|
|
|||||||
| Ladder Discussion Everything related to altitudeladder.com and the ladder servers goes here. |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
02-06-2012, 06:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Grey Area On Lengths Of Bans
So as I understand it. There is no specific ban lengths stated in the rules for common mistakes or offences that result in people being banned for lengthy periods on the basis of a 'unspoken rule' between admin.
I have been banned for the 2nd time in two weeks. As it stands I have a weeks ban as its my '2nd' offence. After my first ban I stopped using toggle full-screen on off, which was the issue that caused my offence (lesson learned). I respect that bans are put in place to deter people from reoffending. But for my 2nd ban I was talking in whisper and unfortunately speccing in game, oblivious that I was meant to be playing. I am not going to just sit in spec for no reason and watch myself possibly loose valuable points in bladder as a result. Now I am stuck with a ban that is ultimately pointless. There is no lesson to be learned from it. I cannot play in ladder and people who otherwise could be taking points of me in ladder (as I am in top 50) can not. There really needs to be some more clarification on ban lengths. Allocating specific ban lengths on the basis of offense number does not reflect common offences that could be dealt with using a list of common offenses and guideline ban lengths in the rules. e.g. speccing a ladder game when selected. No one would purposely do this yet to get a months ban on the basis that its a 4th offense over a period of around 2 years seems completely irrational. nip =] Last edited by A Nipple; 02-08-2012 at 02:35 AM. 
|
|
#2
02-06-2012, 07:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
It's actually your 4th offense. The common length would be one month, but seeing as it was only your second offense in quite some time, I reduced it to one week, which is quite a fair length and is the common length for a second ban.
Whispering with someone, if I read correctly, is definitely not a good reason to be specing, especially since people called your name more than once. You should have seen that. If you joined knowingly, you shouldn't have joined in the first place, or if you did join before starting to whisper, you should have checked. In both cases, it was your mistake. If you joined by accident, pay more attention or don't stay in the lobby. I don't play, but I still always check if I joined by accident or not, because it can happen (and did happen to me). Moreover, if you can't learn (even though you should) from the ban, it's ok. Bans aren't only made to teach something to the one infringing said rule nor to "deter them from reoffending". It is also made to prevent other people from doing it, not banning you would incidentally make the rule obsolete. As for the clarity and publicity of ban lengths, this is currently in discussion in the ladder bunker. All in all, there are good reasons to not put them on paper. Nonetheless, if it were to be made public, it would be with the liberty of not following the common length for a rule (that liberty, which the current status offers me, is what allowed me to reduce your ban from the actual common length). So, it would still be gray. Last edited by Princess Squirtle; 02-06-2012 at 05:44 PM.
|
|
#3
02-06-2012, 05:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
edit: did u receive a ban for accidentally joining a game u didn't mean to? edit: A 3/4 day ban would be long enough a ban to prevent people from doing it, a weeks ban is irrational. please can u post a link to the discussion in 'ladder bunker' regarding this topic? Players opinions matter and should be listened to when making decisions on rules. especially if some admin dont even play. Last edited by A Nipple; 02-10-2012 at 09:05 PM.
|
|
#4
02-06-2012, 06:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
- True, 3rd. Still only took into consideration the previous ban. So it has been reduced to 1 week instead of the common 2 weeks.
- I'm using your ban to explain things and correct your mistake, mostly to alert everyone on how things work and what is the role of a rule. Still sticking to the point. - No, because I was paying attention and joined in time. - No, 1 week is a fair length. 2 similar offenses in a short time deserve that. Pay more attention next time. - No, the bunker is a private board. You won't have access to that. You can still start a debate here and we will take what comes out of it into consideration. - Me not playing doesn't exclude me. An admin specing will actually see things more clearly than the one playing, thus my opinion matters as much as any other (despite being french). Last edited by Princess Squirtle; 02-06-2012 at 06:34 PM.
|
|
#5
02-06-2012, 06:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Right, Its not about my mistake directly. How things work at the minute is on the basis of a "unspoken rule" for time lengths on bans, why is it unspoken and not clarified in the rules?! Your opinion is going to be bias to this topic because I started the topic and u dont like me for your own reasons. What would be great is to discuss if any other players believe there should be some guideline ban lengths stated for common offences.
