Warning Points and Time Played

[Zanaan]

So over the years, one of the most viable options for ensuring you wouldn't get perm'd if your points got high enough was simply to stop playing altogether until some or all of your points expired. Was talking to my group today, and came up with the idea that instead of a banstrike lasting say 1 month RL time  (base value, increasing as points accumulate over time), it instead require play time, as in a banstrike would require 50 hours of playtime before falling off. 

What do you guys think?

[Dr Brandon]

Hmm. What is to stop people from hoping on and running to the corner of the map and afking?

[Squillium]

1 minute ago, Dr Brandon said:

Hmm. What is to stop people from hoping on and running to the corner of the map and afking?

This would be a big problem that I don’t think staff are prepared to deal with, at least not correctly.

Also in the past a lot of trouble makers played on the server religiously, so they’d get 0 points in a week.

[Jade]

I'll be honest it's risky to get IG with a  buncha points especially if the points you're gaining are from reports. Seems like a nice idea on paper but I don't think it'll be any easier than the system that's already in place.

[Zanaan]

1 minute ago, APositiveJade said:

I'll be honest it's risky to get IG with a  buncha points especially if the points you're gaining are from reports. Seems like a nice idea on paper but I don't think it'll be any easier than the system that's already in place.

While this is true, I know of at least one person who's admitted OOC they won't get ingame until their 20 points fall off, which kinda removes the point altogether.

[Jade]

Just now, Zanaan said:

While this is true, I know of at least one person who's admitted OOC they won't get ingame until their 20 points fall off, which kinda removes the point altogether.

Valid   Sometimes breaks are needed IMO especially after rulebreaks cause you get a chance to sit back and see what went wrong (if you were actually in the wrong...) and then ofc how to fix it in the future.

[dan]

Seems pointless to me. 

4 minutes ago, Zanaan said:

admitted OOC they won't get ingame until their 20 points fall off

If this place remembered to follow this:

Then great, they won't be on the server for 2 months. Either they play and follow the rules perfectly and hope they don't get caught on the bad end of a report, or they wait it out and do not play. Either way, rules aren't being broken on the server by these people and nobody is harmed.

[CrescentGent]

I quite like the idea. If I get a ban for example, there ain't nothing stopping me from just going and playing something else for a few days before coming back and resuming. 

There is the issue of people AFKing in the corner of the map but maybe there could be an AFK timer added to counter that? If you stay still for too long, you get booted or admins could use logs (Maybe?) or noclip around and find people AFKing and kick them accordingly?

I'm just spitballing

TL;DR : +1

[Banshee]

An even better solution would be following the rules instead of breaking them, that way you won't get any points at all. I've never received a game-ban for breaking in-game rules, not even once, and honestly it's not that hard.

The points system is there to punish rulebreakers who are found guilty of breaking rules within a short period of each other. If said person doesn't feel comfortable playing because he/she is afraid of breaking the rules again, then they shouldn't be playing. If you are able to accumulate enough points as to where you are too afraid of getting permed when hopping in-game, then you must be doing something wrong, and it might be best to step away for awhile and learn the rules a little better. The system is fine the way it is. Don't want to/can't play for 2 months because you've got too many warning points? Good, should've followed the rules.

[Rover]

2 hours ago, Zanaan said:

So over the years, one of the most viable options for ensuring you wouldn't get perm'd if your points got high enough was simply to stop playing altogether until some or all of your points expired. Was talking to my group today, and came up with the idea that instead of a banstrike lasting say 1 month RL time  (base value, increasing as points accumulate over time), it instead require play time, as in a banstrike would require 50 hours of playtime before falling off. 

What do you guys think?

 

2 hours ago, Dr Brandon said:

Hmm. What is to stop people from hoping on and running to the corner of the map and afking?

This really just sums it up. ^

 

People will always try to find loopholes. If a chronic rulebreakers 'loophole' is to stop playing for 2-3 months every time they rack up points, then hey. Sounds like 2-3 months less of dealing with them.

If the system is changed to require in-game time for it to fall off, people will find ways to just idle/afk/whatever and rack that up too. So they pay in sitting-still hours rather then not playing-hours.

[Eagle]

If I could get my invisible warning removed by playing sure.

[Fae]

This is a terrible idea, honestly. People will just AFK to lose their points. Perhaps theh should read the rules and avoid breaking them instead?

[Jim Smokes]

I voted in favor yet find myself agreeing mostly with what Rover mentioned about players finding loopholes to deal with it. Maybe slap on a in game time requirement for players who get to final warning? I feel like then the vast majority of players wouldnt have to deal with this but it would be an extra hoop to jump through for those so close to a permaban. Idk, I'll always vote for stronger punishments and less rules.

