Jump to content
Server time: 2017-08-21, 14:08

Sign in to follow this  
Static

Reforming the Report Process

Recommended Posts

Static    231

Because I have too much time on my hands, I've decided to take a look at how the DayZRP Community can make the rules and subsequent punishments for violating them more about education and mediation and less about bans and points.  I hope to start a discussion on changing and updating a long-stagnant system by posting this in a forum that will get the most amount of views.  To put it succinctly, the following are my basic recommendations:

  1. Place a larger emphasis on mediating, probation, and RP rehab to resolve or otherwise close reports.
  2. Revamp the point and ban-based system from a 30-point cap to a 99-point cap and bans to be given on a case-by-case situation.

To further explain and validate my points, I will expand on them one at a time:

Conducting Reports Responsably

Staff should be making punishments more about growth and learning than about absolute punishment.  My reasoning behind this has many facets.  First, arbitrarily allotting points and bans for offenses does not make the punished have any kind of incentive toward changing their RP or learning from their mistakes.  To those who get banned, the arguments are always "Staff is biased" or "Staff doesn't care" or "I didn't do nuffin."  That mindset places the blame of a situation squarely away from those who commit rule-breaks and into those who decide the verdict.  Now, that could be because of a lack of maturity or respect (see point three later on), but it makes it so nobody benefits from the situation.  The victim didn't get anything back but vindication (which leads to OOC hate), and the punished didn't get anything but points and a ban; neither learned from the experience and will likely do it again.  

So to remedy this LOSE-LOSE scenario, a more nuanced approach should be taken.  When a report goes up (or, best-case scenario, before that happens), the first step should be mediation.  That means a TS meetup between the accuser and the accused, preferably with Staff as a mediator.  They talk it out, use the Staff member to clarify or confirm, and come to a points and report-free resolution.  If beyond that point it is clear to either party (or the Staff) that a formal report should continue, then the process begins.  A report should be conducted in the same way, with Staff providing logs and asking clarifying questions and the two parties only posting their POVs or responding when prompted by Staff.  

At the conclusion of the report, the Staff should approach the parties with some options: Probation for accidental or novice violations, Rehabilitation for Bad RP and related offenses, and Bans for outrageous or malicious violations.  Points (see point two later on) are universal and happen for all violations, accidental or not).  Probation would be a period of time in which further violations result in double points and temp bans (if gameplay related).  Rehabilitation would be mandated Mentoring for Bad RP or novice RP and a period of time is given to complete it before a temp ban is put in place.  Bans (see point two) would be given out based on the severity of the offense and the ownership, or lack thereof, of the punished's actions.

Revamping Points and Bans

The 30-point system does not give Staff the level of freedom or nuance required to clearly delineate the severity of punishments between offenses.  By giving ban-strikes for offenses all equal in size and by giving warning points in the same degree regardless of whether the post/violation was malicious or a misunderstanding, the system is designed to never teach anyone about the importance of learning from mistakes.  While this may not be a fair comparison to make, why shouldn't a person commit a KOS rather than an RDM if it will result in the same number of points?  I'm not saying that is a rationalization that happens frequently; merely that when minor infractions are weighted the same as major ones, the major ones receive less stigma.

 By introducing a 99-point system, Staff would be able to more accurately weight and standardize points for specific offenses, as well as add the ability for nuance to each individual violation.  By standardizing points (and increasing the amount of time before they expire), you make clear the ramifications of your actions.  For instance: RDM.  A blatant, malicious RDM can be given an immediate ban-strike.  An ambiguous or understandable, but still clear, RDM can be given 15 points.  A clearly accidental or novice RDM could be given 10 points.  Keep in mind the first point of my recommendations; these points are automatic and separate from punishments.

I briefly touched on ban-strikes and want to expand on that.  Ban-strikes should not be 33 points (the 99-point version of a 10-point ban-strike).  Rather, it should be a simple, separate, and permanent three point system.  Ban-strikes should only be given in instances of malicious intent, gross negligence, repeat offences in probation periods, and hateful speech.  They last forever and are separate from standard points in order to provide two avenues for a person to be perma-banned: hitting the 99-point cap or reaching three permanent strikes.

Now onto bans.  I think bans should be implemented only in a few instances.  The first is a when a violation is committed during a probation period.  The second is when a violation is purposeful or worthy of a ban-strike.  The third is to impose administrative temp-bans (ie. to post a POV in a report or to mandate a member to sign up for Rehab/Mentoring).  And of course, the fourth is when you have to impose a perma-ban on an individual.  These bans should be given as an addition to other punishments and points and serve to show egregious or repeat offenders that there are very real consequences for their actions.