Last edited by A Nipple; 02-06-2012 at 07:11 PM.
|
|
#6
02-06-2012, 07:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
It's just a compromise between consistency and flexibility. The problem I have is that we don't seem to have either at the moment.
Take mintz' ban a few days ago (the one by Ryebone), regardless of whether mintz was breaking a rule or not he got banned for doing something that dozens of other players have been allowed to do without punishment. That's clearly not consistent, but if he was being a jerk then rule 12 allows him to be banned. Fine. There is also the on-going debate as to people throwing games or playing deliberately bad set-ups if they are feeling spiteful. To be consistent, the ladmins have decided that no one can be banned unless there is super duper hard evidence, even if the gaming experience of others is impaired. Again fine. What I would like is for us to go one way or the other: Either give admins greater powers to ban who they want, if they think that person is ruining games, irrespective of them breaking pre-defined rules. OR Give us a better defined list of rules, so that if you are going to let people mock ladder, we can at least be consistent in banning/not banning them. I want ladder to be a police state, or completely transparent, not somewhere which is both inconsistent half the time and follows overly arbitrary rules the other.
|
|
#7
02-06-2012, 07:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Last edited by A Nipple; 02-06-2012 at 08:51 PM.
|
|
#8
02-06-2012, 07:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
So, that's how ssd feels like. Interesting.
Back to this: Quote:
Quote:
I'm using your ban the same way you used it, to illustrate my argument. As for the length of the ban in itself for that rule, it's still a fair time. Not joining the whole game makes a 5v5 game, unbalancing the team, forcing someone to spec, making a game of lesser quality, thus making every other players having a negative experience. Seeing as this is a second same offense in a short time, I find this to be quite fair. Edit: as for the publicity of bans and the definition of the rules, this is also currently in discussion. Last edited by Princess Squirtle; 02-06-2012 at 07:35 PM.
|
|
#9
02-06-2012, 07:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#10
02-06-2012, 07:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
"Either give admins greater powers to ban who they want, if they think that person is ruining games, irrespective of them breaking pre-defined rules." ladmins already have that power you silly nit and all anyone does is complain whenever someone is banned for something that isn't word-for-word in the rules regardless of the presence of rule 12.
|
|
#11
02-06-2012, 08:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#12
02-06-2012, 09:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
when did i say that it wasn't? just because i'm obligated to deal with it doesn't mean it's logical or justified.
|
|
#13
02-07-2012, 01:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
There are generally regarded to be four principal reasons to punish anyone for wrongdoing: (1) incapacitation, (2) rehabilitation, (3) deterrence, and (4) retribution. I think that many of the ban lengths imposed in ladder are ridiculously long to achieve any of these goals in any legitimate way.
Incapacitation is important for people who do more harm to the ladder community than they benefit it. These are generally people who do not have any track record in ladder and show no interest in becoming a serious member of the community, but rather completely disregard the rules repeatedly and immediately from the moment they enter their first ladder match. Sometimes, I suppose, a formerly beneficial member of the ladder community might become fed up and degenerate into someone who needs to be incapacitated (at least for some time, with the hope that they rehabilitate while thinking it over), but I think it's important to distinguish between such an individual and someone who is merely making mistakes. Deterrence and retribution (in my view) need to be weighed pragmatically. People who play often and try to win often and thus generally contribute to the ladder community should not be punished more harshly than necessary to correct their behavior and reasonably satisfy an aggrieved community. Frankly, the level of deterrence should depend on (1) the harm caused by the infraction and (2) the culpability (blameworthiness) of the infraction. Harm. One bizarre aspect of the ban system as it currently stands is that it doesn't take much (any?) account of the harm caused by the impermissible conduct. For example, the harm of spec chatting is that it distracts the players in the game and can prevent them from effectively communicating with teammates -- something much less severe than game-throwing or rage-quitting mid-match. Obviously, the lengths of the bans should be different for these infractions. (Imagine a sentencing regime where the punishment for homicide was the same as for jaywalking and you see why it's crazy we don't distinguish more between the harms caused by various behaviors.) Culpability. Culpability is the blameworthiness of the conduct, and often corresponds to the "mental state" of the rule-violator. Often the law ranks culpability from intentional to knowing to reckless to grossly negligent to negligent to "strict liability" (i.e., you're liable even if you didn't know you were doing what you were doing). To give some examples: Spec chatting is almost always intentional, unless (for example) a cat walks across your keyboard, in which case you were probably negligent in failing to keep the cat away from your computer. (Note that intentionality only refers to whether you intended to engage in the prohibited conduct, not to whether you intended the "harm" suffered by the other players, nor to whether you knew there was a rule against your conduct and you intentionally violated it.) Nikon's failure to realize he was supposed to be playing