+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Discovery General (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Discovery RP 24/7 General Discussions (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=23)
+--- Thread: In regards to the recent bans (/showthread.php?tid=141123)
In regards to the recent bans - Jansen - 07-14-2016
Here is a bit of an insiders viewpoint on the whole drama, be assured that Ill use the flames that eventually light this thread up to cook me a delicious meal, alternatively you just play nice and things can be discussed in a civil manner.
There has been silence regarding the recent bans for a while now, we are sorry for this, but the discussion took a bit longer than usually, this is related to us having to decide how to deal with the situation as a whole, considering that whatever decision we take here will have further consequences, not only for the people involved, or us, but the community as a whole.
Now time to answer some questions that might have been around:
Why did you decide to do this?
Over the last year, maybe more, we as Admins have seen a huge increase in what might be called misbehaviour on the forums and ingame, those of you that are here for longer know that this has always been around to some degree, however at least to us it felt that the problem was growing and seemed to threaten the community.
Why did you ban the people you banned?
We have tried to find out which people have shown a problematic attitude in the past until now, then we voted on everyone on the list we had worked out. The list contained more names than just the ones that ultimately got banned, some had been permabanned before, some had shown a very problematic attitude in the past, but it seemed to us that these people had seen that they did something wrong and improved their behaviour accordingly, which could not be said about the people that got banned in the end.
Why did you do it this way?
This might have been handled differently, that is true, however, if we had gone by the 'standard' approach, the people would have been warned, sanctioned a few times and by the time we would have had enough bans to justify an indefinite ban this way, the people in question would have adapted their attitude in a way that makes them act in what could be called 'grey areas', where they still might have been harmful, but nearly impossible to sanction for rulebreaking.
This is why we decided to make a two staged vote for this, one vote to see if we really want to do this, with all problems it might involve and a second vote to decide whom to ban.
But nobody even got evidence, show them the evidence?
A few of the banned people have asked for evidence, we have given it to the people where we have conclusive forum evidence, in some cases however there is not a lot of evidence on the forums and we had to use different sources and had to trust our judgement, see above why.
What should be said here is that the Admins technically do not have to give out any evidence for this decision as it is not related to the rules. It is a decision that was done outside of the rules in order to 'develop and safeguard the health of the Discovery Freelancer community, official server, and forums; which has been our task ever since.
Is this decision final?
No, it is not yet, we are still discussing it and here might be changes, as we acknowledge that the way this was done, might not have been as fair as we would have liked it. This does not mean that the people in question are all going to be unbanned, just as much as it does not mean all of them have to stay banned.
Why does this take so long?
The so called "official Dev strike" has added another layer to this already rather complex decision. If we decide to revert the decision, we are going to open a way for every further unpopular decision to be reverted by such a 'strike' and we as Admins essentially lose every bit of authority we need to keep the server running and community intact. If we decide to keep the decision, then the Developers involved might stop working and we certainly look like cruel rulers, which might make things look less appealing for members, newcomers or returning people.
The people that complain that our decision takes too long or that claim that they could decide this much better and faster than we can, how would you decide?
Is this something that you would decide without trying to take every possible outcome and its consequences into account, or is it something that you would try to think through as well as you can?
There has been silence regarding the recent bans for a while now, we are sorry for this, but the discussion took a bit longer than usually, this is related to us having to decide how to deal with the situation as a whole, considering that whatever decision we take here will have further consequences, not only for the people involved, or us, but the community as a whole.
Now time to answer some questions that might have been around:
Why did you decide to do this?
Over the last year, maybe more, we as Admins have seen a huge increase in what might be called misbehaviour on the forums and ingame, those of you that are here for longer know that this has always been around to some degree, however at least to us it felt that the problem was growing and seemed to threaten the community.
Why did you ban the people you banned?
We have tried to find out which people have shown a problematic attitude in the past until now, then we voted on everyone on the list we had worked out. The list contained more names than just the ones that ultimately got banned, some had been permabanned before, some had shown a very problematic attitude in the past, but it seemed to us that these people had seen that they did something wrong and improved their behaviour accordingly, which could not be said about the people that got banned in the end.
