Allegiance
All good steps toward something better, but again as mentioned in another post the optimal system would be one that doesn't rely on the few. You also want a system where the people it is imposed upon are also the ones making the decisions, this way they can't goto the senate/admins and bitch, cause they are just the ones who implemented what they wanted.
"Someday, We'll Find It... The Rainbow Connection." ~ Kermit
-
Spunkmeyer
- Posts: 2013
- Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 7:00 am
- Location: Contact me regarding: CC, Slayer and AllegWiki.
-
Rebootedrock
- Posts: 144
- Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 8:00 am
- Location: In the TARDIS
- Contact:
-
_SRM_Petit_Mort
- Posts: 100
- Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 7:00 am
- Location: Austin, TX
- Contact:
I feel the need to address/discuss the standardized ban times.
Not to poke a stick in a beehive here, but with the consensus being that a standardized ban system is appropo, no-one has offered a suggestion to how this might work.
Humbly, I offer my thoughts to the community for discussion.
Senators and @Alleg alike are players who have signed up for additional responsibillity. They do not get any type of special treatment and has been evidenced in the past, are subject to the same rules and occasional banning as the rest of us.
Unfortunately, the commonly held misconception is that this is somehow a "fun" job.
For those of us who are parents or are in a role where we are "parenting" consider having to correct the child's action without actually being able to do anything such as a time out or even a spanking? how long before that child realizes your impotence as a parent and begins to flaunt (which is a close relative to "taunt") the rules in your face?
In many respects, the individuals that the senators and @Alleg have to "parent" are acting like children. MUCH like a parent we normally verbally tell someone what's wrong and ask that the behaviour changes.
After that, we typically warn again and add the words "or else" (my apologies to "Demolition man") after that comes the ban which is either 0 or 15 minutes.
The idea is very sound however, I humbly submit that this method of rules enforcement is ineffective for the following reasons.
1. In no way does a long term cumulative overview of the person being reprimanded factor into their punishment.
2. Those wanting to push against the Senators and/or @Alleg can do so with no fear
3. The "punishment" ban time is alltogether inneffective and in many cases, proven to be "laughable" the threat of punishment should be a deterrent to unwanted behaviour...
4. The person punished often posts in these very forums and attempts to re-invent facts or carefully omit certain truths (read: lie outright) in order to paint themselves as a victim of some imagined hate crime which further drives a wedge between the community, hungry for gossip and a good villian, and those entrusted with protecting the gaming experience for the community et al.
As mentioned previously, there are two extremes. One in which the admins rule with an iron fist and get very ban-happy and the other in which the community can govern it's self without blowing up into a flame war.
Fortunately the former has not happened (and contrary to popular belief, recent events are TAME in comparison to some other games "day-to-day") yet UNfortunately, the latter has not, and most likely will not happen.
So what is the compromise here?
Clearly, bans measured in minutes are not a deterrent since all one has to do is take care of a necessity of life (bathroom break, get water/food, stretch) and then they are back in game and flaming again.
I would recommend that aside from the AFK Com "0 minute" bans that we administer, that the MINIMUM ban time start at 8 hours.
This may seem harsh but please allow me to finish.
With any 8 hour ban, a review by the senate will follow. This enables the senate to either reprimand the senator or @Alleg who imposed the ban or extend the ban should the perpetrator's overall community behaviour warrant such.
Additionally The guidelines mentioned previously (Warn once, then demand, then ban) will be required of each Senator or @Alleg.
This does not mean that you can continually poke at the rules and only receive warnings.
Warnings will stay active for a period of 1 month from date of infraction.
This means that if I screw up on the 29th and get a warning and I wait until the 20th of the following month before screwing around again, the second time I am "warned" it will be a demand. One more strike causes the 8 hour ban to be imposed.
These warnings are however all logged for posterity so that should a ban occur, the Senate can see this.
Posting a "rant" about being banned will automatically earn you a default judgement by the senate and may actually count negatively in their review of the ban. Conversely, posting an apology may earn you respect and a lightened sentance.
I also would like to point out that some issues in game need not even be "warnings" as was mentioned previously, if someone uses the occasional explenative in the heat of battle we're not going to say anything about it, I think I speak for all of the @Alleg on this point. If it becomes a string of profanity that is akin to diarreah of the mouth, that is another thing entirely.
With this proposed system, the Senators, the @Alleg and the community members will all be held accountable and liable for their actions within the community as a whole. With this system the community begins to self govern, the @Alleg and Senators can relax and those who constantly perpetuate hate, anger, malice and chaos will be found and dealt with accordingly by the senate. Additionally, it gives a larger purpose to the senate and makes choosing the right representative even more important.
A final note to add, in my years with this game, both in the "zone" days and within this community I have seen many things happen and have borne witness to various bans and changes of policy. It has been my experience that those who complain the loudest about corrective action and rule enforcement are almost always those who are constantly breaking the rules and generally cause chaos or disentegrate the gaming experience for others.
I've worked 15 hours a day for 8 days straight so please accept my apologies if my thoughts on this topic are a bit broken.
