0. Use Common Sense:

Behaviors not specifically enumerated in these rules that a reasonable person would consider inappropriate in public spaces may still result in mutes. If you're not sure if something is OK, ask a Discord Moderator!

 

Would you be able to provide an example of the change that you're suggesting be made?

[tf_allen1104 36 / 523]

Yeah, my suggestion is a bit unclear.  Essentially it is kinda covered by this section "0. Use Common Sense: Behaviors not specifically enumerated in these rules that a reasonable person would consider inappropriate in public spaces may still result in mute. If you're not sure if something is OK, ask a Discord Moderator!".  But i was thinking of adding an extra part that says something along the lines of "past infractions of other rules have the ability to increase punishments of other rules" or something like that.  Or including that part you mentioned: "Please note that guidelines are only guidelines. Moderators may not follow them in special cases." as this part is not visible in the rules-section on discord.  Perhaps adding that single sentence on there helps prevent future confusion.  

 

apologies if this still seems unclear, if it is, I'll try to clear it up

 

[DaPainWayne 469 / 9,402]

I think this is the example he's trying to make:
"2 warning infractions for rule X break previously. Player breaks rule Y, and instead of a warning, they get the next step up due to the previous infractions"

In other words, a guide on stacking rule breaks that are not directly connected. 

 

(Please correct me if I'm wrong, and if I'm 300% wrong lmk I'll just delete this)

[tf_allen1104 36 / 523]

DaPainWayne is also correct on this too yes!.  "due to past rule breaks on rule x, your infraction on y will be raised instead".

[Joshy 4,364 / 44,945]

Thanks for you suggestion!  I've been thinking a lot about this before responding.  I think it's a very noble and well-intended suggestion.

 

First and foremost I will say that such a rule would affect an extremely small subset of the community.  That's because most people have 0x infractions and some people who have been around for a while might have 1-2x infractions.  I usually like to remind people that we want our guidelines to work pretty well for 95% of the cases (an arbitrarily high number I chose), and so it doesn't make sense to get into nitty gritty details for the small 5%.  This is a gaming community... we're not trying to make a legal document; furthermore: the more simple and bare the rules are, then the more likely people will read them and interpret it in the way we intended.  If you've seen some old rules like our former Purge server, then you would immediately know that detailed rules can be very challenging and risky, and even though you solved the problem for the challenging 5% you might break it for others who were earlier within the 95% group.  There's a difficult balance and doing more doesn't necessarily bring you closer to 100%.

 

I know it looks like a simple rule with a quick glance, but it seems quite tricky to me when I try to work out the details.  For example lets say that two people break rule X followed by rule Y later, but the first person broke it 20 days later and the second person broke it 150 days later.  I think it would be totally fair for the second person to argue that it has been a long time, but some people might say that we're not being fair with enforcement.  What we would probably have to do is draw the line and say that the past infraction expires after a certain number of days.  I could imagine people who need to exercise this rule would make a big effort to negotiate where the line is drawn in their own best interest, which would be a hassle, but we could stand our ground.

 

The next thing that could happen is what if the rules have two different guidelines?  Someone breaks rule X and rule Y, and another person breaks rule Y and rule X...  it's very likely that even though they break the same rules, that they would receive two different sets of punishments.  Wouldn't that be unfair?  Even if we said "You get the most severe punishment between the two rules" you could still get two different punishments (because first punishment could be different); furthermore: People will falsely claim that we pick the harshest punishment to be strict.  This becomes far more tricky when it's rule X, Y, and Z or more.  It's totally crazy when it's like 5x rules.  It just seems odd to me and so incredibly flexible if it can even get that far, and I would imagine not many places do.  I don't think it's heartless or unfair to say that anyone with 3x or more infractions should be worried about their future here if they would like to stay.  It might be odd to hear it in GMOD because the prominent rule is RDMing and some people might have a few karma bans, which is a part of the normal gameplay almost unavoidable if you play often; however: the rules in Discord and on the forums are 100% avoidable and are not a part of normal conversation that is tolerable here.

 

The other one of course is the context and severity of some infractions.  Just because two people receive the same infraction doesn't necessarily mean that they were both as severe.  I could also see people who fall into this category negotiating the terms of their ban and saying it's unfair since their issue was less severe than the other person.