I think there should be more freedom in RP but more respect to the rules then there currently is. I feel like I see a lot of players just run down the sheet in their head and go "is this ok or not ok, has this gotten someone banned before, and can I do it?" instead of "Does this respect the nature of RP, the community, and the server" Hopefully an extra level of punishment will encourage the type of thinking that we as a community want to see.

I'm getting off topic. I'd like this to only be applied to final warnings or aggravated rule breaks. Which would sit on top of the other punishments handed out and not in place of them. So the both option, that you listed in your poll.

Edit: Edited last line

Edited February 20, 2020 by Jim Smokes

[Banshee]

26 minutes ago, Jim Smokes said:

Maybe slap on a in game time requirement for players who get to final warning?

This is already the case. Those who want to appeal a final-warning punishment are required to be active both in-game and on the forums.

[groovy blisna]

I feel as if right now how the warning points are seems fine. When people get warning points they get discouraged from playing in my opinion so making it by play time honestly would make it very hard for players to reach that goal. As well as wanting to just play it safe not wanting to catch a ban on like something minuscule like accidentally shooting someone with their hands up in the pinky toe with a .22 . But if you are on final warning obviously none of this applies and it’s a whole nother story . I also feel like players who take breaks after bans come back as better community members. With that Being said I voted for it to stay the same.

Edited February 20, 2020 by Blisna

[Dusty]

I'm not a fan of this idea. I don't think things should be even more strict and require more commitment to the community than someone already gives.

[EmonOkari]

2 hours ago, Fae said:

This is a terrible idea, honestly. People will just AFK to lose their points. Perhaps theh should read the rules and avoid breaking them instead?

Possibly even adding to each ban an elusive 'Read The Rules' script key that we have to find and type...like we did at whitelisting.  That torture in itself could curb future rule-breaking by 95%. 

[AndreyQ]

7 hours ago, Zanaan said:

While this is true, I know of at least one person who's admitted OOC they won't get ingame until their 20 points fall off, which kinda removes the point altogether.

Does it? WPs serve as incentive not to break rules. If people got 20 points and wish not to play then cool, next time they will they might think twice before acting knowing if they fuck up they might have to wait another month for points to expire in order to get back IG.

The suggested system would simply not be fair. People can simply run around the map looting for the time being, avoiding contact as much as possible and then have their points removed.

[neom]

No coz I could just sit in a bush AFK’d and watch my points tumble away, 

 

If it ain’t broke don’t fix it 

[Hollows]

Nah, because Rule 4 still exists for this reason if the Staff believe someone is rule-skirting or abusing point mechanics.

The standard 1 month policy is fair because some people either have shit luck, judgement/decision making or anything under the sun when they get hit with something report-wise. I, along with many fellow community members have obligations elsewhere offline (e.g. work, school, social, etc) and shouldn't have to worry about logging in to meet some quota for points to expire. If someone gets too close to the 30 point mark and steps away for a month, it is okay in my book because it gives them time to re-read the rules and or "cool off" seeing how their decision making was lackluster leading up to punishment. 

Edit: Hell, another suggestion I wanna throw out there as food for thought is the restoration of status updates. I'm being punished, still, for stuff that happened 3 years ago.

Edited February 20, 2020 by Hollows

[BeanMama]

Honestly, the only issue I see with the ban system is amnesty. I get why it's there, but at a certain point, permabanning is only a laughable paywall, and it just becomes an obnoxious cycle where the rule breakers have decided they will pay to be allowed to break the same rules over and over again. Everyone else rolls their eyes and is miserable upon the return of the rulebreaker. After so many "Perms", one needs to stick, otherwise, what the heck is the point in calling it a perm?

[Roland]

30 minutes ago, Wynne said:

Honestly, the only issue I see with the ban system is amnesty. I get why it's there, but at a certain point, permabanning is only a laughable paywall, and it just becomes an obnoxious cycle where the rule breakers have decided they will pay to be allowed to break the same rules over and over again. Everyone else rolls their eyes and is miserable upon the return of the rulebreaker. After so many "Perms", one needs to stick, otherwise, what the heck is the point in calling it a perm?

There is no cycle, amnesty is a one time offer.

[Player 1]

I say just keep it how it is. If people want to put themselves on a self imposed exile until their points go away, good for them and especially good for us. If they don't, then they have to play by the rules, which benefits everyone anyway. There are players who have been given a lot of points and even returned with amnesty and improved on their behavior. And the server benefits from it. 

Edited February 20, 2020 by Father Tiger

[Eddie]

In my opinion I believe it's fine the way it is so that's why I voted No on the poll. Like others have stated, people could just go afk and watch the points disappear.  

[HDragon]

I agree that there should be some in game activity to help remove the WP, just sitting inactive for a month for your points to go way is pretty bad. It forces you to play by the rules.

Even if players AFK in game it is still a barrier people have to go through to prevent them from just waiting for points to expire.