Community Rules - Standards of Punishment

[Riev]

I was just wondering, since we're in the break between Game Seasons ... we have a set standard of community rules. I believe these are https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,51856.0.html


I know mods will not post individual breaches, but what are the average punishments like? The last post on the subject appears to have been https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,51856.msg1090105.html#msg1090105

Lately. I have heard whisperings of not using a point or mute system and instead returning to the outright site ban for offenses without warnings. If I disagree with someone on the boards, and I am heated about it ... will my post be moderated? Will I get a warning? A mute? Do I get an outright month long site ban with something as woefully non-descript as "Rule 1 break"

[CirclelessBard]

How we're approaching moderation is detailed here: https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,60275.msg1102278.html#msg1102278

A quick overview of moderation actions is: we're using 1-day timeouts, 30-day bans and permanent bans. On the GDB, we do send a reason message out along with these actions, and the ban reason should also be displayed if you try to access the GDB while banned. On Discord, carl-bot sends you a message if you are timed out or banned, with a reason message. The reason message is written by a mod, and will state the rule broken and generally summarize how it was broken, either with a quote or just describing the person's behavior to them. In addition to all of that, we edit out the rule-breaking material in question, with a log kept of what was removed, for auditing reasons.

To answer your question "If I disagree with someone on the boards, and I am heated about it ... will my post be moderated?" The answer to that is: probably. People will have different viewpoints, and may believe in those viewpoints very strongly. What we don't need or want is toxicity. There is absolutely no reason to lob a personal attack at another person, or passive-aggressively air player complaints about other players in public. There isn't really a fine line between this type of behavior and reasoned debate; there's a wide gulf.

So what happens if a community member engages in such behavior? I think the mod team has historically tried to tell the difference between a person having a bad day or momentary lapse in judgment, vs. a person who persistently acts in a toxic way towards certain members of the community or the community as a whole. We're going to apply a lighter touch to instances of uncharacteristically bad behavior, but there is still going to be a response all the same. I don't think anyone on the mod team thinks that any of the rules are a "big ask", but we do understand the difference between the occasional mistake and patterns of behavior.

[Riev]

So, not to put too fine a point on it but... the punishments then are subjective depending also on how the mod team feels?

I (obviously) have a distrust of players and staff based on history. The player mod team has been fair to me before, and yet seemingly unfair to others.

I would hope that if a ban is initiated, it is more than "You told CirclelessBard that she's being stupid" and more of a "you've been warned about this before, and this is not okay".

I say this because, especially, saying someone is being stupid and that they are stupid may be a lexicographical idiosyncrasy and we're struggling with trust as it is.

[MarshallDFX]

Radical opinion... I believe that when people call somebody stupid, or start sniping, they know they're breaking the community rules. They do it anyways because they want to, they find it engaging, and the punishment isn't going to be very serious. I believe this because I'm also this person, to some extent.

In revising the approach to moderation for seasons, the upshot is holding people to a higher standard and making consequences actually noticeable.

On your questions..

outright site ban for offenses without warnings

I'm not aware of any bans that didn't have a previous "warning shot" but I expect opinons will differ what constitutes a warning for a particular thing (eg how long ago was it)

what are the average punishments like

since 26 feb

On the GDB

7 GDB "warnings" with points - three of which were issued by three mods to one person which effectively creates a nine day "no posting" timeout.

two 24 hour GDB bans - which were because two warnings were ignored and trying to argue it out in public.

two 30-day discord bans, both of which were related to personal attacks on one or more people that had a previous mute/short term ban

On Discord

asked a couple people to stop via discord for complaining about other players and complaining about the complaining

four 24-hour discord "timeouts" over rudeness

two 14-day discord bans, one relating to a previous timeout and request to stop, another because of repeated rude engagement

So, not to put too fine a point on it but... the punishments then are subjective depending also on how the mod team feels?

There will always be exceptions to the rules but generally increased the severity and so far the tools are 24 hour mute -> 30 day ban. 

[Riev]

Suggestion:

If there is an offense that is a 2nd/3rd strike then the previous offenses taken into account should be listed.



From the whispers I'm getting, and I am VERY removed from the game as it stands right now, people are getting explanations to bans/removals/timeouts but only for the single offense. It does not appear that the previous warnings that are being taken into account are being listed.

Nobody likes being banned, even if they're knowingly breaking the rules. But worse would be getting a long-term ban or kick from the Discord entirely with "You told Marshall he was behaving like a petulant child" without referencing the 2 other times I said you were a poo poo head. Because then I feel like "that one time I did something, I got a ban."

[Tuannon]

Rudeness that isn't defined, so it's much like the 'Don't be disruptive' rules you see in other community Discords, I think.

You'll see a raft of 'posts have been moderated' so anyone late to the party has no chance of seeing what the slip up was and then folk will never post on Discord again.

[Riev]

I'd rather see posts moderated and warnings before bans, unless for seriously egregious things. Absolutely.

But what I'd like to see, as well, is that when you ARE hitting a week/month ban on either platform that the previous warnings/triggers are mentioned as well.

If I did something rude 2 weeks ago, and got a day timeout .... but then today I was still mad and heated in the argument and get a 30d ban that says "breaking rule 1" then I am going to wonder why that LATEST breach warranted 30days.

I hope people see what I mean. Moderation is important to keep people on track and not making for a toxic community. But there should be more than just explaining "the latest breach".

[Lizzie]

I'd rather see posts moderated and warnings before bans, unless for seriously egregious things. Absolutely.

But what I'd like to see, as well, is that when you ARE hitting a week/month ban on either platform that the previous warnings/triggers are mentioned as well.

If I did something rude 2 weeks ago, and got a day timeout .... but then today I was still mad and heated in the argument and get a 30d ban that says "breaking rule 1" then I am going to wonder why that LATEST breach warranted 30days.

I hope people see what I mean. Moderation is important to keep people on track and not making for a toxic community. But there should be more than just explaining "the latest breach".

So basically a notification with the 30-day ban such as:

Mod: You received a 24-hour ban 3/10/24 for violating rule 1 and warned not to do it again. Less than a month later, you did it again. This time, it's a 30-day time out. It's only March and you're already on strike 2. Strike three will be a ban for the rest of the year."

[Riev]

Yes. Additional information being provided in the bans/timeouts when previous breaches are involved.

I find our fellow players have very short term memories and may not associate "this" breach of the rules with one they did a month ago.

Especially considering CB's earlier mention that it may be subjective. Is it within 30 days of the previous warning? 2 weeks? Does it solely depend on the nature of the breach, or how the moderator is feeling that day?

Without the added information, the player on the receiving end of the punishment is not fully aware of the information being used against them.

I am simply calling to be a little better before we open up to people again.

[Lotion]

there should be transparency on how warning points work. if it's not in an easy to find stickied thread or linked to in a warning containing a point then it's translucent at best

[CirclelessBard]

Yes. Additional information being provided in the bans/timeouts when previous breaches are involved.

I find our fellow players have very short term memories and may not associate "this" breach of the rules with one they did a month ago.

For what it's worth, the mods think this is a good idea. So our goals are aligned on that. We do want people to be aware why we decided on something from the get-go. I think most people will know their own moderation history, but I also think that it's better for everyone involved when we spell out that history when it is relevant.