Jump to content
Server time: 2018-07-17, 00:00 WE ARE RECRUITING

Sign in to follow this  
Caesar

Should we ignore some in game rule breaks?

How should we punish in game rule breaks?  

117 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Hello community,

While I am aware there is some severe opposition to this idea from certain sectors of the community I wanted to bring it up for proper discussion. As it stands it seems the current team has gone back to the system for ONLY punishing for one rule break in a report. This is regardless if someone breaks multiple rules. Firstly I want to ask why does this make logical sense?


The Arguments.

Firstly I will argue why it doesn't make sense to ignore rule breaks.

  1. Laws without enforcement quickly become meaningless, when enforcement fails it quickly becomes apparent that people find way to push the limits of what is, and is not possible. We saw this with the push for leniency, people started to break forum rules and threads quickly popped up about there being no leniency. People came to expect leniency in whatever they were doing wrong at the time. What is stopping me from logging in tomorrow, committing KoS and then logging out early? I have already committed the worse offence, I know breaking more rules isn't going to give me a worse punishment.
  2. We do this in no other situation, however, we take it as a given that if you break multiple rules you should only be punished for one. If you don't punish for each breach of your own rules, why do you punish for any at all? Why isn't breaking multiple rules considered worse than breaking a single rule?
  3. It creates inconsistency. Because there is no set standard for when someone should be given an additional punishment it leaves it up subjectivity, unfortunately you cannot get rid of this entirely. The basis of your system should be based on clear and enforceable standards, something that I advocated for while in staff. This is further complicated by the fact that aggravating for multiple rule breaks is not based on logic to begin with. If multiple rule breaks are punished they should be punished based off a clear standard rather than deciding which multiple rule breaks are worse than others.
  4. The system is internally inconsistent. If I break two rules in a night but they are reported separately and not merged then I can be hit with 20 warning points + the combined bans. However, if these two rule breaks are in a single report, I immediately get my punishment essentially halved. This involves a large degree luck and circumstance playing into whether or not I get punished twice as hard for perhaps similar circumstances.

Now I have heard some arguments against giving people harsher punishments for multiple rule breaks including:

You can't give X points to people just because they had a bad night.

I would argue that having a bad night is universally disregarded as a reason to not punish someone. I have had plenty of bad nights and I would not expect this to impact my punishment for a rule break in any way. If this is a good reason, why should we punish for any rule break. Why don't we just allow bad nights to be a defence? If someone breaks rule A and then commits a totally unrelated rule break (B) then they need to realise that breaking the rules is not acceptable. I finish this section with a proverb:

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time!'

If we give X points (e.g 15) they will be halfway to a permanent ban.

My contention is if they break multiple rules, by our system they should technically be 2/3rds the way to a permanent ban. While this may sound harsh let me remind you of how our system works. Our points are not a permanent blotch on your record that will forever haunt you. They are designed to act as a warning so that you stop breaking rules. If you do this once you only have to wait a month before you have your points removed. Depending on the system you will not even be permanently banned for committing another in game rule break. Instead by allowing this, you essentially allow people to commit 6 rule breaks in a month to get permanently banned. The standard is of course three. If we use a system like I propose the max you would be allowed to do in a month is 4. 4 in game rule breaks is already incredibly generous compared to what the standard states it should be. The system can be made to make it less punishing than what it technically should be without ignoring additional rule breaks.

If we are too harsh people will leave.

It is true, theoretically someone will leave if they get 15 points rather than 10. However, what is far more likely is that a new player will leave if he gets banned anyway, not to mention we still enforce the draconian whitelist revocation in certain situations. So you see we already punish more harshly for rule breaks, not even multiple rule breaks. But by the current system that is alright because they are new members. The logic goes they should have the rules fresh in their heads. I would contend that experienced members should through lots of practice know the rules even more. Apparently it is ok to have a double standard, as long as the older members who have more "sway" are left unpunished.


My Proposed Solution.

