I know many didn't like it but I think this is a really important and well though statement by John. We often want it both ways, and no, we can't have it both ways. It is true that some people do a lot lot more for the community than the average player, make people happy , bind together people o/, keep the economy rolling $€£, organize stuff :nyan:and so on, and it really hurt us when they do something stupid and they get punished for it (sometimes much more than we think is just) but do we really want a system where some players can get to the point where they because of their "status" or "connections" are above the ToS? Instead of us just complaining about decisions, do we have suggestions about how we want it? Suggestions that we can stand up for both for friends, foes and people (sry) we don't really care about? Discuss.
There was a pretty good response a few posts below that http://royals.ms/forum/showpost.php?p=37948&postcount=9 Explaining your chosen actions on a case by case basis would keep people from accusing you of playing favourites, if your decision did indeed make sense. Right now its like.. 2 people break the same rule and receive the same punishment. The one guys' intent was malicious and for personal gain and he didnt care about hurting the server, but the other guy's offence was genuinely accidental and had no negative repercussions whatsoever. The community doesn't seem to think giving both of them the same punishment is fair. Applying the same punishments for rules across the board like that is not fair. Thats not what fair means. Thats like punishing a kid who shoplifted once and a professional burglar the same. But yeah you're right it could be bad the other way, too. We could have some veteran of the server doing bad shit and people would stick up for them no matter what, and they could be friends with GMs and everything, while new players get banned for less serious things. This is not good either. But there is a wide ass gap between these 2 scenarios, and it should be the staff's responsibility to have sound judgement and make the right decision on individual cases. This does NOT mean giving different people different punishments for the exact same thing. That would be playing favourites. It doesn't even mean looking at past offences. Someone shouldnt be punished worse than others for like minor glitch abusing because they said ngga in a smega in their first week here. It means looking at HOW they broke the rule, to what extent, and the amount of damage caused. Contrary to what John said, it is most definitely not one or the other. It's not that simple, the staff CAN win, they just have to do a good job. I'm not trying to call you guys out, I'm not saying you're doing a shit job. I understand it's hard, I probably wouldn't be able to take over all your responsibilities. It's never going to be perfect, there will always be people who disagree with your decisions. But... at the moment things are a bit further from perfect than they could be.
That's where you're wrong. With only a few exceptions, which have more severe penalties, 1st offence = 3 day ban, 2nd offence = 7 day ban, 3rd offence = permaban. So in the case of someone who has already been banned twice before, they are looking at a permaban for a 3rd offence.
Yeah sorry I agree with multiple offences = increasing punishments, i just meant like and mainly this http://royals.ms/forum/showthread.php?p=34888#post34888 and a little bit here http://royals.ms/forum/showpost.php?p=38005&postcount=22
Saki, you have a very valid point here; no matter what way the staff chooses, there will be accusations and there will always be members of the community against their decisions, especially when it comes to the more prominent members of the community. This should, however, in no way decide the ban severity, since that would, in every way, be favouritism. I personally believe the way to be a good staff member is to find the middle way. You should stick to the rules and enforce them, of course, otherwise the whole system would be deeply flawed; however, acting like complete robots (for lack of a better word) and enforcing the rules the same way in obviously different cases is just unfair, as mentioned above. Every case is unique and should be dealt with accordingly in my opinion. This human touch to ban appeals and such will always lead to accusations of bias, but they are disposable in every way in most cases, since they form a definite minority and are obviously brought forth by a relationship with the accused. The one problem here that arises is the claims of unjustified bans when prominent members of the community get banned (permanently), but this is foreseeable, and I personally believe the community just has to deal with the fact that these members did break the rules (repeatedly) and treating them differently would be favouritism, even though the community may not like this. And to respond to Dumptruck... There's a difference, though, a distinguishable one: When someone breaks the rule in their first week here, they are bound to cause more trouble later, and punishing them early is a good way to prevent this. When your first rule breach is after 2 months of activity, it's different; however, I've rarely seen cases treated like this (as in the punishment is partly based on the activity and time spent so far on MapleRoyals) IIRC. And Dumptruck, could you explain to me how the two links you posted are related to this thread? Dexterity got banned (and unbanned) for a visual bug that was later on discovered by me and Katsuruka, the primary GMs on the case back then. Model got banned for other reasons that are completely unrelated. I think Matt also wouldn't like if this thread is based on specific cases.
It was related, I was responding to Kat My point was that separate completely different offences should not be related. So I mean, someone's new to the server and they didnt read the rules well enough and say naga in a smega, and they get banned. Then like 4 months later him and 3 other people abuse a minor glitch.. Lets say they accidentally make Pap stop attacking half way through and decide to finish it. I don't believe the guy who swore in a smega should be punished worse than the others. With the first link, people are debating the probability of being missed and whether or not Dex was using hacks, and Matt just chimes in that they've been banned for vote abuse and ban evading before.. which have nothing to do with whether it was a bug or not, and comes across as attacking her character. Same with the other link, the fact that he's been banned for offensive language in the past is not related to how the account sharing rule should be enforced. I disagree
I would disagree too most likely, but it would kind of depend on the situation. It's hard to point fingers for more offenses after the first one. However, if it is against the ToC then they're breaking a rule they agreed not to break.
My point is, theres enough people out there who will be banned more than once. There's also quite a few who dont and learn from their mistakes; I should rephrase: theres a slightly higher chance that someone who has been banned before will be banned again compared to people who have never been banned.