 

So.... discuss!  Do you like my ideas?  Do you hate them?  Should they be workshopped?  I want to hear your ideas because I think it's high time that this Community takes a step in a more positive, educational, and inclusive direction!

Edited by Static
Removing the age gate idea, because it does not belong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest
Quote

Increase the age gate from 16 to 18 (at minimum)

You'd lose a lot of people doing this. Would probably kill the servers to be honest. Even with grandfathering, it's not really going to help recruitment. 

Edited by Post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Static    231
1 minute ago, Post said:

You'd lose a lot of people doing this. Would probably kill the servers to be honest. Even with grandfathering, it's not really going to help recruitment. 

I can get that, it's admittedly the weakest of my three suggestions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest
Just now, Static said:

I can get that, it's admittedly the weakest of my three suggestions.

Hey, stand up for yourself man. Argue the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Static    231
Just now, Nolan said:

Hey, stand up for yourself man. Argue the point.

I don't feel strongly about it, to be honest.  I can impose my own private age gates in group recruitment for those I wish to RP with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

The truth is though staff should be probing and asking questions on every report.  That's what we have done in the past and that's what I tried to do this past go around in staff. That's how reports should be.  Why they are not is either from improper training or pure laziness.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Static    231

@Rampage while I don't disagree, I think that a responsibly-run report from the past was still lacking because the methods put in place to punish or mediate were limited (by no fault of the Staff, to be clear) to points, bans, or closing of a report.  By adding options, you open up the possibility for learning from these mistakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shane    361

I think that the points system needs to be revamped especially when a "false report" is deemed worse than ghosting, attempted kos, metagaming etc but what do I know.

Edited by Shane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest
4 minutes ago, Shane said:

I think that the points system needs to be revamped definitely especially when a "false report" is deemed worse than ghosting, attempted kos, metagaming etc but what do I know.

Dude just metagame a pulse check then have your boys ghost in and gat a mother fucker. You'd be better off than reporting a perceived rulebreak. I'm sorry but the fact we're punishing people for malicious rule breaks as harshly or less so  than the attempt to report a perceived rule break is utter foolishness. With this logic and criteria, you're encouraging people to NOT put up reports and as such cultivating a culture of rule breakers because they will feel reasonably sound in their unjustified actions. I mean why not initiate on someone, wait for them to non-comply by my own perception to an ambiguous demand? Chances are I'll walk away scott free and they'll be the ones paying for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

The X day punishments do need to be reevaluated to an extent. While KOS is a 7 day, if I do a minute of RP ahead of time, it's more than halved at 3 days.

False reports are fine as the middle, as usually there's either no understanding of the rules or manipulating information to your favor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

We already do what staff call "case by case basis" for reports (which isnt actually case by case as per the literal definition, its just however the admin verdicting see's the rules with the context taken in). Imo it should be based on a uniform black and white redone version of the rules rather than fully case by case, a bit of case by case is needed yes as each situation is unique but the whole system as we have it now does not work.

Also I chuckled a bit at the term "rp rehab", but yes reports do need to be more about showing a person what they did wrong and helping them improve rather than seeing them banned. Sadly too many people, and any people who do this makes for too many, use the report system as a way to see people gone. The report system should encourage people to talk things out in ts a lot more and encourage people to wait until they've cooled down and become levelheaded again after a situation and then decide if a report is needed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dusty    1059
On 1/24/2017 at 7:42 PM, Shane said:

I think that the points system needs to be revamped especially when a "false report" is deemed worse than ghosting, attempted kos, metagaming etc but what do I know.

Uh... No? 

I don't know about you, but when someone puts up a baseless report in an attempt to get someone wrongfully banned, that seems a lot shittier and malicious than the other rulebreaks you listed. 

Edited by Dusty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest
41 minutes ago, Shane said:

I think that the points system needs to be revamped especially when a "false report" is deemed worse than ghosting, attempted kos, metagaming etc but what do I know.

You are saying this simply because you received a false report verdict, one of the most petty things you can do is twist shit into your own rules to try and ban someone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dusty    1059
5 minutes ago, Chernov said:

Also I chuckled a bit at the term "rp rehab", but yes reports do need to be more about showing a person what they did wrong and helping them improve rather than seeing them banned.

Most verdicts do, or at least should, have a part in there about what could done in the future to prevent the rulebreak from occurring. When becoming a GM, a common thing that we're told is to write a verdict with 3 parts: 1. Describe the situation and what occurs, 2. Describe the rulebreaks if any occurred and explain why whatever action that occurred was a rulebreak, 3. Explain what could be done better or what could be done in the future to avoid the same rulebreak that occurred in this situation.