Preface:

Firstly I would like to redefine (or rather use the old definition of double dipping). Double dipping occurs when the GM/Admin team punishes someone for breaking multiple rules when they have only committed one set of actions or actions where one rule break directly caused another. This should be discouraged and only situations where multiple rule breaks are separately committed should someone actually be punished. In all circumstances the most appropriate rule break should be used, not necessarily the harshest available. Examples in action:

Example A:

In this example I am taken hostage, I have complied up until this point and my life is spared. After developing on some roleplay I decided to antagonise my attackers by calling them names and trying to infuriate them. My captors give me several warnings to stop my attitude but I ignore their warnings. By doing so I have likely broken the NVFL rule, however, it can also be argued that I have broken the Bad RP rule. In situations like this the most appropriate and relevant punishment should be chosen. Since in this case there is a rule specifically for this situation (NVFL) that would likely be chosen.

We would not punish for both here.

Example B:

In this example I have just met somebody in game for the first time. In this situation I decide to go up to somebody that I don't know and cluck like a chicken. There is no reason or context for my actions beyond me thinking it would be funny. I do not stop when requested. In this situation two rules can apply, they are trolling and Bad RP. Depending on the case either punishment can be used and this would be determined by any ancillary facts to the case. However, in no situation would the suspect be guilty of both.

We would not punish for both here.

Example C:

In the following example I have just shot and killed somebody invalidly. I killed them without any kind of interaction or acceptable reason by the rules. After this I have stayed on the server for an additional 10 minutes and then proceed to log off to play another game. In this situation two rule breaks have occurred, however, unlike the other situations these two rule breaks were from different and unrelated actions. In this situation I have committed an invalid kill and combat logged. Because one rule break did not necessarily lead to the second (I could have stayed online) they are deemed as seperate offences and both punishable.

We could punish for both here.

Aggravation:

This is a much simpler concept that frankly need much less explanation. If I have committed a rule break in a way that is particularly bad or egregious than the staff team may decide that the standard punishment is not sufficient. At which point the punishment will be "aggravated" and a good reasoning will be given. Extenuating circumstances can be used similarly to go the other way.

Multiple Rule - Breaks:

In cases where multiple rule breaks have been discovered the following will be standard procedure. Please note this can be modified by the aggravating and extenuating circumstances modifiers with good and proper explanation.

The rule break with the highest punishment is always used as a baseline. From here the additional rule break gets an extra 5 points from the original ban strike. Giving the person a total of 15 points for both rule breaks.

The ban time is decided based on the standard punishment for that rule break and modified. For the extra days for the second rule break they are reduced as seen below:

7 days > 3 days
5 days > 2 days
3 days > 1 day

If three rules are broken, manual review by the admins would be needed. They would decide on using their discretionary rule 4 powers as they usually can and do. If they decide against it for whatever reason we can leave the punishment at 15 or continue based of this system.

Example A:

If I am punished for both an invalid kill - on sight and combat log my punishment will be as follows.

7 day ban & 10 warning points (for invalid kill) + 1 day &  5 warning points = 8 days & 15 warning points.

We can possible not add extra points for punishments that would not otherwise incur a full ban strike, such as FF KoS. In this case a day increase in the ban might be sufficient.

Calling @Rolle, @Jamie, @Aiko, @Ender, @Lyca & @Oliv for their PoV's.

Edited by Caesar

Share this post


Link to post

I could code a punishment calculator! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Rolle said:

I could code a punishment calculator! :D

Do eeet. Do it now, no excuses!

Edited by Caesar

Share this post


Link to post

I'll tell you the same thing I said before, we already have the ability to do this without needing to make it a rule. I've had the same conversation with some staff members as well, the GMs are free to push for more points if they deem the situation necessary. We've always done it like that when the rule break/breaks are severe enough to warrant it.

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Oliv said:

I'll tell you the same thing I said before, we already have the ability to do this without needing to make it a rule. I've had the same conversation with some staff members as well, the GMs are free to push for more points if they deem the situation necessary. We've always done it like that when the rule break/breaks are severe enough to warrant it.