 

So even if we add such a rule there would be a lot of things that aren't so clear yet, and ultimately it would still be case-by-case how it's handled similar to now and probably confusing for the few people who would need to exercise this rule.

Edited January 22, 2022 by Joshy

[BestKevin 89 / 1,644]

Well this one applies personally to me, so I will give my opinion that the mod team so desperately desires 😉

 

10 hours ago, Joshy said:

That's because most people have 0x infractions and some people who have been around for a while might have 1-2x infractions.

 

That is true, and people like me do have more infractions, but the infractions I have tallied up are on the more minor end of things due to trolling.  In the Discord channel I "troll" in, the vast majority still like me and want me to be there, but in the mod teams eyes that is too many infractions regardless of the context.

 

10 hours ago, Joshy said:

For example lets say that two people break rule X followed by rule Y later, but the first person broke it 20 days later and the second person broke it 150 days later.  I think it would be totally fair for the second person to argue that it has been a long time, but some people might say that we're not being fair with enforcement.  What we would probably have to do is draw the line and say that the past infraction expires after a certain number of days.  I could imagine people who need to exercise this rule would make a big effort to negotiate where the line is drawn in their own best interest, which would be a hassle, but we could stand our ground.

 

I think infractions expiring based on severity is a great idea, there is no need to negotiate if it's clear on how long any (minor) or (major) infraction expires, then again most major infractions are a permaban so no worries there.  

 

I am not sure why you would be stuck on what people think about fairness, you yourself said that the rules are guidelines and address things on a case-by-case basis by discussing things with your team, and that will never yield fair and consistent results.

 

10 hours ago, Joshy said:

The next thing that could happen is what if the rules have two different guidelines?  Someone breaks rule X and rule Y, and another person breaks rule Y and rule X...  it's very likely that even though they break the same rules, that they would receive two different sets of punishments.  Wouldn't that be unfair?  Even if we said "You get the most severe punishment between the two rules" you could still get two different punishments (because first punishment could be different); furthermore: People will falsely claim that we pick the harshest punishment to be strict.  This becomes far more tricky when it's rule X, Y, and Z or more.

 

It wouldn't be difficult to categorize the rules into bundles that actually carry the same weight to apply this to, and if the split punishments go outside of that severity look over the persons infractions, and possibly talk with the staff where the user resides in the discord to see their general opinion of him since the mods don't generally keep track of the day to day in any given channel.  It does sound more complicated but complicated isn't a bad thing, and getting input from the community they are from would be very valuable.

 

It's not a false claim that you guys go harsh then tell users to go appeal it for a reduced punishment, anyone that has been punished can attest to that. 

 

10 hours ago, Joshy said:

It's totally crazy when it's like 5x rules.  It just seems odd to me and so incredibly flexible if it can even get that far, and I would imagine not many places do.  I don't think it's heartless or unfair to say that anyone with 3x or more infractions should be worried about their future here if they would like to stay.

 

Well when you care about retaining users that aren't just here to cause trouble it does make sense, putting in an extra bit of effort to research things before slapping a label of someone being unwanted in your community.  Most users that intend to get banned do it quite quickly, and if you look into the context of the rule break it is usually clear if it's intentional or an accident.  I think you would be surprised how much effort mod teams in even bigger communities research things before escalating a punishment.

 

10 hours ago, Joshy said:

It might be odd to hear it in GMOD because the prominent rule is RDMing and some people might have a few karma bans, which is a part of the normal gameplay almost unavoidable if you play often; however: the rules in Discord and on the forums are 100% avoidable and are not a part of normal conversation that is tolerable here.

 

Karma bans are not unavoidable at all, in any environment not breaking any rules is possible, but when the rules are not clear cut that is when things get questionable (The rules on Rotation go over almost all situations, and I have never had an infraction beyond testing their filter on GFLBans with 103 hours of playtime).  If someone posts something that they personally don't regard as a rule break, and the people that see it doesn't think it's a rule break, but the mods do, the person gets punished by the mods and no one really understands why.  That is generally why discussing rule breaks via DMs or even publicly depending on the severity can clear things up, as I have spoken on transparency before. 

