Clarity on Passerbys reporting abuse.

I've a case study here for those who have too much time like me.
This thread is looking for certainty in rules. Rules are aplenty, but for this post, it will only focus on whether PASSERBYS can report harassments/racist remarks/profane language etc.. It will also look into the parameters of what determines a ban or no-ban. Basically, transparency.

When it comes to Report Abuse/Ban appeals etc., the forums are partially here to help the community understand the gravity of wrongdoings and also the impartiality of the system right? So, looking aside from my own banning, respond to this thread neutrally of course. I have been very intrigued by this one which i noticed many days ago.

There should be no comments about "IF ONLY". This is a Case study. End result. What should happen. It has to be restrictive to the situation already unfolding, and not pre-emptive.


Case ABC
Profane Language (RESULT: BAN)
Discussion in 'Report Abuse' started by Frostie, Sep 4, 2015.
Character Name: Speeedy
Name(s) of the character(s) you are reporting: Snakehips
Offence committed: profane language
Details: Said the f word in FM, as shown in the following SS.

Spoiler: Speedy's SS

GM John's Response:
Snakehips banned 3 days for profane language.

Case XYZ
Harassment and racist (RESULT: NO-BAN)
Discussion in 'Report Abuse' started by RCed, Sep 9, 2015.
Character Name: RCed
Name(s) of the character(s) you are reporting: Coarse
Offence committed: racism and harassment
Details: So this guys just came and started being racist as u can see in the chat

Spoiler: RCed's SS

GM John's Response:
You had nothing to do with the conversation and then you decided to get involved to report someone who wasn't even talking to you. Nothing will be done here. If Oppenheimer would like to open a case, that's different.

PARAMETERS:

• Both reports were from passerbys.
• Both reports are derogatory.
• Only passerby-related difference in case studies is of: XYZ stepping in to help the victim and saying that he will report this.
• ABC is vulgar, XYZ is vulgar & racist.
• Both reports were filed by the passerby in the forums.

COMMENTS:
In both instances, passerbys reported this in the forums. Yet only ABC follows on towards a ban on the offender. ABC's offender spouted a single word 'f*ggot". However, XYZ is much more profane, rude and derogatory. Racist remarks were also included condescendingly, and XYZ's offender was even egging for a ban. Regardless of whether passerbys help or not, or incite sniding remarks of ban, that should not change the law for the offender or instead actually give leniency to them.
In the eyes of morality, both are offences, and it is up to the judge to decide the punishment outcome. BUT, it is clear both are offences, regardless of ban durations.

1. The argument is of why only one of them gets banned? And the other goes scot free? If its a GM's judgement to decide who gets banned, to which case study guideline should it be followed by, ABC or XYZ? Should passerbys who report abuse be accepted by GMs or should it not be? This is not the only instance in the forum of no-ban due to passerby irrelevancy, asserted by a GM. Clarity here will help to lessen incidences of new posts related to passerbys helping to report instances of bad behaviour which ends in nothing. Comment.

2. Also, should there be clarity on whether GMs are following the T&Cs or are the T&Cs following the GMs? In this sense, should GMs offer a certain level of explanation for bans that fall into a grey area of perspective vs policy? Obviously it is not possible (Too much time & effort) to explain every ban to users, so we should streamline this down to bans in 'grey areas' which include offences that are not explicitly marked (Word for word; It is only black & white where policies can become binding) in the policies. Comment.


REFERENCES ON POLICIES:
>>>
"Players agree that Game Masters and Administrators ("GMs") have ultimate discretion and authority in applying, construing, interpreting, acting or omitting of the Game Use & Restrictions ("Rules") based on the evidence obtained from any source. Furthermore, Game Masters possess and may exercise the additional and final discretion in modifying punishment for a violation of the Rules, based on the severity of the violation. The severity of a violation is determined on a discretionary basis by GMs, and the determination of any severity of a violation cannot be disputed by Players. Players agree that all decisions by GMs are FINAL AND BINDING, although they are entitled to one appeal of a banishment of a given violation, as long as the appeal is completed in full accordance with the rules and/or procedures which govern the appeal process. Players agree that the judgment rendered from an appeal are FINAL AND BINDING, and may not appeal the judgment further."

>>>

• Engage in rude, unlawful, harassing, vulgar, obscene, hateful, threatening, abusive or otherwise objectionable behavior, including, without limitation, looting, kill stealing, making sexual comments; Punishment: 1st offence - 3 day ban, 2nd offence - 7 day ban, 3rd offence - permanent ban"

 

There is a difference between those two reports.
First one is using words that are clearly outlined in the rules as bannable http://royals.ms/forum/threads/some-clarity.2835/

The second report is different, that one is personal harassment and it has been said in other reports that they
have to be the ones who make the report.
Even though the person used racist remarks they are not the words that gets you insta banned.

As already said in that second report if he would have made his own report if he was offended by it then that person
would have been banned.

Seeing how many report abuse threads I have read you picked very bad examples.

 

You seek certainty in rules; no rule system governing a community in any existing body has absolute certainty, and ours is no different. Grey areas will always exist, and that is why you have us; a GM staff to determine which side of the grey area a case falls on.

The difference between those two posts is that one uses a word we do not tolerate, passerby or not, and the other is a direct statement that could be between two friends and not offensive at all, therefore the passerby has no right to involve himself in the situation.

Your case: a player said a word they weren't supposed to say, and they're banned now. Also your case: you went out of your way to find a player and harass them until they instigate you for the sole purpose of reporting them. That falls under the bolded, underlined and italicized part of the rule you quoted:

You both got banned, and that's that. If you continue spamming our forums with arguments after you received this:

Then I be inclined to temporarily or permanently suspend your posting privileges. I suggest you use your three days off to learn the meaning of the words in the rule you quoted, because in the sincerest manner possible, a good couple of them describe you.

Thread closed.

EDIT: For anyone actually interested on clarity for passersby reporting harassment.

You as a passerby have the right to report anything you see that you feels break our Terms and Conditions, however you understand that, unless there are seriously objectionable things being said or done, we may require that the victim in the situation come forward as well. What is seriously objectionable in our eyes is completely our discretion to decide on a case-by-case basis; some of the words, phrases or actions that may qualify for this are probably all too well known. When you make a report as a passersby you are not the victim, you are simply a witness to something that detracts from our community, and while we appreciate your concern, there are times when the victim needs to show that they are, in fact, victims.