was negligent -- perhaps grossly negligent -- but he neither knew that he was supposed to be playing nor did he intend to avoid playing when he was supposed to. The more culpable a player is, the more acceptable it is to impose retributive justice (at least to most people -- some people do not believe retributive justice is ever acceptable). It's not clear that culpability is so important in a deterrence analysis, but it is important to set the ban length high enough that it will actually deter misbehavior. Anyway, I hope that the admins consider all of these factors in a reasonable and fair way when imposing bans. But the most important thing is: don't ever impose a ban of a length such that it does more net damage to the community than it helps the community. For example, I don't think it's ever acceptable to ban a regular, contributing member of the community who has a longstanding record of legitimate participation for more than a month, and it would be a very, very egregious and flagrant violation that would warrant even a one-week ban for such a player. Let's face it: the altitude ladder community is fairly small and shows no signs of rapid growth. Banning people means that the ladder is active less often (or makes it harder to start), and it prevents us from playing with people that most players enjoy playing with most of the time. Worst of all, extreme bans for regular players bring us ever nearer to the inevitable day on which the ladder dies permanently and forever.
|
|
#15
02-07-2012, 03:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The lenght of ban depending on the rules is in discussion, anyway. However, those four reasons aren't the only reasons you should take into account for the length of a ban. Being a small community on the internet, where judges are known players (in the sens that you can be intimate with them), with people who can play casually on the servers, change a lot of things. Those impose to create rules and attitudes that fight arbitrary judgements and invisiblity of the ruling.
To develop shortly on those two points: - there are not a lot of ways to have less arbitrary bans or less bans seen as arbitrary. Having clear rules, having clear sentences, having consistent sentences. That last one prevail mostly to the others, because, as we are a small community with judges known, people will think that because of feelings, they get harsher or unfair bans. See the classical "ssd hates me" argument: you hate me, you're biased. We can't have bans made by a collegial court, simply because technically, not all admins see the offense. So, the only way to prevent that is to show some consistency. If everybody gets the same ban, thus it is an objective ban. Since things aren't black and white, we do take into account the context, thus the player, when banning. But we can't play that much on the length for this reason, the more it is seen as arbitrary, the less efficient the sentence becomes. - the invisiblity of the ruling is what forces bans to be long in the first place. Because casual players who don't play often would not see short bans. Having a public record would not help, they wouldn't see it. Also because we don't know what people do with their life and we can't be sure the players will be around the next day, even for regular players, thus we can't put a 1 day ban. Even if the player comes back the next day, he could come back 24h and 1 min after the ban, thus not seeing it. And the shorter the bans, the more you'll get them, because they are short and not as punitive. Doing a public record would then be more of a pain for the admins than helping them (time consuming process). If the specchat rule is not enforced as much it's because a 4 days ban is too much. If you put a 30min ban for it, you'll get a lot of bans and lots of people asking for bans (imagine a world with 10 Solqom!), thus eventually leading to people being more silent, then you'll hurt the community more than helping it. If you get shorter bans, admins will be less lenient to use it, thus could be more arbitrary in their rulings. We have to find the right balance between those two things. It's just more complicated than your four principles. For every community, you need a specific system. Sure, the current system is definitely not the best we could have, that's why things are in discussion at the moment. Last edited by Princess Squirtle; 02-07-2012 at 04:27 AM.
|
|
#16
02-07-2012, 04:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
hmm im not as worried about the arbitrariness. in the real world, no one thinks there's perfect enforcement; if i jaywalk or speed, sometimes i get a ticket and sometimes i don't (even if a cop sees me). and frankly in my view, if the admins are responsible and fair, then they should have some discretion regarding which infractions to punish and how long to punish them (just like police or prosecutors).
but anyway i was only talking about reasons to have any punishments, not about fairness across punishments. if other people care a lot about fairness i'm not against fairness, but when selecting the fair punishment for any violation one should keep in mind the purposes of the punishment.
|
|
#18
02-07-2012, 04:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#19
02-07-2012, 04:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
In any case, arbitrariness isn't really an issue in real life because, to make it short, enforcements and sentences are made by legitimate authorities seen as entities instead of individuals, in states under the principle of the rule of law. In a case by case basis, you'll see arbitrary things like in your exemple, but in a larger scale, it is not really an issue. In our small community, it is, for the reasons I stated earlier, hence why it has so much importance in how rules work. edit: lix, go back to your diet instead of saying nonsens. You need it! Last edited by Princess Squirtle; 02-07-2012 at 05:11 AM.
|
|
#20
02-07-2012, 10:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
How can anyone not love nipples?