 

If we are going to talk about in GMOD, the Rotation staff team looks at previous infractions, discusses that user with their team which directly interacts with the community almost daily, and if needed goes even further (looking at old damage logs, etc.).  Most broken rules get you the same punishment (in terms of no escalation tree like warn > mute > ban), and for 99% of users that works, because the 1% comes on with obvious malicious intent and it's pretty obvious to them.  Do you think that GMOD is less complex than people just talking in a Discord?   All of the Discord rules apply on server for the most part, then about 2x more for rules about gameplay, and the staff there in MY OPINION put in more effort looking into someone's history than the mods on Discord do.

EDIT: Forgot to mention, the team on GMOD also needs to worry about keeping the players on server (if they care about it's health), so every decision has a little extra weight to it.

 

Discord is a lot easier to use, and also their GIF section contain a wide variety of things that people have differing opinions on.  People are on Discord generally more than they are on server, which leads to more opportunity to make a mistake and get an infraction.  Not every person with large amounts of infractions is necessarily a problem for GFL or the mod team, unless you make it that way.  

 

I will be honest for anyone reading this, 3 of the infractions I have were intentional, but I would debate all day on whether or not they were harmful to the channel I was talking in.  Not sure if I can discuss it without getting slapped with Private Matters.

 

10 hours ago, Joshy said:

The other one of course is the context and severity of some infractions.  Just because two people receive the same infraction doesn't necessarily mean that they were both as severe.  I could also see people who fall into this category negotiating the terms of their ban and saying it's unfair since their issue was less severe than the other person.

 

So even if we add such a rule there would be a lot of things that aren't so clear yet, and ultimately it would still be case-by-case how it's handled similar to now and probably confusing for the few people who would need to exercise this rule.

 

If the majority do not have any issues with infractions, then this would only go to help people that might accumulate more but actually still genuinely want to stay with the community and in the Discord.  It's always up to the mod team on what is severe and what isn't, but in the vast majority of cases if something was completely accidental there is no reason to punish for it unless the user makes a big deal out of it despite being told it's not allowed.

 

 

The one thing I will bring up that wasn't discussed is mod team bias.  I have been told that a lot of mods discuss someone's fate in some channel somewhere, if the mods do not like the person they will push for heavier punishments, there is no way that every member of the team is completely levelheaded and unbiased depending on the user in question.  Any infraction should be between the mod that handled it and if needed the Team Leader (which should be unbiased in almost all cases) for escalation or advice.  I am not sure why an open discussion with the entire mod team would be necessary, especially if the offense is minor.  If the Team Leader is too busy, do what your other teams do and have two of them.

 

 

At the end of they day it depends on how much the mod team wants to expand their responsibilities, right now they can pull an infraction list and just make any punishment up they want based on what they see, or what other mods think of that person.  There is no communication with the staff that are in those channels daily, and no discussion with the person getting the infraction.  I would say the appeals are a discussion but that is laughable since as soon as a decision is made it is closed and cannot be talked about further.  Even talking about your appeal with other community members is considered "Private Matters".  So it leaves little room for discussion and improvement.

 

While discussing punishments, I am curious, why does the entirety of GFL have a public infraction list with reasons things were done (GFLBans, Source Bans) but the Discord is under lock and key?  Every part of GFL is transparent besides the Discord mod team, besides some higher level stuff that the average user doesn't need to know.  Sometimes the bans/mutes are done where no one can see them and no one has a clue what happened.  If your team is handling things properly they should be able to show someone's infractions with reasons that are detailed enough for the average user to understand why it was necessary.

Edited January 22, 2022 by BestKevin

[BestKevin 89 / 1,644]

On 1/19/2022 at 4:06 PM, tf_allen1104 said:

Yeah, my suggestion is a bit unclear.  Essentially it is kinda covered by this section "0. Use Common Sense: Behaviors not specifically enumerated in these rules that a reasonable person would consider inappropriate in public spaces may still result in mute. If you're not sure if something is OK, ask a Discord Moderator!".  But i was thinking of adding an extra part that says something along the lines of "past infractions of other rules have the ability to increase punishments of other rules" or something like that.  Or including that part you mentioned: "Please note that guidelines are only guidelines. Moderators may not follow them in special cases." as this part is not visible in the rules-section on discord.  Perhaps adding that single sentence on there helps prevent future confusion.  