By that logic I can take it to it's logical conclusion. GM's can punish any rule breaks if they deem if serious enough. Also "always doing it like X" isn't correct, but wouldn't be an argument either. Just because it is done like this, doesn't mean it should be. Resistance to change for it's own sake is no argument. If we take this then only "bad" rule breaks should be punished, also why are there increased requirements to be punished for the second rule break over the first?

GM's should have to justify why an actual rule is not being enforced, it shouldn't be taken as a given as to why a server does not enforce its rules. If you must you should use extenuating circumstances and the reasoning being made clear and publicly available.

Edited by Caesar

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Caesar said:

By that logic I can take it to it's logical conclusion. GM's can punish any rule breaks if they deem it serious enough. Also "always doing it like X" isn't correct, but wouldn't be an argument either. Just because it is done like this, doesn't mean it should be. Resistance to change for it's own sake is no argument. If we take this then only "bad" rule breaks should be punished, also why are there increased requirements to be punished for the second rule break over the first?

GM's should have to justify why an actual rule is not being enforced, it shouldn't be taken as a given as to why a server does not enforce its rules. If you must you should use extenuating circumstances and the reasoning being made clear and publicly available.

There is no resistance to change, I've explained to you multiple times why I don't like the idea. I will explain again here if necessary. As this is a suggestion that you made while you were an admin and we still have the same thread in our staff forums, we are still discussing it's feasibility there as well. If it's determined that we need to implement something like this, then so be it.

Share this post


Link to post

If you want to push the system closer to the real-world justice system (thus fairer in my opinion), you should start considering Case law. Once you have enough situations, you have a baseline of verdicts based on precedents. Should a verdict be appealed you then take a closer look at the situation and decide if it's different enough from the precedent to warrant a different sentence or its removal. (I'm not a lawyer and I tried to translate some French legal shenanigans, if it does not make sense let me know.)

I was going to vote for the harsher option but I considered the idea of diminishing punishment and deemed more suitable for crime that are in fact victimless.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Oliv said:

There is no resistance to change, I've explained to you multiple times why I don't like the idea. I will explain again here if necessary. As this is a suggestion that you made while you were an admin and we still have the same thread in our staff forums, we are still discussing it's feasibility there as well. If it's determined that we need to implement something like this, then so be it.

Thats fine, but I bring your attention to the following:

On 4/18/2017 at 3:06 PM, Jamie said:

It seems that you are mainly focusing on the double dipping procedure you wished to implement. A major portion of the Admin team was against this, but it's still somewhat in discussion. If you feel that the idea has a lot of going behind it, make a suggestion thread and see what people think. 

As I am now outside of staff, I use what levers I have.

1 minute ago, Pontiff said:

If you want to push the system closer to the real-world justice system (thus fairer in my opinion), you should start considering Case law. Once you have enough situations, you have a baseline of verdicts based on precedents. Should a verdict be appealed you then take a closer look at the situation and decide if it's different enough from the precedent to warrant a different sentence or its removal. (I'm not a lawyer and I tried to translate some French legal shenanigans, if it does not make sense let me know.)

I was going to vote for the harsher option but I considered the idea of diminishing punishment and deemed more suitable for crime that are in fact victimless.

You're right, for the most part precedents are actually used. Admittedly not universally. Admittedly unlike actual cases verdicts do not cite these cases. However, I know to the best degree possible previous cases played in my mind.

Edited by Caesar

Share this post


Link to post

Hello dear community members,

I believe that the procedures that the staff team have been following for over a year now do not need change as things have worked wonderfully. There is no reason to double dip especially at the stage where not a lot of people play on the server. Maybe back when we had 3-4 full servers such procedure would have worked, however, as of this moment we only have one server and giving more points and days to people is only going to increase the problem. I am of the belief that in most cases if a person breaks 2 rules he should only get the biggest punishment out of the two. Furthermore, if the team handling the said report feels like the ban would be too lenient they can always use the aggravation in order to give a more fair punishment. That is how the verdicts have been done for a long time and there have been no complaints about it as far as I am concerned.

As a closing statement I would like to delight you all with this amazing quote: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it.".

~Andrey.