Edit: to add something useful, these bloody rules are far too stringent for fecks sake, just do what i do, honest mistakes are fine, just identify the real trouble makers and ban them forever. Job done. I have a list of rules and due diligence to follow in my job but to be really good at it you need to add some 'common sense' Last edited by classicallad; 02-07-2012 at 10:22 AM.
|
|
#21
02-07-2012, 10:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 Also I agree with your post in general (the parts I bothered to read), reputation needs to be taken into account, but I'm sure it already is. The problem is different admins may have different opinions on reputation and intent. This won't be completely objective plus remember admins use their discretion. One thing people fail to recognize is: Mindless spamming all chat vs not-spec-chatting. The two aren't always the same. Last edited by Tekn0; 02-07-2012 at 11:10 AM.
|
|
#22
02-07-2012, 11:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
@sps:
yes in order to properly moderate ladder we should be comparing leaving games to homicide. great pep talk. your wall of text, while impressive from a words-typed and time-wasted point of view, has very little relevance to ladder. in fact, you tell us absolutely nothing of value that we could even implement into ladder even if we thought your ideas were worthwhile. for example, you splooge all this text about harm done to ladder and how it should be translated into length of ban, but never actually explain how exactly we're doing it incorrectly. the only clue you give into your big genius head is that you believe a person (such as nipple) that is a "regular, contributing member of the community who has a longstanding record of legitimate participation for more than a month" shouldn't ever be banned for longer than a week, regardless of amount of previous bans or general attitude. this, frankly, is stupid. help me understand your logic here by telling me how long you would ban these people, if at all, in these scenarios: a) elixir (longstanding pillar of the community, never been banned) joins a game, sees his team full of moser steves, and goes "**** it, i'm out" and leaves. b) sky magically gets not-permabanned, been playing altitude for over a year, ladders religiously, top 10 player when able to play, been banned 13 times. he blatantly throws a game. c) sky again, he continues chatting in all after spec chat has been called. d) muk muk (rarely plays ladder, has been banned 4 times for leaving mid-game) leaves mid-game again. thanks in advance
|
|
#23
02-07-2012, 11:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
also just wanted to point out that in the current system people that have good reputations are those that have never been banned and thus see shorter bans, and people who have been banned in the past get longer bans based on how many times they've been banned. this is in addition to the fact that people who are generally very compliant to ladder rules and have kind gentle souls see more leeway in getting banned/unbanned whereas people who act like idiots all the time even when they're not getting banned are more likely to see bans and longer bans if they are banned.
|
|
#24
02-07-2012, 01:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
haha thanks tek. (and sorry to nikon & nipple! dunno why i wrote nikon.)
to mr. ssd: i don't think there are absolute rules about the proper ban lengths for infractions (that's sort of my point). but as for what i think would be appropriate in your four examples, i'd impose (a) a five-day ban, (b) a seven-day ban, (c) a 15-minute ban, and (d) a month-long ban. that said, i'm not sure i have enough facts to know what ban lengths are appropriate in those hypotheticals. for instance, i'd also be willing to reduce bans somewhat if the person immediately accepted responsibility, apologized, and was sincere about it. and for examples b, c, and d, a lot depends on how many games they've played since their last infraction; if, as you put it, sky laddered religiously for a year without any infractions (despite previously having been banned 13 times), then he's practically wiped the slate clean, in my view. by contrast, if muk muk left on one of his very first games back since last being banned, he might deserve a three-month ban or longer (especially if his prior ban was already a month or longer). and i'm not sure that spec chat is ever such a big deal that it would warrant more than a one-day ban, and that would only be for someone who was constantly being banned for spec chat violations. my overall impression is that the bans are generally far too long and the rules are far too stringent. as you put it, comparing leaving games to homicide is ridiculous; everyone should lighten up a little and stop banning regular players for huge lengths of time such that it makes ladder less fun (both because some of the regulars who are fun to play with are missing, and because ladder is dictatorial and oppressive). Last edited by some poor soul; 02-07-2012 at 01:31 PM.