As far as the "RP rehab" goes, in bad RP reports that end in a guilty verdict, we link the mentor program and PM the loremasters leading the mentor program with the names of people that we've linked to the project. The loremasters then approach them via PM, and if the person accepts the help, they work with a mentor from the community to better their RP and their understanding of the rules. This is optional, it is not something that we force on people. 

Unfortunately, a lot of people either don't think they need the help, or just refuse to take part in it, however. That being said, there are those that do care about bettering themselves and their RP, and actually want to stick in the community that do work with the mentor program. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest
2 minutes ago, Billy said:

You are saying this simply because you received a false report verdict, one of the most petty things you can do is twist shit into your own rules to try and ban someone.

If someone is perceived as having actually done this with mailicious intent, I'm sure we can all agree even 5 days sounds minimal but setting up a report that was found to be not guilty against the reporter shouldn't mean points and a ban for the person who put it up if they geniunely believe they were the victim of a rule break. Even if there wasn't a technical rulebreak most reports are borne out of murky situations were there was a fine line between within the rules and out side of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest
4 minutes ago, MGGenao said:

If someone is perceived as having actually done this with mailicious intent, I'm sure we can all agree even 5 days sounds minimal but setting up a report that was found to be not guilty against the reporter shouldn't mean points and a ban for the person who put it up if they geniunely believe they were the victim of a rule break. Even if there wasn't a technical rulebreak most reports are borne out of murky situations were there was a fine line between within the rules and out side of them.

I agree 100%, imo that report seemed like it had bad intent behind it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest
1 minute ago, Billy said:

I agree 100%, imo that report seemed like it had bad intent behind it.

If we mean the same report, I dunno.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Caesar    438

Several problems with your ideas.

One is if you encourage even more variability in verdicts then you will easily have people claiming bias. This in my view is inevitable and frankly could be warranted. Every person has biases. However if you are allowed to start at the point that any amount of points you can think up is appropriate then you really have no reason to challenge them. You have no reason to justify why something in your system deserves 10 points or 50 points, it goes back to subjectivity. Don't get me wrong, subjectivity has at least some merit and cannot be avoided but it's about the mindset. If you have standards and in order to vary from those you have to bring an excellent argument to the table you are more likely to find the "correct" response.

Furthermore as a player it is always on you to read and understand the rules and to play the game with them in mind. The system already gives you ample opportunity to correct the aberrant behavior. As it stands your require 3 separate ban strike worthy offences to be permanently banned all done within a single month. This is already fair in my view.

Making two separate systems the norm adds extra complexity to its management. I don't even want to think about dealing with that system as a player, let alone the complexity associated with enforcing it. Furthermore your system would essentially add more leniency to the system. I don't mind saying that I know there would be people that would absolutely abuse the system. We already have this situation, veteran players who know how to "game" the system are able to essentially ignore points as they know just when to stop doing the action that got them into trouble. This is why "Final Warnings" were implemented to combat this. A system which is used sparingly for the people who need it without over-complicating the general system like you would.

In short your system will be open to intentional abuse, far exceeding what already occurs. For example.

1. I could break many rules and as long as I can convince somebody in mediation to not proceed I have no reason to stop the rule breaking behavior. Hopefully people would eventually cotton on but this already adds a huge safety margin if we force people to mediate first and foremost.

2. Having two system's inherently adds leniency where I don't think it's justified. If I RDM someone it can be often quite difficult to determine if it was pure negligence or accidental circumstances. Let's say I have 3 "accidents" (can someone say cleanup on aisle 3? :D) and my normal points go up to 45 (3 x 15) by your system and obviously RDM someone again and get a "serious" point (1/3). I already in this system am no where near getting banned. Even with increasing punishments you are far too lenient.

This idea comes from a noble place. But it totally ignores the reality of enforcing rules and would be a quick way to devalue the rules and render enforcement unmanageable. A no for me.

As a side note. I feel that false report should be punished. You are willfully trying to get someone banned falsely. It is on you and only you to make sure that you are not taking this responsibility lightly. I am however not against giving the person the ability to drop the report after having learned he may be wrong. But people who refuse such an olive branch should be punished harshly. Although as an interesting twist the punishment should be what a successful verdict would be against the other party. Remember false reports impugn the character of the accused as well as waste their, yours and the GM's time. Do not take them lightly. Obvious false report made with the intention of banning someone (facts be damned) should be hit hard.