Share this post


Link to post

I haven't read your entire post but we should absolutely not be double dipping punishments on reports. This is one of the worst possible things we as a community could implement right now.

If someone takes a hostage and powergames the hostage whilst unintentionally providing BadRP, and then say the hostage falls unconscious only to die by the unconscious bug - you would seriously consider giving 30 points for all three of those 10 point rulebreaks?

The option to aggravate is there if necessary. "Aggravated rulebreaks" has been around for a long time for situations in-which a multitude of rules are broken and the verdicting team decides a harsher punishment should be applied. Multiplying two smaller rulebreaks (i.e metagame + CL) and making it into a 5/6 day ban with 15+ points is nothing more than being ban hungry.

The aim of the Staff game is to get people here and more importantly, keep them. Of course rule enforcement is important but not to such a harsh extent that newcomers would be immediately permabanned or come so close after one fucked up situation where they incorrectly applied the rules to the game. If I fucked up on my first day and got one of these double dipped bans you bet your ass I would be on a one way ticket to never logging in here again.

TL;DR - Double dipping is stupid and ban hungry. This way has worked for well over a year. If it isn't broken, don't try to fix it.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Castiel said:

TL;DR - Double dipping is stupid and ban hungry. This way has worked for well over a year. If it isn't broken, d

I would agree if that word actually meant what it should. Double dipping is not the same as punishing for the rules you break, or at least it shouldn't be. It has clearly morphed. Nobody wants double dipping, I just want it to mean what it should. What it originally meant.

Share this post


Link to post

I would say point the most point worthy rule break, then each subsequent rule break adds 5 points, to a maximum of 25 points. That way, a member cannot be permabanned for a single report but multiple rulebreaks are still meaningful. Quite frankly, I never understood why each rulebreak wasn't punished individually.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Caesar said:

I would agree if that word actually meant what it should. Double dipping is not the same as punishing for the rules you break, or at least it shouldn't be. It has clearly morphed. Nobody wants double dipping, I just want it to mean what it should. What it originally meant.

Like Andrey said, your suggestion would make sense if we had 4/5 servers and pages upon pages of reports. But 1 and a half servers and a small handful of reports means not many players, which should mean to not be harsh now. Perhaps back in the summer wave this could've helped, but not now.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Castiel said:

Like Andrey said, your suggestion would make sense if we had 4/5 servers and pages upon pages of reports. But 1 and a half servers and a small handful of reports means not many players, which should mean to not be harsh now. Perhaps back in the summer wave this could've helped, but not now.

Alright, let's take your argument. Why is the second rule break spared when the first isn't. Surely to encourage more players we should let even first rule breaks go?

We all know this doesn't work as it makes the rules a joke, it also has the opposite effect. If you don't enforce your rules or enforce them sporadically then your player base does not feel like they can trust the system. People coming in will feel it is alright to be "loose" with the rules. Sure some people who broke the rules may leave, but others may stay because they have faith that the system works and is fair. As for new people, you do realize that the retention rate of new players is pretty low, correct? I personally believe that while DayZRP may not last forever, it would do better to hold true to its stated rules. Personally if someone KoS'd me and broke another rule right afterwards I wouldn't be inclined to stick with a server that doesn't stick up for the rules and actually discourage their breaks properly.

I lean much more heavily in wanting to keep those who don't break rules and want to feel like they will actually be supported when someone fucks them over.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think that we should simply ignore multiple rulebreaks.  I understand not wanting to just throw a bunch of points on someone, but at the very least they should feel the effect on in-game punishment.  If they break multiple rules they should get punished as if they broke multiple rules.

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Caesar said:

We all know this doesn't work as it makes the rules a joke, it also has the opposite effect.

I would like to wage on this statement as it is false. What community member Castiel is describing is how the verdicts have been written for more than a year. Saying that it does not work and it is a joke it's nothing but a statement with no evidence to sustain it. I can assure it has worked quite well, which is the reason why there have been no complaints about it. However, when you came back to our staff position and enforced a procedure that no one has been following for more than a year, people started to get confused as former community member Sasha asked about this said change in procedures in this post. Not only that, but a lot of people I have been in contact with have told me that they are not happy with the harsh punishments you have enforced while being a member of the staff team.