|
|
#26
02-07-2012, 03:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
sky didn't even make it a month between getting unbanned and his next permaban, and the "laddered religiously for a year" was with his 13 bans sprinkled throughout.
my point is entirely encompassed around what you just posted: "that said, i'm not sure i have enough facts to know what ban lengths are appropriate in those hypotheticals." while you are saying ladder bans people for too long, that is simply because you are ignorant of the circumstances behind each ban. you don't have access to the ladmin bunker and you don't have to deal with every single person that's ever banned and are not in a position where you have to make decisions at all. it's very easy to just flip through the ladder administration thread or the individual threads of people that are too stupid and/or full of themselves to just post in the ladder administration thread and be like "wow nipple got banned 7 days for leaving midgame? what an outrage!" when you have 0 idea of the context of the ban or how many times the person has been banned previously. those hypotheticals give you just as much 100% reliable information as any post appealing a ban, and without the information that only the ladder admins have you are wholly unsuited to actually be making judgements about the unfairness or undeservedness of bans in the first place. re: transparency, i am of the belief that posting specific ban times for specific numbers of bans is not the greatest of ideas. there is simply too much subjectivity in each ban for it to follow a specific format, and it should just be on the admins to decide the lengths of the bans based on past offenses and the context of the ban itself. i posted this in the ladder admins bunker almost a year ago, and still think it's a great idea that's just wickedly difficult to implement. mikesol said something about working on it, but i'm pretty sure he's moved on from that project and has better things to do. "Okay, so I’m a huge nerd and spent some time thinking about how we can all be on the same page and be more consistent in our bans. This is just an idea that could obviously use work, not sure how the rest of you will feel about it. Let me know if you feel like the numbers should be changed. ^_^ • Major rule violations are -100 points • Mid-level rule violations are -50 points • Minor rule violations are -25 points • Tier A users have 300 suspension points • This is the starting tier for all users. • When a user hits 0 suspension points or less they will receive an automatic 30-day ban. Once the 30 days are up, the user will be automatically released and then they will move onto the Tier B points, listed below. • Tier B users have 200 suspension points • When a user hits 0 suspension points or less they will receive an automatic 90-day suspension. Once the 90 days are up the user will be automatically released and then they will move onto the Tier C points, listed below. • Tier C users have 100 suspension points • When a user hits 0 suspension points or less they will receive an automatic permaban and will not be released. A minor rule violation could be like a warning – no ban, but you post that you warned them and that they will be losing 25 points. That would be like a warning for refusing to spec chat, spectating once mid-game for a short period of time, or not joining the game after it starts for a while. Mid-level could be a short ban such as leaving mid-game, getting ping kicked in consecutive games (playing with a known bad connection), or spectating for a long period of time. A major violation could be gamethrowing, excessive trolling, and explicitly ignoring admin requests to spectate, etc. We could set up a cookie cutter days to ban for specific violations if needed. Thoughts? -sunshineduck" something i didn't touch on with that post but mentioned later in the comments is that i think that with season rollover everyone should be rolled back a tier. i.e someone permabanned would be thrown back into tier C, anyone in tier C gets pushed back into B, people still in A that have been banned get reset back to the full 300, etc. it can obviously be fleshed out a little more if it comes into fruition at any time, but the gist is that there's some sort of hard-set base for longer bans but still has that subjectivity that is necessary in order to properly admin ladder. now that we have aki maybe he can set something up? i dunno.
|
|
#27
02-07-2012, 04:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
this discussion is a bit lulsy to me honestly, its really not that hard to not get banned.... read the rules and obey them and u wont have a problem.... i had 0 bans for an entire year before becoming an admin.... if your afraid of lenghty bans then just obey the rules. we arent gona ban u just to ban u i promise.
i dont think the rules need reworking and i dont think the lenghts need reworking either.
|
|
#28
02-07-2012, 11:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think you all have wayyy to much time on your hands =P
|
|
#29
02-08-2012, 12:08 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
heh sorry for all the posts (i think i've doubled my total post count in this thread), but i'm a big nerd when it comes to "law and policy"!
