+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Rules & Requests (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Site & Forum Feedback (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Thread: Sanction Reviews (/showthread.php?tid=107005)
Sanction Reviews - Vigilia.Procuratio - 11-08-2013
Good afternoon,
I would like to propose that the Administrators facilitate some kind of appeal system for sanctions. I firmly believe that the current methods are flawed.
As an example, I used to work with an anti-cheat community for another on-line game and we had a very, very simply rule of thumb: 100% or they're innocent. We had to prove absolutely convincingly that the player had cheated and we had to submit our evidence to the community, otherwise nobody would have paid a blind bit of attention to our decisions.
Here, many sanctions are being made and the threads closed when the accused has tried to put forward their defence. That is not my idea of a fair trial. If the accused has reasonable grounds to issue an appeal, it ought be heard.
Some sanctions are being enacted with minimal evidence, although there may be instances where additional server-side evidence supports decisions. Well, I'm afraid to say that this evidence really should be disclosed if used to uphold a complaint. If it cannot be disclosed then the decision cannot be valid.
I do understand that some things cannot be disclosed by the Administrators. Going back to the anti-cheat community I worked for, we actually used a tool to detect cheating which itself could be used to cheat on-line. As such, we could not under any circumstance publicly discuss that tool. In any case, the manner in which we put forward our evidence was sufficient in its integrity and depth, in so much that the common members trusted the outcomes. That is what we need here: trust.
To conclude; I am urging the Administrators to have a good, long think about how reports are approached, how decisions are finalised, how they are delivered to the community and, further, how the community itself can provide feedback on the results.
Thank you for understanding my concerns.
RE: Sanction Reviews - Barb - 11-08-2013
I like the idea.
RE: Sanction Reviews - sindroms - 11-08-2013
I read this title as ''sanction reavers'' and was about to give a thumbs up 8|
RE: Sanction Reviews - SnakThree - 11-08-2013
The worst part is:
When you play, you have to keep evidence that you are innocent. This is the only flaw in this system I see.
Also. One can discuss santcion privately, like it should be done as opposed to doing it publically.
RE: Sanction Reviews - ~}P{~ Legendary - 11-08-2013
I played several games with this "100% or they're innocent" rule.
In my opinion, this is a good idea, but let's be honest: It is not that easy to make a 100% report only from in-game screenshots. And I think, the only good evidence shall be made out of videos. If someone breaks the rules, the Admins need to see what happened, not just trying to find out it from the pictures.
On the other hand, the second "100%" report, if an Admin can see what is going on here, and here.
For example, let's just say Admins/Angels should have the power to teleport to systems, and see what's happnening. Someone is silent attacking, someone write this to an online Angel : "// There is a rule breaker in New York, sector 3C, right center, please, come and see."
This is what I remember from communities where I played.
Also, this is just an idea.
RE: Sanction Reviews - Xelon - 11-08-2013
Right then, those sanctions...
First all sanctions that don't use the template won't be processed except for very rare cases.
Second all sanctions that don't have enough evidence we don't act upon unless the Admins feel like it's worth checking up further with the tools they have, after that the decision is made for a warning/ban/cashgrab
That's all.
RE: Sanction Reviews - Vigilia.Procuratio - 11-08-2013
As I said about the community I worked for one time; the onus was on the staff to prove that somebody cheated. It was always maintained that if somebody was innocent, they had nothing at all to worry about. Mistakes were made sometimes and it usually became obvious so the player would regain their good name.
Players should never be expected to prove that they are innocent unless there is compelling evidence to suggest the contrary. Some things are quite clear; swearing, hacking, silent attacks with sufficient timestamps, etc. Sometimes, though, the accused may well have a good case for defence and they are often completely ignored. Ideally it would all be kept private, but there are many, many instances where the "offending" party has no chance to put their side across and so they might do it publicly, which usually results in them getting into more trouble.
RE: Sanction Reviews - Vigilia.Procuratio - 11-08-2013
(11-08-2013, 03:08 PM)Xelon Wrote: sanctions that don't have enough evidence we don't act upon unless the Admins feel like it's worth checking up further with the tools they haveThat's where the problem is. Players are quite possibly being sanctioned with nobody having the faintest idea as to what evidence there actually is to prove their guilt. If somebody is making a clear defence then you really do need to make your evidence public.
RE: Sanction Reviews - Xelon - 11-08-2013
The Evidence is most certainly not made Public, it is being handled via PM over the sanctioned Person and the Admins, just as is clearing up unknowns that arn't on the screenshots but have been found with the Admin-Tools.
RE: Sanction Reviews - Vigilia.Procuratio - 11-08-2013
What I'm saying, Xelon, is that if I strongly felt that I had been hard done-by and I made my case clear, requested an explanation, was not happy with the explanation and then completely ignored thereafter, I would be very annoyed. That is to assume that I'm truly innocent, of course. I would want to know precisely how the Administrators came to their decision and if they neglected to disclose their evidence then the sanction would quite clearly be illegitimate. Not that any of this involves me being sanctioned, I just see a big problem here.