 

apologies if this still seems unclear, if it is, I'll try to clear it up

 

 

Yes, adding the guidelines portion would be helpful because the current context of the rules implies linear punishments.  Might alleviate some of the confusion that our Discord community has seen when different people get different punishments for the same violations (with no previous infractions in regards to that rule).

 

There should also be some context stating that "While we do list punishments for each offense, violators that break different rules consistently will be subject to punishments that may not be listed."

Edited January 22, 2022 by BestKevin

[Joshy 4,364 / 44,945]

That's a lot of content above.  Lots of unsubstantiated claims, fallacies including circular argument, and even contradiction.  Feel free to go back and edit it if you'd like to correct yourself maybe just a few small accidents in the post or logic.  I plan to let other people reply so it isn't some unintelligible quoting wars between 2-3 people.

 

I am a bit curious if you could point out some of the verbiage in the rules you're referring to... the ones you like... because I'm not seeing it.  I'd like to take a look at it and see if maybe we can learn from the pros or even try to copy some of it.  I think the RDM and ghosting ones are pretty good, but we don't have those issues on Discord.  By chance:  Could you point out one like if someone spams a racial slur over the microphone or sprays very explicit image (maybe even an illegal one like CP).  What are the first steps they use?

 

edit:

 

I should also be careful that we don't steer off topic from the suggestion.  The suggestion is to add an additional detail to the rules about stacking along the lines of "due to past rule breaks on rule X, your infraction on Y will be raised instead."  I explained earlier, that this suggestion would affect an extremely small number of people and there are some complicating details/concerns with such verbiage added to the rules; I also provided examples that are likely to occur for this small number of people as we've seen in the past.

Edited January 23, 2022 by Joshy
Note to stay on topic

[BestKevin 89 / 1,644]

Sure, there is a lot of content, I believe that a simple rule revision won't fix the issue so I elaborated, and in my opinion the elaboration is still on topic to the suggestion.  If the issue at hand isn't necessarily "having a book of rules so every instance is covered" then I suggested being more transparent to where players don't have to question anything, regardless of the rules.  Generally a ban/mute/warn has a reason behind it, and the rules back that reasoning up.  At the end of the day people may still complain about a few instances, but the ones I have seen the community complain about would be resolved by this.

 

The players overall have a general form of common sense as to why something is bad even if it doesn't exactly fall within the rules.  The only time I have seen them suspicious of anything besides unequal punishments is when people just disappear and someone informs them that the player got muted or banned (also common within a closer community like Rotation) and the player informing the community is usually friends with the person punished (since the punished person can't talk, it falls to spreading the information via DMs).

 

I will admit that I might have inaccuracies within what I said, or contradicted myself, it was a big post and I am not especially well versed in discussing things like this, as I have never felt the need to express my opinions like this ever before.  I don't intend to edit anything though.  Regardless of whatever I said at the time I believe there are still independent points that have some validity that were possibly overlooked.

 

 

I also don't understand your question about the Gmod rules and referring to them as "the pros".  I did say it was my opinion and I didn't think it would lead to some passive aggressive comment on what they do (if I misread the intent/context of this, feel free to correct me).  Maybe the rules seem to be less refuted there because the players know the admins and play with them almost daily, I feel like that builds a sense of trust.  I don't know.  What I will say is that for those extreme examples they would probably be gagged/muted for slurs (automatic if done in game chat), spray banned for sprays depending on the circumstance and the players reputation on the server, and permabanned for CP, but I am not an admin.   They have a baseline of what is perma-worthy, and guidelines that help them handle other situations based on the background of the player, but that background is based off of previous "infractions" and also their reputation on the server.

 

But as you said, I will stop discussing this now and let others discuss the main topic at hand if they feel it is necessary.

Edited January 23, 2022 by BestKevin

[Joshy 4,364 / 44,945]

Verbiage added to the guidelines

 

Quote

The frequency of the infraction(s) whether the same or not or its severity may lead to a permanent ban even if it is not listed explicitly.

 

Thanks for the suggestion 🙂