Why did you do it this way?
This might have been handled differently, that is true, however, if we had gone by the 'standard' approach, the people would have been warned, sanctioned a few times and by the time we would have had enough bans to justify an indefinite ban this way, the people in question would have adapted their attitude in a way that makes them act in what could be called 'grey areas', where they still might have been harmful, but nearly impossible to sanction for rulebreaking.
This is why we decided to make a two staged vote for this, one vote to see if we really want to do this, with all problems it might involve and a second vote to decide whom to ban.
But nobody even got evidence, show them the evidence?
A few of the banned people have asked for evidence, we have given it to the people where we have conclusive forum evidence, in some cases however there is not a lot of evidence on the forums and we had to use different sources and had to trust our judgement, see above why.
What should be said here is that the Admins technically do not have to give out any evidence for this decision as it is not related to the rules. It is a decision that was done outside of the rules in order to 'develop and safeguard the health of the Discovery Freelancer community, official server, and forums; which has been our task ever since.
Is this decision final?
No, it is not yet, we are still discussing it and here might be changes, as we acknowledge that the way this was done, might not have been as fair as we would have liked it. This does not mean that the people in question are all going to be unbanned, just as much as it does not mean all of them have to stay banned.
Why does this take so long?
The so called "official Dev strike" has added another layer to this already rather complex decision. If we decide to revert the decision, we are going to open a way for every further unpopular decision to be reverted by such a 'strike' and we as Admins essentially lose every bit of authority we need to keep the server running and community intact. If we decide to keep the decision, then the Developers involved might stop working and we certainly look like cruel rulers, which might make things look less appealing for members, newcomers or returning people.
The people that complain that our decision takes too long or that claim that they could decide this much better and faster than we can, how would you decide?
Is this something that you would decide without trying to take every possible outcome and its consequences into account, or is it something that you would try to think through as well as you can?
RE: In regards to the recent bans - Croft - 07-14-2016
I would suggest attempting a compromise, if none can be reached then take whichever is the lesser of two evils.
It does make me wonder however now that precidence has been set, will Admins exercise the same right to strike should the situation be reversed?
RE: In regards to the recent bans - Jansen - 07-14-2016
(07-14-2016, 05:00 PM)Croft Wrote: I would suggest attempting a compromise, if none can be reached then take whichever is the lesser of two evils.
It does make me wonder however now that precidence has been set, will Admins exercise the same right to strike should the situation be reversed?
This would likely boil down to the end of the forums and server so I think Admin strikes wont be a thing
RE: In regards to the recent bans - Ichiru - 07-14-2016
I wasn't going to engage in this initially, but after reading it's obvious that the administration still misunderstands that their ways of justifying their actions are what is the problem at hand.
(07-14-2016, 04:48 PM)Jansen Wrote: Why did you do it this way?
This might have been handled differently, that is true, however, if we had gone by the 'standard' approach, the people would have been warned, sanctioned a few times and by the time we would have had enough bans to justify an indefinite ban this way, the people in question would have adapted their attitude in a way that makes them act in what could be called 'grey areas', where they still might have been harmful, but nearly impossible to sanction for rulebreaking.
This is why we decided to make a two staged vote for this, one vote to see if we really want to do this, with all problems it might involve and a second vote to decide whom to ban.
The entire point of warnings and bans is to get people to change their behaviour. Saying that they are changing their behaviour in order to be in line with what the administration wants is a bad thing is not an acceptable reason in order to not give them out. If you find behaviour that is harmful but not listed in the rules, you can modify the rules. That's how a living community should work, and is in fact how it works in real life. Rules are changed in order to exclude poor behaviour.
(07-14-2016, 04:48 PM)Jansen Wrote: A few of the banned people have asked for evidence, we have given it to the people where we have conclusive forum evidence, in some cases however there is not a lot of evidence on the forums and we had to use different sources and had to trust our judgement, see above why.
