Rule Revisions

[Forever_A_Steve]

Nerd.Nu has various rules in place to keep this a happy and civil community, along with bans to enforce these rules.

 

Bans are ok, but they should be revised for first time offenders.

 

 

 

In my case, when I used that cave exploit, I was handed a 1 month insta-ban with no warning or anything. My only way to "appeal" was to accept my ban sentencing and deal with it. 

 

 

And this time? Grief over 2 wood blocks. I have received no warning prior, but apparently minor grief warnings spanning all the way back to Revs 14 and 15 are taken into consideration in the decision process of wether I should be banned or not, something that Zomise did everything in her power and took advantage to do. 

 

Apperantly minor griefs in past revs and breaking 2 wood blocks inside a rule violating structure = ban

 

 

 

 

 

So I would like to use my misfortune and propose reform to how bans are done.

 

 

My suggested rules are:

1. First time bans for any reason (excluding hate speech, racial slurs, and harassment) should not exceed 5 days. Players usually understand what they have done provided that the mod has been reasonable and polite about it. 2nd offenders should be dealt with more harshly.

 

2. Warnings from previous revs for anything (excluding hate speech, racial slurs, and harassment) shall not be considered in the decision process of a ban in a current rev. (for example: 2 different warnings from 2 different revs for minor grief should not be considered in the decision process of a ban. New warnings for the current rev must be issued first. This applies to everything but hate speech, racial slurs, and harassment.)

 

3. Repeat offenders must be handled by server admins/head admins by default so punishments are handled adequately and fairly. Like how Barlimore was during my first ban, unlike being told things like "shit happens" by a moderator when a clanmate died because of server problems, losing all of his items as a result. (When this happened before, Admins actually handled this differently and in a more positive manner)

 

 

 

I hope this receives support and brings better trust to the Mod/Admin team, who ensures that we all have a fun and interactive place for our hobbies, free of charge.

Edited September 14, 2015 by Forever_A_Steve

[c45y]

As far as the notes go, if you have previously been banned for rule breaking of some sort then bans will often come a lot quicker, as you are expected to have learned from the appeal process and your time away from the server.

 

I don't have a lot more feedback on your proposed appeal process other than it seems like it would slow down the whole process, which is something I think we would all rather avoid

[Guest Former Staff]

My suggested rules are:

1. First time bans for any reason (excluding hate speech, racial slurs, and harassment) should not exceed 5 days. Players usually understand what they have done provided that the mod has been reasonable and polite about it. 2nd offenders should be dealt with more harshly.

 

2. Warnings from previous revs for anything (excluding hate speech, racial slurs, and harassment) shall not be considered in the decision process of a ban in a current rev. (for example: 2 different warnings from 2 different revs for minor grief should not be considered in the decision process of a ban. New warnings for the current rev must be issued first. This applies to everything but hate speech, racial slurs, and harassment.)

 

3. Repeat offenders must be handled by server admins/head admins by default so punishments are handled adequately and fairly. Like how Barlimore was during my first ban, unlike being told things like "shit happens" by a moderator when a clanmate died because of server problems, losing all of his items as a result. (When this happened before, Admins actually handled this differently and in a more positive manner)

 

Hello Forever_A_Steve, thanks for submitting these suggestions. I'm interested to see what other people think but for the moment I hope to share some insight into each of your points, hopefully to help give a better understanding for now so that we're all on the same page.

 

1. First time bans are usually met with a very short duration, with the exception of xraying which is a flat one month ban once we have established the facts. Leading up to a first ban, generally, means a person has received three notes in seperate instances which document that staff have taken the time to try to educate people on something that has broken the rules. There are some exceptions to this, for example on creative we tend to see a number of people log in just to grief / block spam, or even just spam racist / (similar) comments into chat. A kick sometimes helps before banning (though very uncommonly with those examples). People who have already served a ban for say griefing and have been rebanned for griefing, are usually given a longer ban duration.
2. Warnings (notes), as previous mentioned, help us to know that someone on staff has educated a person on where they have broken a rule. From my own perspective, I generally only take into consideration the past 6~ months of notes from someone when deciding how to proceed. A note could be added at the end of a revision, only for the same rule to be broken at the start of the next - I don't think that we should seperate notes by revision for that reason.
3. Currently, when there is a repeat offender appealing, I have experienced moderators who have handled those appeals, reach out to others to try and reach a fair conclusion to the ban. Ensuring that for the most part, the banning moderator handles appeals themselves, helps to reduce the pressure that most admins would have if they had to thoroughly check every single ban on the chance that they may need to handle it (I can't speak for others but I read them all).