Edited by Caesar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Static    231
7 hours ago, Caesar said:

-snip-

Thank you for such a detailed breakdown of my ideas.  I'll try to further clarify, as I think my points may have been misunderstood in a couple of places.

I can understand the issues that arise with adding more variability.  Many of these reports are difficult to adequately verdict because they may be inconclusive or ambiguous.  However, I would not say the point values are inherently arbitrary as I think you may have come to believe was my intention.  We could set standards for a given circumstance (ie. accidental/novice, ambiguous/standard, malicious/blatant) because I think these are the three circumstances that come up the most.  Now, of course, if you think that is the arbitrary part then I fully understand; and adding point variability to situations would be a difficult thing to qualify or justify every time.  So, I would still be interested in the standardization of point values in a larger system (ie. the 99-point) so as to make clear the differences in each offense.

For instance (this will not be a comprehensive list, mind you):

  1. Attempted RDM: 15 points
  2. Bad RP: 15 points
  3. 5 Second Robbery: 20 points
  4. Unreasonable Chance of Survival: 20 points
  5. Metagaming: 20 points
  6. Ghosting: 25 points
  7. Attempted KOS: 25 points
  8. RDM: 25 points
  9. KOS: 35 points
  10. False Report: (weighted depending on accused charges)

With a list like this (again, nowhere near a comprehensive or polished list), the point values on the face of it seem smaller.  However, that is why the Probationary Period for all offenses exists.  So, for instance, a person commits a 5 Second Robbery.  That person gets 20 points, then for any further offenses in the next 6 weeks he gets double points.  So let's say the next week he metagames.  That's 40 points.  Now he has 60 points.  And it continues from there.

I also think that you may have missed the point where I said the points stay for longer than a month.  I would argue something like three months, personally.  This is my way of making up for other methods of punishment or report conducting than simply banning someone.  It's also my argument for why the system would not become inherently easier to game.  The addition and separation of ban-strikes adds even more, yes complexity, but severity to the system.  It does not in any way make it a more lenient way to be punished.  For obvious offences (or what you may now qualify as worthy of a ban-strike), then the perpetrator gets not only a ban-strike (which is permanent), but also gets points for that three month period.  And with ban-strikes comes an automatic ban (with the method already used for length of a ban, although this could be revisited as well).

(sorry I like parentheticals)

But I fully agree that on the face of it, my system may benefit senior players who know how to trick people in mediation.  However, in the same way Staff may decide to keep a report open for verdict after it is closed, a Staff member may decide to keep a report open it is clear meditation is inadequate and/or the perpetrator is a repeat offender.  That is why it would be crucial for a Staff member to be present in mediation.  The mediation is a part of the report process, not separate from it.

So, to summarize (and hopefully address your criticisms):

  • Variability can be an issue, and I hope the suggestion I provided would suffice to sort that out.
  • I agree that players should understand the rules; but the current system lambasts novice players for mistakes instead of encouraging growth.
  • My implementation of a separate, permanent ban-strike is more severe and less lenient than the current '3 in 30 days' system.
  • The inclusion of a Probationary period (I arbitrarily set at six weeks, but could be workshopped) vastly increases the weight of offences.
  • Making points last three months makes it a more severe system, making it difficult for experienced players to simply "lay low" for a bit.
  • A ban-strike and points do not exist in a vacuum from one another.  If you get a ban-strike, you get points.

I hope I addressed everything, and would love a response back @Caesar.

10 hours ago, Dusty said:

-snip-

 


As far as the "RP rehab" goes, in bad RP reports that end in a guilty verdict, we link the mentor program and PM the loremasters leading the mentor program with the names of people that we've linked to the project. The loremasters then approach them via PM, and if the person accepts the help, they work with a mentor from the community to better their RP and their understanding of the rules. This is optional, it is not something that we force on people. 

Unfortunately, a lot of people either don't think they need the help, or just refuse to take part in it, however. That being said, there are those that do care about bettering themselves and their RP, and actually want to stick in the community that do work with the mentor program. 

I think with my RP Rehab, it is not simply a link at the bottom but rather a mandated order (kind of like court-ordered anger management if that makes sense).  If they don't set up a time with the Mentors to practice and don't inform the Staff, then they get a temp ban until that occurs.  It makes the Staff know that some action was taken to rectify the issue, whether they wanted to or not.

And to confirm they did it?  A simple PM including a Staff member and the Mentor who worked with them.

Edited by Static

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Caesar    438
29 minutes ago, Static said:

accidental/novice, ambiguous/standard, malicious/blatant

This is the problem I have with it. That would become a literal minefield to navigate. This is where biases and subjectiveness come in. Like I said subjectivity has its place but relying on this should not be the norm and our preconceptions unfortunately colour what we perceive as someone's motive. For example many people who disagree with staff will claim malice, when either they just disagree or on occasions incompetence/mistakes can explain it.

