Jump to content
Server time (UTC): 2020-08-09, 02:14
Sign in to follow this  
AndreyQ

Mentioning who signs the warning when handing points.

Recommended Posts

I don't see why not. We already do this for verdicts as well, so I can't really see a reason why we can't enforce the same here.

Share this post


Link to post

I like the idea Andrey, have my beanz. 

If a warning is only handed out by one person this suggested way does come along with a risk of people grabbing torches and pitch forks and start targeting one person. I mean there is a reason for terms like "The staff team has reviewed ..." it is protection in  "uniform appearance"  if that is the right wording , idk. 

Other than that , it has been a while I know but I remember being told as a Mod that sometimes you'll find yourself in situations where no one is around and you'll have to deal with shit and make a decision yourself. Handling something actively (points or not) is the job - moderating the forum. In case of disagreement there is the ban appeal section. 

I agree that points seem to be thrown around lately, maybe something like "warnings are handled with at least 2 ppl". I also like the idea of signs, maybe even combination of both. I don't know the right way to go here.

Edited by Ron

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with this. There are points being handed out that make no sense, and points for the tiniest little things. The blame shouldn't be put on one person, but on all of them who signed on it.

Likewise, without signatures on warnings, someone who took part in the conversation in the staff chat could handle the appeal, which is a big no-no when it comes to reports, so making it clear who signed on the points will avoid that issue.

Share this post


Link to post

This would stop much confusion since i don't know how many times i've seen this week "staff votes for points they aren't given out on a whim" 

Would also give a much needed transparency update

Share this post


Link to post

Fantastic idea from the famous bandit hunter @AndreyQ.

Definitely an issue at the moment as @G19RP has described.

As @Hofer said, we have this for verdicts so why not warnings 🙂

Share this post


Link to post

It's not any added effort, just a few names added on the end.

I'm all for it.

Share this post


Link to post

This is a great idea and I’m in favor of it good sir.

Share this post


Link to post

Honestly, I think this is a fan-fucking-tastic idea. This way people can be held accountable to their votes instead of us having to beat down on the one person who actually gives them out, we can extend our inquiries over to them and get their sides.

Kind of tired of seeing points be handed out like candy then all I see is a "ok will work on it." We need names so we can hold those who "will work on it" to actually work on it.

Share this post


Link to post

Generally I am for this idea, but after really racking my brain a bit I realised that pretty much every single staff member whom is active in staff chat will (usually) give their vote and then the majority is counted. When verdicts are written by 1 or a few people and signed by others that read over it. I honestly cant remember if staff members who voted on warning points no matter how many of them there were could handle appeals on said points. So it appears to me that there would need to be a limit on who can give their opinion on the points as you cant have someone who signed a warning then handling the appeal as well.

Things may have changed since I was a GM but if I am correct there needs to be a lil shuffle in the internal process.

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Harvey said:

Generally I am for this idea, but after really racking my brain a bit I realised that pretty much every single staff member whom is active in staff chat will (usually) give their vote and then the majority is counted. When verdicts are written by 1 or a few people and signed by others that read over it. I honestly cant remember if staff members who voted on warning points no matter how many of them there were could handle appeals on said points. So it appears to me that there would need to be a limit on who can give their opinion on the points as you cant have someone who signed a warning then handling the appeal as well.

Things may have changed since I was a GM but if I am correct there needs to be a lil shuffle in the internal process.

I'd say if there's 5 Mods/GMs agreeing to the warning that they should add the first two ones as signatures, and the rest should be kept out. Maybe even prioritize Moderator signatures over GM signatures on forum warnings.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Hofer said:

Maybe even prioritize Moderator signatures over GM signatures on forum warnings.

Yep sounds good, if its a larger amount of points then a GM+ sig for clarity.

Share this post


Link to post

I can agree to that. Show that Mods are around and available. I feel like we are over looked. 

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Hofer said:

Maybe even prioritize Moderator signatures over GM signatures on forum warnings.

Hofer trying to cover his back so that his friends dont see him voting against them all the time 😉

But seriously, in theory I dont see anything wrong with having staff sign warnings but in practice it isnt as easy as it sounds. All this "sign with only the name of first two so that someone is left to deal with the appeal and prioritize mods except when its a large amount of points" system would make it quite the logistical nightmare by itself especially with how chaotic #staffgeneral sometimes is. Then there is also the problem with verifying the signing. In verdicts there is a great and simple system to make sure the people put down as signers actually signed off on it. its easy and simple through notes and no one could put someones name as a signature without them knowing about it but with a warning you cant use the same system. The only way to confirm the signatures would be to go through discord archives to find the conversation about the reported post.

Edited by Osku

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, Osku said:

Hofer trying to cover his back so that his friends dont see him voting against them all the time 😉

I know you're joking, but just to clarify why I think Mods should be prioritized.

1. It's their playing field, their activity. GMs shouldn't take it unless it is necessary.

2. GMs deal with the appeals. By adding a GM signature to the warning you are removing one GM from the appeal.

Share this post


Link to post

+1 to the idea. 3 sigs, done. That's 3 out of a plentiful staff team that can't handle the appeal because they actively handled the post.

1 hour ago, Hofer said:

-snip-

2. GMs deal with the appeals. By adding a GM signature to the warning you are removing one GM from the appeal.

If a GM actively discussed warning points, especially in favour of handing them out, they 100% should not be handling the appeal. That's just facts. Don't be a judge on the same case twice, there's a reason we have appeals and it's not so that you can have your say twice.

Share this post


Link to post

People involved in the warning shouldn't be involved in the appeal. Period. As a result im all for having signs on warnings. 

Share this post


Link to post

This will definitely help with people berating the person who wrote the warning and show transparency to everyone. 

Share this post


Link to post

+1 this. It is done for reports then it should also be done for warnings. It is well known that moderators arent the only person behind the decision of a warning not unless it is a half too and people are busy, sleeping or just away. It wouldnt take much just 2 people would do at the end of the warning.

I think it is a great idea.

Share this post


Link to post

@Randy @Voodoo opinions?

Share this post


Link to post

I don't see an issue with this.

Its as easy as changing the bottom of the standard template from <Name & The DayZRP Staff Team> to <Actual Names that handled it>.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm fine with this.

Do note that small warning points are usually not signed like verdicts are. It's usually just a bunch of people in Discord saying "yeet him". It's not as formal, therefore sometimes it may be difficult to get an accurate list of people who sign, sometimes it's like half the staff team.

Share this post


Link to post

I’m fine with this as well. 
But with what is mentioned above there may only be one or two extra signs on the warning because we will always need someone to be able to handle the verdict. But it is a good idea so they can see who decided the outcome. 

Share this post


Link to post

I can totally see this working out. It isn't alot of extra work to do so I mean it's just a good idea in general

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...