"Explain yourself" policy.

[Jeroen]

Sometimes there are these reports on the forum where someone gets reported with compelling evidence against the reported party.

The reported party would get a notice that they're reported, but never show up.

 

It's customary in many communities for folk who can't or refuse to give their side of the story to be permabanned until they do.

 

I don't see how we as a community should cater to those who can't even explain their actions when asked to, those who can't should be banned until they do explain their actions on the forum.

Edited July 14, 2021 by Jeroen
Clarification. "with evidence" => "with compelling evidence".

[Gracemeria]

Doubling up on this:

 

A lot of admins tend to have a "default" punishment for non-responders. It's pretty obvious that some people do actively and willingly take the zero-response punishment as responding in general may lead to them getting a worse punishment. However this leads to them outright ignoring reports in general. 

 

Large communities, my favorite to point to is Hoggit, have a "if you wont come explain in the report, you can explain in the appeals" rule. If you dont even show up to acknowledge the report, they quite rightly take it as you not acknowledging your actions and you dont care, thus if you want to keep playing with the community please tell us why you are a fit for the community. They have leniencies for if say you lost power or internet or any major reason that keeps you away for days on end, though it normally shows as "okay, explain in appeals and we'll take that into account." 

 

And before people fire off about "this will put a strain on the already bogged down ban appeals section", reply to the damn report and this wont happen. Hoggit is a MASSIVE community that equals and possibly even rivals GTA:W yet their relatively small admin team pushes right through reports swiftly and effectively.

Edited July 14, 2021 by Gracemeria

[Wuhtah]

Hi!

 

We are a teaching community first - this is why we do not permaban those who do not show up to the player reports or bother to respond to it. 

 

These players ARE punished and the length/harshness of the punishment is included and reasoned if the person does not respond to the report against them.

 

 

[Rohan.]

In most scenarios where the record is extensive and the act is quite heinous, the player is permanently banned until they appeal and it's talked out there.

 

Let's say someone logged to avoid an arrest and doesn't usually check on forums? Do you really think we should just perma ban them instead of a ajail? Ajail would give them a chance to learn from their mistake and would act as a deterrent for future.

 

Like Wuhtah mentioned, our first goal is to teach. I'm of the belief that if someone can be saved, then I will save them. If someone cannot be, then they won't be. We don't wanna dish out permanent bans so easily that they lose their worth completely. 

Edited July 15, 2021 by Rohan.

[Jeroen]

15 hours ago, Wuhtah said:

We are a teaching community first - this is why we do not permaban those who do not show up to the player reports or bother to respond to it. 

Although it's good to hear that the absence of someone defending themselves against strong evidence of their rulebreaking is taken into account, I disagree with the teaching methods.

 

How does someone learn from their mistakes if they don't face their acts?

How do we teach a cat or dog to not urinate on the carpet? You rub their nose over the wet spot.

How do you teach your kid your morals and values? By telling them what they did wrong and having them apologize to whoever they caused the harm/inconvenience.

 

14 hours ago, Rohan. said:

Like Wuhtah mentioned, our first goal is to teach. I'm of the belief that if someone can be saved, then I will save them. If someone cannot be, then they won't be. We don't wanna dish out permanent bans so easily that they lose their worth completely. 

The ban wouldn't be actually to say bye to someone forever, only if they don't come forward and tell people what happened. It's a way of saying "You're not welcome here until you tell us what the fuck happened.", and honestly I don't want people in the community who can't take responsibilities for their own actions.

[Florida]

Disagree, it's handled fine as is.

[DasFroggy]

1 hour ago, Jeroen said:

Although it's good to hear that the absence of someone defending themselves against strong evidence of their rulebreaking is taken into account, I disagree with the teaching methods.

 

How does someone learn from their mistakes if they don't face their acts?

How do we teach a cat or dog to not urinate on the carpet? You rub their nose over the wet spot.

How do you teach your kid your morals and values? By telling them what they did wrong and having them apologize to whoever they caused the harm/inconvenience.

 

The ban wouldn't be actually to say bye to someone forever, only if they don't come forward and tell people what happened. It's a way of saying "You're not welcome here until you tell us what the fuck happened.", and honestly I don't want people in the community who can't take responsibilities for their own actions.

It doesn't even have to be a ban. Simply an indefinite ajail until they've explained themselves.

 

It would certainly be a solid step towards disarming the people that use the 48 hours as a window to go wild and wreak havoc.

[Jeroen]

14 hours ago, DasFroggy said:

It doesn't even have to be a ban. Simply an indefinite ajail until they've explained themselves.

 

It would certainly be a solid step towards disarming the people that use the 48 hours as a window to go wild and wreak havoc.

That I agree with, an indefinite ajail would also be sufficient.

 

You need to take an exam to be able to even join the server, I don't think that I'm wrong when I think those people should be mature enough to confront their mistakes.

[sparky]

I've always thought people don't reply to reports because they know they're in the wrong and anything they say will incriminate them further.

[Jeroen]

2 hours ago, shotgun_sam said:

I've always thought people don't reply to reports because they know they're in the wrong and anything they say will incriminate them further.

I'd rather have someone admit fault and show their maturity than to be quiet.