Punishment should fit the crime...

[erd716]

https://www.blankmediagames.com/Trial/v ... id=2541953
https://www.blankmediagames.com/Trial/v ... id=2535674
https://www.blankmediagames.com/Trial/v ... id=2515153

So I am on my third suspension right now with the next being my final. My first suspension (see id=2515153) was deserved and I plead no contest with it. However, the others are for (in my opinion) rather minor offenses and were only reported out of spite against me and not because I actually did anything that affected the outcome of the games I was in at the time.

Let's face it, I'm probably going to get banned permanently for something minor and insignificant. I've seen reports get dished out due to people walking away from their computers (or going AFK) that were deemed valid as "gamethrowing."

I mean, come on. Let's be real for a minute. Can you honestly say that "gamethrowing" in any regard is nearly as bad as some of the racist, homophobic, and downright hateful things that get said ON THE DAILY in this community? If not, then why are the punishments identical in some of these cases.

I understand the movement to "clean up the community" as noted by some of the admins of this site. But, from what I've seen and experienced, it has gotten to point where you can get suspended or banned for something so minor, you risk unjustifiably losing the money that you have spent on this game. Seriously, you should post suspension / ban statics on each of the possible offenses listed in your rules. I would be genuinely interested in seeing what the most frequented is. (My money is on Gamethrowing, due to the amount of actions that can considered as such.)

This community is probably the most sensitive out of the different communities that I've taken part in, and that's saying a lot.

My suggestion: It's fine to have punishments dealt for everything in your rules, but the punishment should fit the crime. I don't want to have to worry about playing the game during a thunderstorm, lose power while I'm in a game, and come to discover that I got banned for leaving the match early. (This is just an example.)

Thanks.

[MysticMismagius]

I don't want to have to worry about playing the game during a thunderstorm, lose power while I'm in a game, and come to discover that I got banned for leaving the match early. (This is just an example.)

But, you don’t have to worry about that. Unless you confess to leaving, you can’t be punished for it. You complain about the GT/Leaving rules, but the reality is that they’re so lax that you really have to not give a shit in order to be punished for it.

[Brilliand]

On the one hand, these offenses seem too minor for banning. On the other hand, they seem too major for "no punishment at all".

The only punishment options the judges have are suspensions and banning. So far, you've only gotten suspensions. That part seems fair.

So the actual problem here is that after three suspensions, you still haven't learned what the rules are, and you don't have any "grace period" left; the next rule you break will result in the judges going "suspending him isn't working, I guess we have to ban".

So I'm thinking what you need right now is to quickly learn what the rules actually are.

----

I have a question about one of your past reports: In the "minor and insignificant" example where you told the Jailor that your role was Jailor, I'm guessing that seemed like a good idea at the time. Can you explain why it seemed like a good idea at the time?

[kyuss420]

This community is probably the most sensitive out of the different communities that I've taken part in, and that's saying a lot.

and yet, on games on other platforms, Ive seen $12 000 accounts suspended over the constant use of the word ''fuck'' (then they censored everything to the point you cant type ''something'' because it has ''meth'' in it)

Basically what Im saying is, the rules are very relaxed, and as bad as you think they are, they could be 100 times worse. Dont act like a dickhead and you wont get reported/suspended.

After 3 suspensions, you know what the jurors will guilty, you know what the judges will suspend you for, yet you still push them to do it? I mean, blame them all you want, but you obviously know better and decide to be a dick anyway.....

[Voriki]

While it is absoluetely no excuse for acting like a gamethrower, but what you're asking is an overhaul of the system, as harsher "crimes" should be punished harder than less severe "crimes".

If they would ever make a overhaul, they could assign points to each guilty report, gamethrowing is 5 points, and downright cheating is 50 points. Profanity 7 points, etc... and who reaches xx points, gets suspended.
Playing for a longer amount of time inbetween offenses could have your points decrease.

But it would require a lot of time and effort to change how it works now.

[Flavorable]

While it is absoluetely no excuse for acting like a gamethrower, but what you're asking is an overhaul of the system, as harsher "crimes" should be punished harder than less severe "crimes".

If they would ever make a overhaul, they could assign points to each guilty report, gamethrowing is 5 points, and downright cheating is 50 points. Profanity 7 points, etc... and who reaches xx points, gets suspended.
Playing for a longer amount of time inbetween offenses could have your points decrease.

But it would require a lot of time and effort to change how it works now.

The thing is that not everyone feels like some things are necessarily worse than others. Apart from a few things that fall under hatespeech (and those things already fall under the insta-perma category anyway).

Imo, the system is fine as is, people get 3 chances to actually make the decision whether or not they care about the rules before they get permanently banned. If they decide to not care and not read the rules and abide by them, they are more than aware of the consequences.

[erd716]

I'll try to answer each individual post made to the best of my ability:

I have a question about one of your past reports: In the "minor and insignificant" example where you told the Jailor that your role was Jailor, I'm guessing that seemed like a good idea at the time. Can you explain why it seemed like a good idea at the time?