It is clear from the number of complaints that people were not pleased with the change and I suggest not fixing something that was never broken.

~Andrey.

Share this post


Link to post

Nobody is "playing loose" with the rules. If someone breaks KoS and CL they get a 7 day ban and 10 points. The fact of the matter is that's plenty. In worst case the punishments can be aggravated depending on severity of the situation.

The aim of report punishments should be to help them learn the rules. You RDM someone, you get 3 days to fix up your knowledge of the rules before playing again. It shouldn't be "Well he KoS'd me and combat logged!! He should get 20 points and 10 days!!"

Bigger bans and more points means less people playing on the servers and less people being inclined to join due to extreme strictness. It works fine as is.

Admins, I beg you, do not let this happen.

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Andrey said:

I would like to wage on this statement as it is false. What community member Castiel is describing is how the verdicts have been written for more than a year. Saying that it does not work and it is a joke it's nothing but a statement with no evidence to sustain it. I can assure it has worked quite well, which is the reason why there have been no complaints about it. However, when you came back to our staff position and enforced a procedure that no one has been following for more than a year, people started to get confused as former community member Sasha asked about this said change in procedures in this post. Not only that, but a lot of people I have been in contact with have told me that they are not happy with the harsh punishments you have enforced while being a member of the staff team.

It is clear from the number of complaints that people were not pleased with the change and I suggest not fixing something that was never broken.

~Andrey.

My statement wasn't false, I wasn't calling the current situation a joke but the logical extreme. However, the current situation is logically strange and embarrassing. As for a change in policy, confusion is to be expected and good communication can mitigate this significantly. As for there being no complaints, I can honestly state that before it was changed I received no complaints about the previous (or hopefully soon to be) system. People get use to a system and the resistance to it dies down or becomes non existent. Also popularity != legitimacy, although currently it appears a fairly significant majority do feel in favour of this change. Once again I do not believe in the logical fallacy known as argumentum ad populum, I prefer to argue logic.

I suggest enforcing rules, pure and simple. Enforcing the rules by it's nature will discourage people from breaking them.

"Rules Without Enforcement Are but Words on Paper"

Edited by Caesar

Share this post


Link to post

At this point in time with not having as many people right now I feel like giving more points just make it drop more than it has. We need to boost the player count rather than drop it. That being said, I would say that if a player in a report has broken a couple significant rules he/she should not just be let off the hook. If a player has been found guilty of KoS and abuse of a game mechanic for his/her own advantage than that person should receive points for both. If they were found guilty of KoS and some other rulebreak that didnt have an effect on RP at all than I would say only give points for KoS. It depends on the situation at hand, we need to keep players in the server not push them away. 

Share this post


Link to post

From what I've seen people tend to trust the staff team more when they are reasonable and understanding in the punishments handed out, rather than excessive and authoritarian. And no the current situation is not logically strange and embarrassing, it is what would be expected in a video gaming community where people just want to have fun, a sense of understanding.

I simply do not get why anyone would want to ban people for longer or give them more points. The player base is tiny, people leave because of shit every week, not limited to but including harsh staff punishments and an overbearing staff presence. Additionally if you are discouraged because someone that fucked up and made a mistake didn't get an 8 day ban instead of a 7 day ban you are not employing the correct type of mindset to begin with and do not belong here.

One more thing that I think is absurd is that people are weighing in on this topic that do not get in game on a regular basis or have not been in game for forever. In my honest opinion if you do not play the game you should not be voting or discussing on how it should be policed due to the fact that you literally have no clue what is like in the situations that are reported every day. 

 

Edited by Hebee

Share this post


Link to post

I kinda like and dislike it. By being more lenient you might run into the risk of people breaking rules more easely. But on the otherhand being to strict forces all the rebels on the internet to go look for loopholes and ways to abuse them UNTILL they get smacked on the fingers and then saltfests ensue...

now If only people could just fuel all their salt to me, I'll collect it and store it in this :

Spoiler

2-oz-mushroom-top-salt-and-pepper-shaker

Now Imagine, If I collect enough I can start selling it and actually buy DayZ from Bohemia and fire all their devs. After that's done I'll employ new devs and we'll have a finished game in 3 months.