Not to poke a stick in a beehive here, but with the consensus being that a standardized ban system is appropo, no-one has offered a suggestion to how this might work.
Humbly, I offer my thoughts to the community for discussion.
Senators and @Alleg alike are players who have signed up for additional responsibillity. They do not get any type of special treatment and has been evidenced in the past, are subject to the same rules and occasional banning as the rest of us.
Unfortunately, the commonly held misconception is that this is somehow a "fun" job.
For those of us who are parents or are in a role where we are "parenting" consider having to correct the child's action without actually being able to do anything such as a time out or even a spanking? how long before that child realizes your impotence as a parent and begins to flaunt (which is a close relative to "taunt") the rules in your face?
In many respects, the individuals that the senators and @Alleg have to "parent" are acting like children. MUCH like a parent we normally verbally tell someone what's wrong and ask that the behaviour changes.
After that, we typically warn again and add the words "or else" (my apologies to "Demolition man") after that comes the ban which is either 0 or 15 minutes.
The idea is very sound however, I humbly submit that this method of rules enforcement is ineffective for the following reasons.
1. In no way does a long term cumulative overview of the person being reprimanded factor into their punishment.
2. Those wanting to push against the Senators and/or @Alleg can do so with no fear
3. The "punishment" ban time is alltogether inneffective and in many cases, proven to be "laughable" the threat of punishment should be a deterrent to unwanted behaviour...
4. The person punished often posts in these very forums and attempts to re-invent facts or carefully omit certain truths (read: lie outright) in order to paint themselves as a victim of some imagined hate crime which further drives a wedge between the community, hungry for gossip and a good villian, and those entrusted with protecting the gaming experience for the community et al.
As mentioned previously, there are two extremes. One in which the admins rule with an iron fist and get very ban-happy and the other in which the community can govern it's self without blowing up into a flame war.
Fortunately the former has not happened (and contrary to popular belief, recent events are TAME in comparison to some other games "day-to-day") yet UNfortunately, the latter has not, and most likely will not happen.
So what is the compromise here?
Clearly, bans measured in minutes are not a deterrent since all one has to do is take care of a necessity of life (bathroom break, get water/food, stretch) and then they are back in game and flaming again.
I would recommend that aside from the AFK Com "0 minute" bans that we administer, that the MINIMUM ban time start at 8 hours.
This may seem harsh but please allow me to finish.
With any 8 hour ban, a review by the senate will follow. This enables the senate to either reprimand the senator or @Alleg who imposed the ban or extend the ban should the perpetrator's overall community behaviour warrant such.
Additionally The guidelines mentioned previously (Warn once, then demand, then ban) will be required of each Senator or @Alleg.
This does not mean that you can continually poke at the rules and only receive warnings.
Warnings will stay active for a period of 1 month from date of infraction.
This means that if I screw up on the 29th and get a warning and I wait until the 20th of the following month before screwing around again, the second time I am "warned" it will be a demand. One more strike causes the 8 hour ban to be imposed.
These warnings are however all logged for posterity so that should a ban occur, the Senate can see this.
Posting a "rant" about being banned will automatically earn you a default judgement by the senate and may actually count negatively in their review of the ban. Conversely, posting an apology may earn you respect and a lightened sentance.
I also would like to point out that some issues in game need not even be "warnings" as was mentioned previously, if someone uses the occasional explenative in the heat of battle we're not going to say anything about it, I think I speak for all of the @Alleg on this point. If it becomes a string of profanity that is akin to diarreah of the mouth, that is another thing entirely.
With this proposed system, the Senators, the @Alleg and the community members will all be held accountable and liable for their actions within the community as a whole. With this system the community begins to self govern, the @Alleg and Senators can relax and those who constantly perpetuate hate, anger, malice and chaos will be found and dealt with accordingly by the senate. Additionally, it gives a larger purpose to the senate and makes choosing the right representative even more important.
A final note to add, in my years with this game, both in the "zone" days and within this community I have seen many things happen and have borne witness to various bans and changes of policy. It has been my experience that those who complain the loudest about corrective action and rule enforcement are almost always those who are constantly breaking the rules and generally cause chaos or disentegrate the gaming experience for others.
I've worked 15 hours a day for 8 days straight so please accept my apologies if my thoughts on this topic are a bit broken.
Last edited by _SRM_Petit_Mort on Sun Oct 22, 2006 4:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
Libera mei animus ex mortalitas aeternus
[Post deleted, seems like it was just an Invision bug. I could only see the last six posts and no page selector.]
Last edited by Cortex on Sun Oct 22, 2006 6:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
This is Sparta. Not spa. — Wurf
-
Grim_Reaper_4u
- Posts: 356
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 7:00 am
- Location: Netherlands
Yeah I think I just found a webcam picture of when that baby was born in a senate nursery /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />Paradigm2 wrote:QUOTE (Paradigm2 @ Oct 22 2006, 07:53 AM) I like to think allegiance as a test-tube baby... with admins as the sperm donors.
Better for you orion? /mrgreen.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="mrgreen.gif" />