What should be said here is that the Admins technically do not have to give out any evidence for this decision as it is not related to the rules. It is a decision that was done outside of the rules in order to 'develop and safeguard the health of the Discovery Freelancer community, official server, and forums; which has been our task ever since.
All the fluff removed, this pretty much says "We couldn't properly justify ourselves within the set of rules we created in order to get the result we wanted." This means one of two things.
- You couldn't be bothered to complete a proper process before banning.
- You don't have sufficient reason to ban within the rules
Overall you've basically justified your decision with "we don't like these people" which is not a valid reason to remove people from a community, and completely destroys the validity and credibility of the rule set you've created. It says that these rules do not apply to everyone, and can be thrown out at will whether it be for the good or the bad of the community.
Furthermore, needing to keep an iron fist over the development team is not a reason to admit that this was handled incredibly poorly and that poor decisions were made. Failing to recognise this just shows arrogance on part of the administration and damages the already very low level of trust that exists between the administration and the community.
RE: In regards to the recent bans - eigos - 07-14-2016
May I suggest a solution to all this?
Whoever wants to be unbanned (out of the recent 6 or 8 people), has to come clean on 100% about their behavior and to take personal responsibility.
Example: "Guys, I have really done this, or said this. Even though I am a senior member here for quite some time, I thought I could get away with touching on those gray areas in the rulebook and I realize that my actions have harmed certain people and the server gameplay in general. We are all here to enjoy the game, so I shouldn't have done that. Please, reconsider my ban!
The people who were banned, they KNOW what they have done over the past months, leading up to this. They need to give up that personal position of "give me absolute proof of what I was caught doing wrong".
Only then, after they admit their past mistakes and ask to be unbanned, should we be able to start on a clean slate and enjoy the game together again.
P.S. I have been banned in the past - I speak from experience. Reason for ban was, personal attacks in-game and in the forums (no cheating or exploiting).
RE: In regards to the recent bans - Laxxy - 07-14-2016
You've set a precedent that allows you to ban members outside of the rules wherever you deem fit as long as you add that it was done to "develop and safeguard the health of the Discovery Freelancer community, official server, and forums"... The devs have set a precedent that they can go on strike to oppose admin decisions that they deem unfair...
Neither is needed or wanted.
RE: In regards to the recent bans - Ramke - 07-14-2016
The problem is that the dev strike outright demands either one extreme or the other, both of which will end up being harmful in the long run.
I personally don't think finding something both sides can agree on, without being completely destructive to the server and mod progression (not like the current options of either one extreme or the other at the moment), would cause the administrators to lose all authority, as it has been put.
Seriously, just talk! There's nothing preventing you from working together with the devs and finding a conclusion to this silly drama fest.
I'd suggest you make a shared skype chat with all of the relevant devs and admins, speak your thoughts and try to figure out what'll happen. People will be upset if you leave an enigmatic "we won't know what will happen, this isn't solid yet", especially with the renown of administrators being slow (just like the official reply to the actual strike being 2 weeks late).
The longer it gets dragged out, the more upset and disillusioned people will get with DIscovery (either due to devs halting all progress of the mod, or the admins going tyrannical by circumventing the rules by using a very broad one that essentially allows them to do anything they wish).
RE: In regards to the recent bans - pulha - 07-14-2016
(07-14-2016, 05:16 PM)Ichiru Wrote: I wasn't going to engage in this initially, but after reading it's obvious that the administration still misunderstands that their ways of justifying their actions are what is the problem at hand.
(07-14-2016, 04:48 PM)Jansen Wrote: Why did you do it this way?
This might have been handled differently, that is true, however, if we had gone by the 'standard' approach, the people would have been warned, sanctioned a few times and by the time we would have had enough bans to justify an indefinite ban this way, the people in question would have adapted their attitude in a way that makes them act in what could be called 'grey areas', where they still might have been harmful, but nearly impossible to sanction for rulebreaking.
This is why we decided to make a two staged vote for this, one vote to see if we really want to do this, with all problems it might involve and a second vote to decide whom to ban.