29 minutes ago, Static said:

With a list like this (again, nowhere near a comprehensive or polished list), the point values on the face of it seem smaller.  However, that is why the Probationary Period for all offenses exists.  So, for instance, a person commits a 5 Second Robbery.  That person gets 20 points, then for any further offenses in the next 6 weeks he gets double points.  So let's say the next week he metagames.  That's 40 points.  Now he has 60 points.  And it continues from there.

It does address to a degree my issues. But not nearly sufficiently. Even elongating the time merely creates a situation where people need to do what they already do but with a long time frame in mind. What do people tend to do? They let their points die down and then after a time go back to the problematic playstyle. Not everyone and not always, but it occurs. Not to mention elongating the time for points is not exclusive to your idea and can be done with the current system with little change. In fact it already is done on occasions with final warnings. If you want to make an argument to increase durations to 3 months I would hear you out. Although I would probably be resistant as I think final warnings are adequate final efforts in this regard.

For your list. I fully support a list of standardised punishments. We will find common ground here I believe. I just don't think we need to change the system this drastically to reimplement standard punishments. We had standard punishments and now we do but also kind of don't. It's a dichotomy that doesn't sit well with me.

I understand the desire to go easier on newer players. But giving them leniency is not appropriate. I was a new player once and was warned on several occasions. I never felt it was unfair (unless I disagreed with the verdict). Actual punishments I feel encourages new players to sit up and take notice that the rules are serious. If a single ban discourages new players from returning in my experience they are often the ones who tend to rage quit as a matter of course. 

I don't see a sufficient benefit to uproot an entire system for what I view as no perceivable benefit. If I took your argument even that benefit would not outweigh the complexity to both the staff and community.

Edited by Caesar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Static    231

@Caesar

Okay, I think I see where you're coming from with a lot of these.  A full reimagining may not be entirely necessary, though I do still think that the 30 point system does not allow a clear delineation between the severity of certain actions.  Do you think the concept of permanent strikes that act in tandem with points would be effective?

I also think that the emphasis on outright bans rather than imposed 'RP Rehab' has contributed, at least in part, to the stagnation of the community and the RP therein.  While a ban may teach someone to play within the lines, so to speak, it does not inherently make them better roleplayers.  I think my goals here are more about getting people to become better roleplayers and to respect the rules more than it is to impose a stricter system.  

Edited by Static

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
   81
11 hours ago, Dusty said:

As far as the "RP rehab" goes, in bad RP reports that end in a guilty verdict, we link the mentor program and PM the loremasters leading the mentor program with the names of people that we've linked to the project. The loremasters then approach them via PM, and if the person accepts the help, they work with a mentor from the community to better their RP and their understanding of the rules. This is optional, it is not something that we force on people. 

Unfortunately, a lot of people either don't think they need the help, or just refuse to take part in it, however. That being said, there are those that do care about bettering themselves and their RP, and actually want to stick in the community that do work with the mentor program. 

What if that was made mandatory? i.e. if the staff deemed the offense to be serious enough (read: the guilty party demonstrates a noticeable lack of understanding of the rules/RP in general), make it so that they have to participate in the mentor program. Obviously, this would require the program's mentor roster to be expanded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Caesar    438

Better roleplay comes with time. As it stands we should encourage people with Bad RP verdicts to enrol in the mentoring program. But if it isn't well staffed that would be overwhelmed if we forced it. Maybe after a while we can make that mandatory. I would be fine with that if possible.

As for delineation between the severity of cases. I personally implemented the idea of "extenuating circumstances" and "aggravated" rule breaks IIRC. These levers do exists. Although for any variation to a punishment it is my contention that these verdicts should be done to the highest standards and be beyond reproach otherwise you risk bias. I do not think an honest mistake should be grounds for the reduction of punishment. Only if outside factors contributed to that situation and made it more understandable.

I do not think another system is needed. If the staff view someone as skirting the system to much they can use the final warning system which is entirely up to admin discretion when it is revoked. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Static    231

I would think that with all these systems in place you've described, the current one is relatively adequate.  Is there a way that we can view all these methods?  I cannot seem to find the point values, final warnings, extenuating circumstances, etc. in any kind of sticky thread.  Or is it that they've been deliberately hidden from the community writ-large?  Because knowing about all these methods (which should be used, though I don't think are being used adequately) would have made me more confident in the current system we have in place.

Edited by Static

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×