Jump to content
Server time: 2017-10-19, 00:11
Safe Zone: CLOSED

  • 0
Sign in to follow this  
Para

A question about reports

Question

Para    312

This report is one that brings this question to mind: Report

So, after having seen and heard staff say that they address all rule breaks within a report when one is posted e.g: the OP reports the accused for RDM but the OP combat logged etc.

Does the accused always have to make another report if they wish to continue and see rule breaks committed by the OP punished?

And why? Surely it's a lot easier and more efficient for the staff team to handle the whole matter in the same report if the accused wishes to see it pursued until the end. It's the same situation, the staff team addresses all rule breaks in the report. Why is it closed if one party still wishes for the report to be fulfilled?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
Wumby    0

Could be just easier to make another report? Like all the facts about that rulebreak can be separated and focused on? Idk.

Calling in GMs for their pov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Sasha    0

Nah, GM's pick and choose when they want to address rulebreaks in the same report or tell the other party to make a new report instead of just dealing with it in the same one. Doesn't seem to be too much consistency in when they choose to do it in the same or tell the other party to make a new one, even if it's the same situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Mr Shank    22

From what I have seen in the past staff should punish the OP if the accused wants them to. What I mean is even though a rule is clearly broken, staff wont punish someone if the person who made the report wishes for it to be taken down. The only exception to that is when staff deems the offence too severe but that rarely happens. So I assumed that if the accuses says "Well hang on Op broke this rule and I want hi punished for it too" then staff will do so.

I don't understand why that didn't happen in that report, like why should the accused have to make another report when all the evidence is already in a report?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Para    312

Could be just easier to make another report? Like all the facts about that rulebreak can be separated and focused on? Idk.

Calling in GMs for their pov

Nah, GM's pick and choose when they want to address rulebreaks in the same report or tell the other party to make a new report instead of just dealing with it in the same one. Doesn't seem to be too much consistency in when they choose to do it in the same or tell the other party to make a new one, even if it's the same situation.

But surely it's a lot easier to just handle it all in the same report. I mean, they don't have to pull more logs / copy and paste them. The accused doesn't have to waste more of their time. The report doesn't go through the whole process of posting PoVs again and waiting a long time for it to close.

Surely if it's all the same situation... it's better to handle it all in the same report? It seems like it's a protocol that makes a lot more work for the staff and the accused of the original report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Brad    158

It appears that logs could have been posted to clarify some of the actions as well and were not.  

In my experience Roger asking for the combat logging to be reviewed should have been considered in this report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Para    312

Okay this can be closed. I know what I'm going to do next so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

From what I've seen, all rulebreaks uncovered in a report are handled in the same report, whether those rulebreaks were committed by the accused OR the accuser. If they aren't, then staff needs to clarify the reason(s). Inconsistency among verdicts or handling of reports lessens the trust the community has in the staff being able to do their job properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Rampage    0

I want to give my opinion here. I don't think gms should nip pick every possible rule break they make. All that is going to do is discourage people from making reports and letting the really bad rule breakers run free. Sure, things like combat logging and other noticeable offenses will lead to a punishment. I agree consistentcy needs to be made. However when someone makes a report I look at what's being reported and see if it's legit or not. I am not going to over analyze the op's and behavior and try to find rule breaks. If the accused notices a rule break they can report it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×