I'll be honest. This was a mistake. I didn't understand how the "Random Town" option worked, and I thought there could be another jailor. When I got suspended, I did a little research and came to discover that there can, in fact, only be 1 jailor. A simple mistake, yes, and I was ignorant of this rule. Should I have been suspended for it? Probably not, but I learned from this experience so I am not too mad about it.

In addition, I did not want to reveal my role to anyone, jailor or not. The game, after all, is about deception. If I want to lie to protect my identity and the jailor wants to kill me for that, that's on the jailor. He/she should have been able to extrapolate the relevant information published within the game's ongoing log and make a determination of someone's guilt or innocence based on that alone. If I want to keep my role to myself, I have that right and IS NOT game-throwing even in the slightest degree.

But, you don’t have to worry about that. Unless you confess to leaving, you can’t be punished for it. You complain about the GT/Leaving rules, but the reality is that they’re so lax that you really have to not give a shit in order to be punished for it.

That's not always the case. While this hasn't happened to be personally, I have seen people get reports guiltied for merely disconnecting. No warning or announcement. I assume this depends on the role that the player was prior to disconnecting or leaving. For example, a Jailor leaving a game early could be catastrophic for the town, thus would likely encourage people to report more-so then that of a medium leaving.

Should leaving a match early intentionally and regularly constitute a punishment? Absolutely. But, to your point, it has to be proven intentional. Unfortunately, the Jury doesn't always see it that way.

and yet, on games on other platforms, Ive seen $12 000 accounts suspended over the constant use of the word ''fuck'' (then they censored everything to the point you cant type ''something'' because it has ''meth'' in it)

While that sounds unfortunate and frustrating to no end, I haven't bared witness to that. I can only speak to my own personal experience. (eg. Call of Duty, CSGO, Destiny, WoW, LoL, DOTA2, etc)

After 3 suspensions, you know what the jurors will guilty, you know what the judges will suspend you for, yet you still push them to do it? I mean, blame them all you want, but you obviously know better and decide to be a dick anyway.....

Watch what you say... Some would call that hate speech / harassment... lol. In all seriousness though, I think I'm allowed to be a harsh player, as long as I do so within the confides of the rules. I apologize if I play rough or if I say somethings that hurts your feelings. But, I play to win. Should I be reported simply because "I'm a dick"? Sorry, but unless I'm spouting off obscenities (racist, homophobic, or otherwise) I think I should be allowed to have a little vinegar in my step when I play.

If they would ever make a overhaul, they could assign points to each guilty report, gamethrowing is 5 points, and downright cheating is 50 points. Profanity 7 points, etc... and who reaches xx points, gets suspended. Playing for a longer amount of time in-between offenses could have your points decrease.

I actually like this idea, despite Favorable's criticism. But it doesn't have to be that complicated. While cheating, harassment, hate speech, etc., should fall under the perma-ban category, smaller crimes (gamethrowing, saying a swear word, leaving early, etc.) shouldn't result in a permanent ban. I'm not even totally against the three strike rule, but at the very least, there should come a time when these strikes fall off your account. Correct me if I'm wrong, but with the current system, I could get three strikes, play perfectly for a year, have one bad day and rage quit a session, get reported for it, and get permanently banned if deemed guilty by the Jury. Almost makes me a little nervous about putting additional $$$ toward the game. We all have bad days after all, and I wouldn't want this to be my undoing.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allow me to rephrase what I said before:

I have nothing but respect for "cleaning up the community" as this one definitely needs it. But I believe this community and the game has potential to grow and expand even further. The jury system is something that I haven't seen done in other games, and is interesting. However, I think we should target those who threaten the peace, so to speak. I don't think my offenses thus far have done anything to ruin the sanctity and the fun of the game.

[Brilliand]

I'll try to answer each individual post made to the best of my ability:

I have a question about one of your past reports: In the "minor and insignificant" example where you told the Jailor that your role was Jailor, I'm guessing that seemed like a good idea at the time. Can you explain why it seemed like a good idea at the time?

I'll be honest. This was a mistake. I didn't understand how the "Random Town" option worked, and I thought there could be another jailor. When I got suspended, I did a little research and came to discover that there can, in fact, only be 1 jailor. A simple mistake, yes, and I was ignorant of this rule. Should I have been suspended for it? Probably not, but I learned from this experience so I am not too mad about it.

Stupidity isn't gamethrowing. I think if you appeal the report with this explanation, you stand a good chance of getting the suspension removed from your record, giving you a little breathing room so you don't have to fear getting permabanned the next time you make a mistake.

[James2]

I mean, come on. Let's be real for a minute. Can you honestly say that "gamethrowing" in any regard is nearly as bad as some of the racist, homophobic, and downright hateful things that get said ON THE DAILY in this community? If not, then why are the punishments identical in some of these cases.

You called other people snowflakes, but want "hate speech" to be punishable.

[Soulshade55r]

I mean, come on. Let's be real for a minute. Can you honestly say that "gamethrowing" in any regard is nearly as bad as some of the racist, homophobic, and downright hateful things that get said ON THE DAILY in this community? If not, then why are the punishments identical in some of these cases.