The entire point of warnings and bans is to get people to change their behaviour. Saying that they are changing their behaviour in order to be in line with what the administration wants is a bad thing is not an acceptable reason in order to not give them out. If you find behaviour that is harmful but not listed in the rules, you can modify the rules. That's how a living community should work, and is in fact how it works in real life. Rules are changed in order to exclude poor behaviour.
(07-14-2016, 04:48 PM)Jansen Wrote: A few of the banned people have asked for evidence, we have given it to the people where we have conclusive forum evidence, in some cases however there is not a lot of evidence on the forums and we had to use different sources and had to trust our judgement, see above why.
What should be said here is that the Admins technically do not have to give out any evidence for this decision as it is not related to the rules. It is a decision that was done outside of the rules in order to 'develop and safeguard the health of the Discovery Freelancer community, official server, and forums; which has been our task ever since.
All the fluff removed, this pretty much says "We couldn't properly justify ourselves within the set of rules we created in order to get the result we wanted." This means one of two things.
Both of these outcomes reflect incredibly poorly upon the administration.
- You couldn't be bothered to complete a proper process before banning.
- You don't have sufficient reason to ban within the rules
Overall you've basically justified your decision with "we don't like these people" which is not a valid reason to remove people from a community, and completely destroys the validity and credibility of the rule set you've created. It says that these rules do not apply to everyone, and can be thrown out at will whether it be for the good or the bad of the community.
Furthermore, needing to keep an iron fist over the development team is not a reason to admit that this was handled incredibly poorly and that poor decisions were made. Failing to recognise this just shows arrogance on part of the administration and damages the already very low level of trust that exists between the administration and the community.
You know the thing that happens many times in court when everyone knows the guy is guilty but can't prove it inside the rules.... and he walks freely because of those grey areas
well i think this is the same and fortunately this is just a game and they can "bend" the rules a bit to make "justice"...Just my first and last 2 cents
RE: In regards to the recent bans - Corile - 07-14-2016
(07-14-2016, 04:48 PM)Jansen Wrote: This might have been handled differently, that is true, however, if we had gone by the 'standard' approach, the people would have been warned, sanctioned a few times and by the time we would have had enough bans to justify an indefinite ban this way, the people in question would have adapted their attitude in a way that makes them act in what could be called 'grey areas', where they still might have been harmful, but nearly impossible to sanction for rulebreaking.So what you're saying is that you couldn't find a good enough reason to ban those people even after you modified the rules to be as vague as possible and suit your approach as much as you'd like.
M'kay.
RE: In regards to the recent bans - Garrett Jax - 07-14-2016
Quote:This might have been handled differently, that is true, however, if we had gone by the 'standard' approach, the people would have been warned, sanctioned a few times and by the time we would have had enough bans to justify an indefinite ban this way, the people in question would have adapted their attitude in a way that makes them act in what could be called 'grey areas', where they still might have been harmful, but nearly impossible to sanction for rulebreaking.
This is why we decided to make a two staged vote for this, one vote to see if we really want to do this, with all problems it might involve and a second vote to decide whom to ban.
The process for implementing what used to be Rule 1.0 was a fix for the 'standard approach'. It required a private conversation with the player, a public sanction if the offense continued and a ban on further offense. It let people know that their behavior was unacceptable and gave the Community a heads up to what type of behaviors were unacceptable. Above all, it eliminated the shock that came with your announcement and the fear that anyone might be hit with a ban at any time without warning.
I know you personally didn't approve of Rule 1.0, but even you have to admit exercising a little bit of effort in implementing it would have saved the Staff a ton of needless heartache. As it stands, there is no win for anybody in this situation. The Devs have painted themselves in a corner. The Admins have a dysfunctional team right now and unity of thought is nowhere in sight.
What is the fix? Who knows, now? Personally, I'd swallow my pride, place the six on probation for an indefinite time, describe the offending behaviors to all six banned individuals and then start over with the whole thing by implementing Rule 1.0, or whatever that rule is called now, from this point forward.