strike system reform.

scazzman·Aug 31, 2016·1 votes·304 views

i actually agree with the idea for the most part however. i feel like all 3 prior punishments are disproportionately lax compared to the permaban step. and that certain offenses arent punished severely enough, such as intentional feeding the current system is

10 game chat ban 25 game chat ban 14 day ban permaban

my proposed new system

verbal warning 14 day ban 1 year ban permaban

players still get the same number of strikes however they get just a warning for a first offense. and punishments become harsher to compensate. this would also reduce the number of toxic players able to play by eliminating chat restrictions

10 Comments

Awkward CouchAug 31, 20162 votes

Going from a verbal warning to a 14 day ban is really extreme. I think most player who would get a 1 year ban, just wouldn't come back to the game I'm not sure how I feel about that.

scazzmanAug 31, 20161 votes

the intent is to be more forgiving for the occasional screw up. but harsher towards repeat or severe offenders

ModPrandineAug 31, 2016

{quoted}

the intent is to be more forgiving for the occasional screw up. but harsher towards repeat or severe offenders

It's already harsh enough on repeat offenders. If chat restrictions aren't enough then they get prevented from playing the game for 2 weeks or worse, permabanned. If they try to get around it on their smurfs, their smurfs will be instantly banned as well. Chat restrictions are meant to make people decide whether harassing others is more important than actually communicating important information about the game while bumping them to a temporary ban or a permanent ban if that doesn't work.

scazzmanSep 1, 20161 votes

i disagree. a 14 day ban is still a wrist slap. the scary thing about it isnt the ban its the "next report is a permaban" chat restrictions arent a punishment. the real punishment is the retroactive crap that goes with them. a yearlong ban gives more shock value to the final step

ModPrandineSep 1, 2016

{quoted}

i disagree. a 14 day ban is still a wrist slap. the scary thing about it isnt the ban its the "next report is a permaban" chat restrictions arent a punishment. the real punishment is the retroactive crap that goes with them. a yearlong ban gives more shock value to the final step

Respectfully I disagree. Because it is possible to gradually get your account back in good standing if a person truly wanted to change then they would put in the actual effort that it takes to change their behavior for the better. It also isn't "the next report is a permaban", it's "the next punishment is a permaban" since reports only trigger a review of the account reported and don't establish guilt. It's only when the system finds that the person in question is still intentionally behaving poorly that it hands out the next punishment in line, a permaban in this case.

Aside from that though I just honestly fail to see how a 1-year ban would make any more difference than a 2-week ban would. You say that a 2-week ban is still just a wrist slap, but wouldn't a more appropriate analogy be something like this:

2-week ban=take away your computer/fun privileges for 2 weeks. Permanent ban=take away for good/until you prove your behavior improves. Account slowly getting better over time=you'll get your stuff back only when you prove that your behavior has changed for the better.

Of course that analogy is open to debate but I think you get the idea. I doubt that we'll ever come to an agreement on this so I guess that we're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this point. Oh well.

SexualizeOatmealAug 31, 20161 votes

Its such a huge jump from punishments... You say that they arent hard enough, but with what you have, the 1 year ban might as well be a perma ban, cause there isnt a reason to wait an entire year to play the game again. The current system is fine as it is if you ask me...

scazzmanAug 31, 20161 votes

i disagree. with the 1 year ban. you still get to keep your account. 1 year was also an arbitrary number. 1 month seems more reasonable now that you mention it

SexualizeOatmealSep 3, 20161 votes

Although a year is an arbitary number, it is still 365 days. Lots of people wont remember it, so it might as well have been a permaban, with that in mind, 1 month is indeed much better.

EvilDustManAug 31, 20161 votes

Nah. If you get to a 14 day ban, you probably aren't willing to reform. 10 and 25 are basically warnings. Feeding starts at 14 days, so it puts you one step away from a permaban.