Remove admin jails in favor of suspensions

[Tank]

Hey,

 

I can't help but feel admin jails are a relic from the past, a bad idea taken back from when SA-MP role-play servers begun to emerge in 2007. The mentality behind them is the wrong way to go about reforming rule breakers. I haven't been admin jailed but from what I'm told you're stuck in a location and can't move for the duration of the a-jail. This forces the player to be online up to two hours (?) where they are essentially doing nothing at all.

 

No other online game, such as World of Warcraft, has a system similar to this. If a player breaks the rules they are suspended. Suspensions should be issued as a warning about activity in a player's account that goes against the server rules. Bans should then be used when there are repeated or egregious violations of the server's rules.

 

In short, I believe suspensions are better deterrents and frankly less aggravating than admin jails. The purpose of punishment should be to deter, not to punish if that makes sense.

[Fergie]

24 minutes ago, Tank said:

Hey,

 

I can't help but feel admin jails are a relic from the past, a bad idea taken back from when SA-MP role-play servers begun to emerge in 2007. The mentality behind them is the wrong way to go about reforming rule breakers. I haven't been admin jailed but from what I'm told you're stuck in a location and can't move for the duration of the a-jail. This forces the player to be online up to two hours (?) where they are essentially doing nothing at all.

 

No other online game, such as World of Warcraft, has a system similar to this. If a player breaks the rules they are suspended. Suspensions should be issued as a warning about activity in a player's account that goes against the server rules. Bans should then be used when there are repeated or egregious violations of the server's rules.

 

In short, I believe suspensions are better deterrents and frankly less aggravating than admin jails. The purpose of punishment should be to deter, not to punish if that makes sense.

You're right. It's an archaic thing. However what's the difference between what you propose as a suspension compared to a temp-ban?

[Tank]

6 minutes ago, Fergie said:

You're right. It's an archaic thing. However what's the difference between what you propose as a suspension compared to a temp-ban?

There's no difference. Perhaps temporary bans should also be called suspensions. Suspensions should vary in time according to the rule broken but no longer than say... a month? Bans should be long or permanent.

 

Essentially, what I'm suggesting is suspensions and bans should be commonplace. Whether it's a one hour suspension or a permanent ban. If a player breaks a rule that is so minor, warnings can be issued as they apparently can be given to people and added to their record.

[onefortyseven]

Honestly not sure what to think about this suggestion. On one hand, being stuck in a place where you can't do jack for up to 2 hours is most certainly not nice, but then again - It's a punishment, is it supposed to be nice?

Then, temporary bans would most certainly be overkill for some rule breaks. 

Speaking from experience and coming from a server where we ditched the whole 'temporary ban' feature in favor of admin jails - It's terribly difficult to have only one thing and not the other one. There's just some rule breaks where one option might fit the best, and the other one is either way overkill or way too lenient. I can only assume that that goes both ways. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Edited September 9, 2020 by Brian

[Fergie]

13 minutes ago, Brian said:

Honestly not sure what to think about this suggestion. On one hand, being stuck in a place where you can't do jack for up to 2 hours is most certainly not nice, but then again - It's a punishment, is it supposed to be nice?

Then, temporary bans would most certainly be overkill for some rule breaks. 

Speaking from experience and coming from a server where we ditched the whole 'temporary ban' feature in favor of admin jails - It's terribly difficult to have only one thing and not the other one. There's just some rule breaks where one option might fit the best, and the other one is either way overkill or way too lenient. I can only assume that that goes both ways. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I mean, why not just ban someone for 2 hours? It’s the same thing except they’re not forced to be in game. 

Edited September 9, 2020 by Fergie

[Declan]

I'd rather be temp banned than ajailed. With a temp ban I can log out, watch Netflix for two hours and boom I'm back. I've not even thought about the punishment. Whereas with an ajail, I'm physically FORCED to stay in-game so the timer goes down. Would I want to experience that again? No. A temp ban on the other hand? I wouldn't mind doing that. Watch a movie and I'm straight back to what I was doing. 

 

no thanks

[Valkyria]

As a trial administrator, most rule violations I've handled so far haven't warranted a temp-ban. At most, it's been an admin jail.

It's meant to be a deterrent and a harsh warning. Sure, you can do other things, but you have to be ingame. You actually kind of feel the time, as opposed to a temp-ban.

 

Temp-banned, you can just go off, play a different game, do what-ever and you're back in the saddle before you even know it.

That being said, if I temp-banned every player I've ajailed so far, boy oh boy would that look very bad.

Edited September 9, 2020 by Wirbelwind

[onefortyseven]

Response to the post where I was quoted: Fair point. However, I was honestly thinking about those ~30 minute admin jails. It'd be kinda odd to ban someone for 30-45 minutes. Banning them for 1-2h might be overkill for what they did and letting them off with a warning might be too lenient. Not to mention that most players see bans as harsher punishments and they'll make a much bigger scene if they get banned for let's say 2H than they would if they got an admin jail of that similar length. Then again, that's just my take on it - Keep admin jails but only for a max of 1H or 90M or something and the rest can be dealt with with 1-2-3H bans.

Edited September 9, 2020 by Brian

[Fergie]

32 minutes ago, Wirbelwind said:

As a trial administrator, most rule violations I've handled so far haven't warranted a temp-ban. At most, it's been an admin jail.

It's meant to be a deterrent and a harsh warning. Sure, you can do other things, but you have to be ingame. You actually kind of feel the time, as opposed to a temp-ban.

 

Temp-banned, you can just go off, play a different game, do what-ever and you're back in the saddle before you even know it.

That being said, if I temp-banned every player I've ajailed so far, boy oh boy would that look very bad.

So speaking as someone that's worked in the community management side of MMO's and MMORPG's for over ten years, ajail has and always will be in my opinion, a torture rather than a punishment. By utilizing ajails, we're taking away people's freedom outside of GTA:W. For example, say I get ajailed for 2 hours for DM. If I don't have a solid computer that can handle two games at once, I am now forced to only have GTA:W open on my computer during my ajail, thus removing my ooc ability to play other games simply because my spec's can't handle it. So now my IRL life and happiness is being affected by my GTA:W actions. Kinda' shitty and archaic. 

 

For example one game I worked on, Habbo Hotel, was very similar to GTA:W in the sense of people that liked to RP. When someone broke a rule, they were kicked (which would result in about a 5 - 10 min temp ban where they couldn't log in) or they were banned for "X" amount of time. They get punished by not being able to play the game. There's no reason GTA:W can't have the same thing.

 

Sure, like you said above, most offenses don't required a ban. But that's because of the rules. If the rules were adjusted to replace ajail's with short-term bans that can't be appealed, I believe it would be better.

 

Sure, let me play devils advocate and say that someone can just ignore the ban and come back later and pick up where they left off. Well - that's why we adjust the rules to state that if you get X temp-bans in X time, you get an automatic un-appealable ban of X time.

 

Example: 2 temp bans in 1 month = 1 month un-appealable ban. When you remove the right to ban appeals for certain actions, people will think twice. If I get banned right now, I know I at LEAST have a chance to appeal it and come back which makes the ban easier to swallow. However if you tell me I have one ban this week already, and if I get one more this month I am going to be banned for a month without appeal, I'll be on my best behavior. 

Edited September 9, 2020 by Fergie

[Declan]

thats the point of an ajail, its not supposed to be fun. dont break the rules and you wont get ajailed its that simple