Proposal to Revamp the Banlist - Page 6

On February 16 2012 10:06 redFF wrote:
who are all these random people i've never seen before posting walls about shit when they've been here for like 2 weeks.

On February 16 2012 10:06 Jitsu wrote:


This isn't even constructive.

On February 16 2012 09:56 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
I don't see how electing members to a council will ensure more consistency and representation of the community than what we see now.

It will be more consistent, if only because it's the same people making the decisions. However, without answering how often the council is likely to be changed, this might not actually be consistent with the wishes of the community, which are likely to change with time and flux in the player-base. So, depending on the permanency of the council, they might not actually reflect what the community desires, and instead impose their own decisions based on their own rationale.

Secondly, I fail to see how this would represent the community better than an open forum where the entire community has the opportunity to voice their opinion and have it accounted for. With this system, it seems like you can voice your opinion, but it will be devalued, because in the end, you have no influence over the decision as a community member besides when you voted people in.

Next, I don't understand how this will bring anything different to the table from what we have now. The council will end up being formed nearly completely of veterans or active players, and these same people are the players who would comment on a ban anyways, and whose words would be more respected due to that status. All I see the council doing is cutting off everyone who doesn't get elected.

Finally, this system introduces problems and complications of its own that need to be addressed. I and others have brought some of these up, but just off the top of my head:

• Will the decision making process of the council be made entirely transparent?
  
• Who will ensure consistency, effort, and transparency from the council?
  
• How will we avoid favoritism or unfair persecution when there's only a small group making the decisions?
  
• How often will the council change to reflect the wishes of the community?

Which makes it a hassle to use, and in my eyes undesirable.

---

Instead, I think that we just need to structure ban list discussion better, and stick to actually using the rules of the ban-list, if we're going to keep it.

First, discussion should be a lot more organized. For contentious issues, we should open up discussion one by one. Then, we get a statement of what happened factually (1) from the host, then their take/impressions on the situation (2), and finally, what they want to do about it (3) (punishments, warnings, etc.). Then, the player being accused should respond if what the host said was factual (1), and then give their own interpretation of the situation (2), and then if they disagree with the asked for punishment (3). Then, the host and the player should both shut up while everyone else discusses it. If they need to comment again a little later, they can. I honestly feel one of the biggest problems with ban discussion is the people involved keep yelling back and forth about it, and it makes discussion a lot harder. They should each just state their side, then wait while people decide who's in the right. Keep in mind, this is only for things like behaviour or 'ruining game' bans, not inactivity or the like.

So, we could go from:



To something like:


And then they both stop posting while it's discussed, unless input is needed from them.

If hosts don't want to go through the effort of actually explaining what happened with all relevant evidence when trying to ban someone for behaviour, then they probably shouldn't be hosting, as it takes a bare minimum of effort and makes discussion a lot better. These two posts could then be cataloged if need be to use as reference in the future.

Secondly, people need to actually start following the ban list, with ratifications possibly made to how the punishments work and how games played affect future bans. When I joined, it was the first time you get banned, 1 game, the second, 3 games, the third, 5 games, and that was that. Now, I see hosts asking for specific ban counts for specific players based on what happened, or basing bans on what happened without reference to any past ban history. If you feel that hosts asking for specific punishments is a problem, stop letting them. I'm not sure when, but at some point, punishments changed from how often you were banned in the past, to the whim of the host, or with the old system being applied haphazardly. So, we should either revert back to bans being based on previous ban count, or if there's some underlying issue that's making hosts ask for specific bans for different infractions, then we should address that. Everyone should be held to the same standards, and any bans should be consistent. They shouldn't be up to the host to decide if he's feeling nice or doesn't like a certain player, they should be normalized.

I feel like a lot of people want to actually change how bans work out, but that's a discussion for a thread of its own. All I'm saying is that it should follow guidelines, not be up for a case-by-case basis that has no assured consistency between different players and hosts.

/rant

On February 16 2012 10:17 Jitsu wrote:
Really? I'm pretty confident that I've contributed more to the problem then you have as of yet. Whatever, If my opinion isn't worth it, i won't post in here then.

A piece of advice redFF; just be because you get a warning for being a dick in a mafia game, and can't take it like a man, doesn't give you license to berate other people for coming up with legitimate solutions.

On February 16 2012 10:34 GMarshal wrote:
Fuck it, new plan, I motion to make myself the sinister overlord of the mafia forums.

Behavioral issues? In addition to game bans, you get time of TL, just like behavioral issues on other parts of the forums, its handled like on the rest of tl its based on your history and moderator discretion, in addition to whatever public discussion decides, with me having the final word.

Keep the inactivity bans the way they currently work, but bans expire after three games played. Its the players responsibility to notify the ban list moderator to have them removed.

On February 16 2012 10:37 redFF wrote:

I actually don't think this is a bad idea especially as it will move us away from the circlejerk between certain senior members we have now. Is there any way to ban people from posting only in the mafia forum?

On February 16 2012 10:37 redFF wrote:

I actually don't think this is a bad idea especially as it will move us away from the circlejerk between certain senior members we have now. Is there any way to ban people from posting only in the mafia forum?

On February 16 2012 10:34 GMarshal wrote:
Fuck it, new plan, I motion to make myself the sinister overlord of the mafia forums.

Behavioral issues? In addition to game bans, you get time of TL, just like behavioral issues on other parts of the forums, its handled like on the rest of tl its based on your history and moderator discretion, in addition to whatever public discussion decides, with me having the final word.

Keep the inactivity bans the way they currently work, but bans expire after three games played. Its the players responsibility to notify the ban list moderator to have them removed.

On February 16 2012 07:32 HarbingerOfDoom wrote:
How about we just appoint GMarshal as Supreme Ruler of the mafia subforum. He'll love and tolerate us all. In exchange for his benevolent leadership, all mafia forum member's landmark posts (every 1K posts) must include a tribute to his glory.

The real problem is that the banlist is basically entirely in the host's control because frankly I don't think (judging from his actions, haven't talked to him on this) Flamewheel wants to be the banlist moderator. Banlist moderator is a thankless job I doubt anyone wants in the first place. You have to do a bunch of annoying stuff and the only effect is having to deal with dumb drama and angry people occasionally. The result is that he tries to get through this without offending anyone or creating any drama, which means basically always doing nothing until everyone agrees to do what the host says then recording that. I don't blame him for this; I'd do the same if I got stuck there, but the effect is still there and afaik that's what spurned this post.

On February 16 2012 10:34 GMarshal wrote:
Behavioral issues? In addition to game bans, you get time of TL, just like behavioral issues on other parts of the forums, its handled like on the rest of tl its based on your history and moderator discretion, in addition to whatever public discussion decides, with me having the final word.

Keep the inactivity bans the way they currently work, but bans expire after three games played. Its the players responsibility to notify the ban list moderator to have them removed.

On February 16 2012 10:40 GMarshal wrote:

Not at the moment, I'll talk with R1CH, but in the meantime, I think TL bans might be a good way to enforce behavior.