[Forever_A_Steve]

Well, the point of these suggested rules is to take out individual perspective and to put in place guidelines for such a thing. Like zomise has no problem waving the hammer for the smallest of reasons, but if it were to be handled by you, you would overlook it and give me a warning.

Its to keep the moderation process more consistent rather than calling out moderators in a way that is disruptive and frowned upon.

It sucks when i have a banning mod who is using everything in their power and gives no haste to banning me when others would handle it properly. Therea no recourse, no reversal, no anything but suffering.

If admins are feeling pressured, then they shold come up with a reasonable solution.

[Guest Former Staff]

Well, the point of these suggested rules is to take out individual perspective and to put in place guidelines for such a thing. Like zomise has no problem waving the hammer for the smallest of reasons, but if it were to be handled by you, you would overlook it and give me a warning.

 

If the individual had prior notes for the same offense, I'd probably take it to a short ban. Adding notes and messaging hasn't worked at this point, if it's the third instance.

[Rokku117]

I think the current system works well. I should know. To quote admins and mods everywhere "Quit whining"

[Narissis]

Well, the point of these suggested rules is to take out individual perspective and to put in place guidelines for such a thing. Like zomise has no problem waving the hammer for the smallest of reasons, but if it were to be handled by you, you would overlook it and give me a warning.

Its to keep the moderation process more consistent rather than calling out moderators in a way that is disruptive and frowned upon.

It sucks when i have a banning mod who is using everything in their power and gives no haste to banning me when others would handle it properly. Therea no recourse, no reversal, no anything but suffering.

If admins are feeling pressured, then they shold come up with a reasonable solution.

 

 

Individual perspective is always going to exist; that's a side-effect of moderation by human beings and not robots.

 

Regarding this particular ban, I feel it should be pointed out that you were given the opportunity to repair the blocks that you broke. Instead, you logged out when you were asked. Because you were uncooperative, you received a ban for griefing.

 

The fact that it was only two blocks is irrelevant; the rules are clear that you should not be modifying other players' structures without consent. You could have avoided this ban by being proactive and replacing the logs when you were asked. That you deem the structure rule-breaking is also irrelevant; as has been pointed out to you, the proper course of action in this case would be to modreq the rule-breaking structure and let the staff sort it out for you.

 

I'm also under the impression that the structure in question was accessible from another route (though I may be mistaken about this). If that is the case, then it was not rule-breaking. The rule states that structures need to be accessible; it does not state that structures need to be accessible from any and all angles. If there's an entrance to a structure and you want to gain access to it, then it's up to you to locate the entrance, not to make your own.

 

I recognize that there is always room for improvement in moderation and ban enforcement policies, but if you're going to advocate for change, you need to own up to the reality of what happened in the incident that provoked your advocacy. Please don't play the victim card and make out like you were unfairly targeted when you have multiple instances of rule-breaking behaviour on your record and were even given (and subsequently flaunted) the opportunity to avoid the punishment entirely by simply fixing the two blocks in question.

[Difficult1]

I have very little to say on the subject, but honestly i think the ban system gives a bit to much leway to many people. Im all for 1-3 chances provided they are not in the same week... but i feel like players with long histories of being banned or general trolling/shit starting shouldn't be given infinite amount of chances to appeal. I really don't feel like giving people a 3-9 month ban or even a year ban solves anything when it comes to repeat offenders who just wanna spread resentment.

[Rokku117]

"I'm also under the impression that the structure in question was accessible from another route"

That it was, switch forgot to make an exit while I was stuck in it. I made another way in before I logged out.