Disciplinary Guideline: The Reckoning
It is time to reconsider our disc-policy. In this thread, please post feedback to our Disciplinary Actions Guideline.
What do you want to keep, what would you change, what would you add?
Disciplinary Guideline: The Reckoning
Forum
» O5-Forum / Discussions
» Disciplinary Guideline: The Reckoning
I would change permabanning. The maximum regular ban time shall be 6 month, after that, they are banned for indefinite time. After X months, e.g. 12, they can appeal their ban. We then decide case by case.
I would only permaban bots and users that we can never allow on our server, like pedophiles, and without ability to appeal.
To make it easier to determine what is what, I would call the first one "indefinite ban".
Also we should only log in one place, preferably Discord
I second this. Most of the dumb shit pulled by people that may earn permabans are committed by people still young and foolish. Opinions, ideas, and values change over time, and people might come to deeply regret whatever harm they've caused in the past. If somebody has truly matured and changed for the better, I see no reason not to let them back in.
However, I would like to see the maximum regular ban penalty to be 3 years. Three years is usually enough time for a person to grow out of a certain phase in life, change environments, and be exposed to new ideas, especially when it comes to teens. One year in the life of a teens brings oodles of change in character, and by the time that three years have elapsed, they will most likely have graduated to high school or uni or real life, and received enough new input to reasonably assume a change in attitude and behaviour.
I would like to call for a revision of the following point: Being offensive outside of the INT wiki or chat. We are not responsible for Wikidots or Discords private messages or the chats of other branches.
From what I have observed, this is an issue that we have repeatedly been confronted with since the inception of INT, and many times have proven highly impractical if not outright inappropriate. Potentially, it might also hurt our standing with our fellow branches, and seeing as how we are primarily a neutral meeting grounds for the various branches, that is something we should try our hardest to avoid.
At the same time, I would like to avoid witch hunts, and like to give every user a fair chance. I therefore suggest that with banned or otherwise disciplined offenders from other branches, we skip Step 1 (Demand) and go straight to Step 2 (Warning), either at the first offence on our branch, or as soon as they enter Discord, seeing as how that has essentially become our community hub. This notice is preferably to be delivered by our bot, KIRA. This would save us the red tape of going through proper procedures to kick or ban somebody we know is toxic, as current practice is essentially asking and waiting for trouble to happen.
Furthermore, we as Staff should have the option of blocking users who, due to their offences on other branches, we highly suspect would be harmful to our users. We have had problems with users before messing around with sensitive topics like suicide (when we have people who're extremely sensitive and suggestive to such things) or troll about extreme ideologies only to incite flame wars, which has happened on multiple occasions. Said measure could also be used to block known raiders. Just letting extremely, harmfully toxic people waltz into our branch when we know they've been just as harmful on others is, in mine honest opinion, an extremely stupid thing to do.
Therefore, I reiterate, I request a revision to the following rule: Being offensive outside of the INT wiki or chat. We are not responsible for Wikidots or Discords private messages or the chats of other branches.
First of all i do not like the idea of "hard guides for ban lenght", more like "guides how we can do it", suggestions lets say. After all even now we are discussing ban lenghts, so i want to keep it that way. Of course with some sort of guide. In short: EN style.
I would change permabanning. The maximum regular ban time shall be 6 month, after that, they are banned for indefinite time. After X months, e.g. 12, they can appeal their ban. We then decide case by case.
Permaban can stay, after all permabans are for trolls and bots mostly. So people that come there for one purpose only: to be trouble and be toxic. As for "troublesome but pretty normal" users we should of course do not ban them permamently, but maybe year? And yes, we need a way to handle appeals. I will try personally to add said users to my friend list to have contact with them, just in case. But i have no idea sadly how we can make appeals possible: second server will not work (tried), so maybe friend requests?
Also we should only log in one place, preferably Discord
We can keep kicks and short bans in Discord, fully agree. But any serious case should be noted here, i think. Lets say second ban of same user or very serious rule breaking.
I do not want any witch hunts. But if one user have ben banned for something in one place, and then they come here and they are NOT a productive, normal member, but decides to shitpost/ troll, they i think we have full right to remove them. We give new users privilage of doubt and we do not know them: this have no existance here.
In short i would want to have our disciplinary rules as simple as possible, but clear and fair at the same time. There are many staff members, not everybody need to vote/ take part in disciplinary actions. That said i would like if every disciplinary action would have agreement from at least 3 other staff members.
Hope my English is not too broken to understand my points and thank you for your time.
First of all i do not like the idea of "hard guides for ban lenght", more like "guides how we can do it", suggestions lets say. After all even now we are discussing ban lenghts, so i want to keep it that way. Of course with some sort of guide. In short: EN style.
Agree. As most cases are completely different, it would be a good idea to decide case by case how long the user gets banned, and when they can repeal it. As such, I also think that the possibility to repeal a ban is a good idea. How we can do it though is another question.
But i have no idea sadly how we can make appeals possible: second server will not work (tried), so maybe friend requests?
What did you try, exactly, and how did it fail? Friend requests/PMs may or may not be a good idea, I think we could just try it out and see if it works. In general though, I'd think that having some sort of system where the whole Staff team can look at the repeal would be better.
As Grom stated, permabans should be used carefully. In general, I don't support permabanning a user, but that should be decided case by case. Additionally, I think that Neders proposal is a good idea. Three years are a long time for a teenager, but again, we should decide case by case. In other words, the guideline should be clear on how to handle troublesome people, but still be flexible enough for us to decide individually.
Logging stuff in one place is a good idea. I'd think that the bigger part of the Staff is more active on the Discord and as such we should use that (same thing with voting).
We should be able to ban users based on their actions on other servers. As an example, DE had its share of assholes and raiders. Note the should be able.
Anyway, those are my two cents.
/forum/t-5961793/disciplinary-guideline:the-reckoning#post-