Now on a more serious note, I think common sense should be applied to every report and people who repeatedly get involved in the same rulebreaks or same situations either need to be restricted or educated about what they're doing wrong. If that still fails and they keep the same mentality there's no otherway than permanent removal. 

 

Share this post


Link to post

I would be in favour of something more like adding a day ban for each subsequent rule break that is not caused by another rule breaks (except for lying in a report and other similar punishments, that should be the only punishment where you double dip). I personally prefer the way it is now, it's lenient enough while remaining strict enough for the severe and repeat offenders with the utilization of the 3 strike system we have in place.

Edited by Hebi Kotei

Share this post


Link to post

I think this poll is way too obscure.

 

If we're talking about subsequent rule breaks in the same report, or on the same night then shouldn't staff be looking at the intent of the accused to determine such things?  For example:

 

I start playing tomorrow after not playing for a few months.  There were a few rule changes I missed, and I broke one of them repeatedly for a few hours on the night of my return.  Yes you could argue that having been gone for a while I should have re-checked the rules, but having never been found guilty in a report before, why would that be the first thing I do when the RP itch struck again?

 

In my experience from the past it's pretty obvious from the first few posts in a report whether the accused just fucked up, or was trolling, or was just a total mong.  If staff that deals with reports are wide variety of players (meaning some are passive RP'ers, some are hostile RP'ers etc etc) then I'd say we're all set with how things have been done.  However our community here has a huge problem with swinging one way then another at times... in terms of who is on staff, and how they view the game and RP.

 

It seems we either have a vast majority of GM's that are either mostly all superbandits, or super anti-bandit.  Meaning they're willing to punish all banditry (I use bandit for lack of a better term, and as a broad judgement of those players).  This greatly changes the outcome of a verdict even with strong rules in place about almost every possible situation.  It's a messy situation.

 

It's hard to give more examples without giving exact examples from my short time as a GM.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

 

4 hours ago, Andrey said:

I would like to wage on this statement as it is false. What community member Castiel is describing is how the verdicts have been written for more than a year. Saying that it does not work and it is a joke it's nothing but a statement with no evidence to sustain it. I can assure it has worked quite well, which is the reason why there have been no complaints about it

Umm...how many appeals were made and verdicts overturned in the past year?  How many threads have been made and commented on discussing verdicts and rules and how those two things interact.  If that is working quite well, I'm embarrassed.

I can see what @Caesar is saying.  And if people would take the time to read his post, although long winded, they would realize that he is using common sense.  His examples were clear.  He's not suggesting that you hammer players for making a few bonehead mistakes, but making 2 distinctly different rule breaks within the same time frame should absolutely be addressed and punished.  How else are players to learn that there are things that they cannot do?  Letting them get away with it once can start a bad precedence and then it just gets ugly.  To say that players would stop playing because they were punished for breaking the rules...well, are those the players you really want in the community?  If you don't have big girl panties when you join this community, you really shouldn't be here anyway.  Drop your ego at the door and take the time to consider an entire suggestion before denying its merit.

And to be honest, as I have said and will continue to say, the Rules themselves should be clear cut, black and white, allowing for no interpretation or opinion as to what it means.  The easiest part of a report should be determining if there has been a rule break.  Deciding what to do about said rule break is where interpretation or opinion would come into play.

 

Share this post


Link to post

I saw a solved report where a guy had been given 15 point which is half to a perm ban which is ridiculous to me. In my opinion he should have been given points for the most severe rulebreak only. We all make mistakes, we are human afterall and for this dude to get half way to a perm due in one report sucks. I know he shouldn't have broken the rules in the first place but some of them weren't even major but soon total'd up to that many at the end of it. I think the punishments should be a bit more lenient these days... I mean were hitting lower numbers of players these days than we were a year ago but quite a few and if people keep getting banned it's only going to decline the player base.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

×