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
(WARNING: this second point is a lawyer-to-lawyer digression!) moreover, i would not really be exaggerating if i said that there is no "rule of law" regarding enforcement or sentencing (in the united states, at least). with regard to enforcement, even if several people report a crime to the police, they are in no way obligated to arrest or prosecute that person, and lawsuits for "selective prosecution" are essentially impossible to win. and with regard to sentencing, other than very wide-ranging mandatory minimums and maximums written into statutes, judges essentially have complete discretion to sentence whatever they feel is fair or appropriate. (in case you're interested in the rather fascinating subject of american federal sentencing, the NYT recently ran a revealing couple of stories interviewing a federal judge about his sentencing practices.)
|
|
#30
02-08-2012, 01:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I'm happy with the current system but that is really easy for me to say considering I almost never play anymore.
|
|
#32
02-08-2012, 03:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#33
02-08-2012, 08:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#34
02-08-2012, 08:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I've never quite seen a system like this, I applaud the originality and time you put into this SSD, and i honestly do not see any real flaws. Its very clear to both the admins and the users of what to expect when "crimes" are committed. Plus it seems like a very fair system imo.
+1 for SSD
|
|
#35
02-08-2012, 02:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#36
02-08-2012, 03:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think it's a decent overall plan, but I think it could do with a couple of modifications:
1) If someone barely plays then it's a lot harder for them to accrue points. I think it might be fairer if the points formula was something like Tier A: 200 points + n/2, where n is the number of games played that season. That means you can spec chat once every 50 games and maintain a healthy points balance. I can imagine some people who play a lot, but aren't really rule breakers at all spec chatting 12 times in a season and then getting banned for 30 days, which seems a little off. Either this or very minor offences (such as not observing Sol's spec chat calls on game opening) should be worth something like 10 points. 2) If I had 250 points left 3 days before the end of the season, I might be tempted just to **** with ladder, because I know there are no consequences for me as long as I don't accrue more than 250 more points. I think that in the last week of the season, we should revert to the current system to discourage people from 'spending' their balances.
|
|
#37
02-08-2012, 04:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
300 points though is 6 times leaving mid game before getting banned. Lets say you do it 5 times to be safe, there are 508 players who could potentially leave 5 times each season which means 2540 games could be played 5v4 or 6v5 every season.
I feel that this is at the same level of the leave percentage ban, can work in hige communities but not in these ones where there is only one game being played at any given moment. Also what ribilla said about the end of season is correct. People would just start trolling and rage quit games since their record would be reset anyway. If you meant to still ban the players for a couple of days every infraction and then ALSO use the point system then disregard what i said. Last edited by andy; 02-08-2012 at 04:29 PM.
|
|
#38
02-08-2012, 05:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
you still get regular-length bans as well as losing points, you just don't have escalating bans. sorry if this wasn't clear.
the point system may have to be tweaked a bit if implemented, but i think it's probably exceedingly difficult to do so and i don't think anyone's going to work on it any time soon (obviously, since it's been a year since i thought it up)
|
|
#39
02-09-2012, 12:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
i still think it's bizarre to have categorical, identical punishments based on the nature of the violation without taking into account all of the circumstances, including the context of the violation, the precise and case-specific nature of the violation, the player's history of violations, the player's history of playing in ladder, the player's remorse/attitude, etc. maybe it's fine to have a one-size-fits-all punishment for very minor infractions/punishments (e.g. hour-long bans or less), but otherwise it seems to me to make more sense to tailor the ban appropriately. (perhaps the problem is that admins might occasionally "abuse their discretion" and impose unreasonably long bans. but i would hope that admins are chosen based on their good judgment, so this problem wouldn't occur too frequently.)
also, i think it would be a good policy if admins were very receptive to reducing ban lengths when hearing appeals if they believe that a ban was harsher than necessary. this wouldn't be a sign of weakness, it would be demonstrating fairness and good judgment! (but probably you'd only want to reduce bans for people who were apologetic about their behavior and promised not to do it again -- of course while pointing out the unreasonable length of the ban. bans should not be reduced for angry, defiant types who show no remorse or indication that they've learned from the experience.)
|
|
#40
02-09-2012, 01:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
sps
the one thought i did have was this is more of a contract. by using the password we are effectively agreeing to ladder's terms of use. we have read the rules and we understand the consequences of infringement. having said that i really like the points idea ssd
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