You called other people snowflakes, but want "hate speech" to be punishable.

Logic is power.

[erd716]

You called other people snowflakes, but want "hate speech" to be punishable.

Let me define "Snowflake" for you:

"Snowflake is a 2010s derogatory slang term for a person, implying that they have an inflated sense of uniqueness, an unwarranted sense of entitlement, or are overly-emotional, easily offended, and unable to deal with opposing opinions." - Wikipedia

"A term for someone that thinks they are unique and special, but really are not. It gained popularity after the movie "Fight Club" from the quote “You are not special. You're not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You're the same decaying organic matter as everything else." - Urban Dictionary

Not really hate speech by any definition, in my opinion. At least, not to the kind of hate speech I was referring to. (If you actually need examples of what I am referring to, don't bother replying please.)

But the irony of you referring to this word as hate speech given it's actual definition is actually pretty freaking hilarious and made me laugh out loud.

Haha.

[LevinSnakesRise]

While I myself would love to see some changes to our punishment system we have at the current moment, several online games now follow our formula for the most part. 1 Day, 3 Days, 1 Week, Perma. One such game that's recent is Dead by Daylight, but instead of 3 Days, they do 2 Days, then skip to 1 Week.

I would like to see some change later down the road, but this is how the Devs have always wanted this set, and so it probably won't change.

[James2]

But the irony of you referring to this word as hate speech given it's actual definition is actually pretty freaking hilarious and made me laugh out loud.

You seem to have misunderstood me. I'm not saying that calling people snowflakes is "hate speech". I'm saying that, if you believe "hate speech" is a thing and should be banned, then you are a snowflake. "Hate speech" is just speech that people with power hate.

[erd716]

I'm saying that, if you believe "hate speech" is a thing and should be banned, then you are a snowflake.

So you are saying that Hate Speech is a myth and shouldn't be punishable? I don't think this is something you should spout off on these forums because I'm sure a lot of people are going to disagree with you, sir. Lol.

Personally, I believe that there are certain words and phrases that, at the very least, make some people feel uncomfortable. While I may not be personally affected by the use of these words, I respect the fact that some people are affected by such. Therefore, it's a good rule of thumb to avoid this type of speech in general. Especially if they are used to promote hate.

[James2]

I'm saying that, if you believe "hate speech" is a thing and should be banned, then you are a snowflake.

So you are saying that Hate Speech is a myth and shouldn't be punishable? I don't think this is something you should spout off on these forums because I'm sure a lot of people are going to disagree with you, sir. Lol.

I’m not afraid of people disagreeing with me.

Personally, I believe that there are certain words and phrases that, at the very least, make some people feel uncomfortable. While I may not be personally affected by the use of these words, I respect the fact that some people are affected by such. Therefore, it's a good rule of thumb to avoid this type of speech in general. Especially if they are used to promote hate.

If you (the general you) are upset by a word, that means you think that word describes you. While I generally don’t use “offensive” words, policies that encourage people to claim victimization at the hands of nouns are bad for society, since they encourage victim-status signaling.

[James2]

I’m not against banning the use of words generally considered socially unacceptable in places where people can’t avoid them (i.e. names and filter evasion), but acting as if socially reprobated words are worse because a privileged group claims to be harmed by them, is PC.

[Transcender]

I’m not against banning the use of words generally considered socially unacceptable in places where people can’t avoid them (i.e. names and filter evasion), but acting as if socially reprobated words are worse because a privileged group claims to be harmed by them, is PC.

Grats on forger.


Look, there are rules. Follow rules. End. Of.

[James2]

I’m not against banning the use of words generally considered socially unacceptable in places where people can’t avoid them (i.e. names and filter evasion), but acting as if socially reprobated words are worse because a privileged group claims to be harmed by them, is PC.

Grats on forger.

That's still covered under "filter evasion".

[Transcender]

I’m not against banning the use of words generally considered socially unacceptable in places where people can’t avoid them (i.e. names and filter evasion), but acting as if socially reprobated words are worse because a privileged group claims to be harmed by them, is PC.

Grats on forger.

That's still covered under "filter evasion".

can you explain what you mean and why you cut out half of my quote

[James2]

I’m not against banning the use of words generally considered socially unacceptable in places where people can’t avoid them (i.e. names and filter evasion), but acting as if socially reprobated words are worse because a privileged group claims to be harmed by them, is PC.

Grats on forger.

That's still covered under "filter evasion".

can you explain what you mean and why you cut out half of my quote

I didn't realize that I'd changed forum rank, so I thought you were referencing the in-game forger. My bad.

Thanks btw.

[Transcender]

I’m not against banning the use of words generally considered socially unacceptable in places where people can’t avoid them (i.e. names and filter evasion), but acting as if socially reprobated words are worse because a privileged group claims to be harmed by them, is PC.

Grats on forger.

That's still covered under "filter evasion".

can you explain what you mean and why you cut out half of my quote

I didn't realize that I'd changed forum rank, so I thought you were referencing the in-game forger. My bad.

Thanks btw.

Ah, i see.
Np.