03-20-2013, 10:58 PM
So, since I'm the lead guy when it comes to enforcing CotH's rules, and there's been a lot of buzz about bannings (two fairly recent ones in particular, I'm aware) I figured I ought to do some writing in my blog on the disciplinary process here on CotH, how it works, and hopefully get folks to better understand why we make the decisions we do. Or I like hearing the sound of my own voice. Either works.
So, in broad strokes, we generally work on a three-strike system: warning, 3-day suspension, full ban. This is just a general rule though, and gets very flexible in its actual application depending on a number of factors. For example, infractions may just warrant another warning if it is fairly minor (usually, it takes a number of incidents when it comes to things like disrespectful behavior to even count as one full infraction. Everyone has bad days, after all, so it requires a fairly consistent negative or toxic attitude to warrant action.) On the other hand, certain factors or rule breaks may warrant skipping one of the steps straight to a suspension or a ban: particularly blatant breaks of Rule 2, obvious trolling of the server, cyber-stalking, possessing strong evidence of ban evasion, so on and so forth. So, the system does end up relying on looking at infractions on a case by case basis. We're a small enough community that it's beneficial to look at each person and incident in an individual manner.
It's for this reason that sometimes things happen that, if you only take a singular incident, may not make sense, but makes more sense in the grand scheme. I've heard a number of times people question why X got banned but Y didn't, when what Y did was worse than what X did. Of course, the answer varies. Perhaps X has a long history of toxic behavior and his relatively minor infraction was the "straw that broke the camel's back," while Y's behavior isn't a recurring trend and thus easier to ignore.
But what's important to remember is that bans are almost never made on a snap decision. Only in particular emergency cases is this ever really done. If someone is banned, it's been after quite some buzz has been made regarding the player's behavior over the long term. Most players have several weeks worth of discussions before a ban verdict is given, and such verdicts are almost always given with the support of a significant majority of the GM team. Yet, I think many of us have heard a banned player saying that they were banned for X specific incident or because Y GM hates them. Why is that?
It's important to remember human nature. Anyone who's taken a basic communication or psychology course will know it's human nature to divert blame to others when possible. That's not a judgment against others, I don't pretend to be any different. But, instead of being able to admit one's own faults, it is easier to claim that the GMs are corrupt, that Y GM fabricated reasons to get him banned, that it's all someone else's fault, etc. It is important, therefore, to take what you are told by others, even from friends, with a healthy dose of skepticism. Don't think that the GM team is any different here, we are prone to our own biases as anyone else is. The best thing to know is that you probably don't have the whole story. (As an aside, I don't have a problem discussing a particular ban for the curious, but know that I may be limited in the information that I can provide. The last thing I want is for someone to be targeted for "getting their friend banned." And yes, that has happened before.)
Everyone here is human, and I can assure you that the GM team doesn't have some grand conspiracy that the players can't see. I know that, speaking for myself, I don't *enjoy* giving bans. I am always frowning every time I put one in, even if I believe in it and think it's for the best and the person involved is someone I dislike.
So, why not other methods of reform? Why not longer suspensions after the three-day? In most cases, if a 3-day suspension didn't help bring someone in line and curb their toxic behavior, a longer suspension will not either (we've tried it a couple times in the past.) The other disciplinary tools that we have tend to be more for emergency issues and would hamper roleplay (muting, freezing, etc.) And so after a certain point a ban is the only thing that will logically come after. Now, there are cases where we've allowed a banned player to return and he/she has greatly improved. I can think of a couple instances of such players still currently playing on CotH. It's just a rare occurrence, but an encouraging one.
We are, however, looking to improve the system as we go. In the past, GMs were often lax in communication with players getting closer to the level of being banned, and we've been working to improve that communication. Just as an example.
I do encourage players to approach me with questions regarding the disciplinary system, their own status, and questions on if the GM team believes in any need for improvement. I have no problems discussing the process or one's own situation if someone wishes to talk about it. Either here, or if you can catch me in-game. Either works.
So, in broad strokes, we generally work on a three-strike system: warning, 3-day suspension, full ban. This is just a general rule though, and gets very flexible in its actual application depending on a number of factors. For example, infractions may just warrant another warning if it is fairly minor (usually, it takes a number of incidents when it comes to things like disrespectful behavior to even count as one full infraction. Everyone has bad days, after all, so it requires a fairly consistent negative or toxic attitude to warrant action.) On the other hand, certain factors or rule breaks may warrant skipping one of the steps straight to a suspension or a ban: particularly blatant breaks of Rule 2, obvious trolling of the server, cyber-stalking, possessing strong evidence of ban evasion, so on and so forth. So, the system does end up relying on looking at infractions on a case by case basis. We're a small enough community that it's beneficial to look at each person and incident in an individual manner.
It's for this reason that sometimes things happen that, if you only take a singular incident, may not make sense, but makes more sense in the grand scheme. I've heard a number of times people question why X got banned but Y didn't, when what Y did was worse than what X did. Of course, the answer varies. Perhaps X has a long history of toxic behavior and his relatively minor infraction was the "straw that broke the camel's back," while Y's behavior isn't a recurring trend and thus easier to ignore.
But what's important to remember is that bans are almost never made on a snap decision. Only in particular emergency cases is this ever really done. If someone is banned, it's been after quite some buzz has been made regarding the player's behavior over the long term. Most players have several weeks worth of discussions before a ban verdict is given, and such verdicts are almost always given with the support of a significant majority of the GM team. Yet, I think many of us have heard a banned player saying that they were banned for X specific incident or because Y GM hates them. Why is that?
It's important to remember human nature. Anyone who's taken a basic communication or psychology course will know it's human nature to divert blame to others when possible. That's not a judgment against others, I don't pretend to be any different. But, instead of being able to admit one's own faults, it is easier to claim that the GMs are corrupt, that Y GM fabricated reasons to get him banned, that it's all someone else's fault, etc. It is important, therefore, to take what you are told by others, even from friends, with a healthy dose of skepticism. Don't think that the GM team is any different here, we are prone to our own biases as anyone else is. The best thing to know is that you probably don't have the whole story. (As an aside, I don't have a problem discussing a particular ban for the curious, but know that I may be limited in the information that I can provide. The last thing I want is for someone to be targeted for "getting their friend banned." And yes, that has happened before.)
Everyone here is human, and I can assure you that the GM team doesn't have some grand conspiracy that the players can't see. I know that, speaking for myself, I don't *enjoy* giving bans. I am always frowning every time I put one in, even if I believe in it and think it's for the best and the person involved is someone I dislike.
So, why not other methods of reform? Why not longer suspensions after the three-day? In most cases, if a 3-day suspension didn't help bring someone in line and curb their toxic behavior, a longer suspension will not either (we've tried it a couple times in the past.) The other disciplinary tools that we have tend to be more for emergency issues and would hamper roleplay (muting, freezing, etc.) And so after a certain point a ban is the only thing that will logically come after. Now, there are cases where we've allowed a banned player to return and he/she has greatly improved. I can think of a couple instances of such players still currently playing on CotH. It's just a rare occurrence, but an encouraging one.
We are, however, looking to improve the system as we go. In the past, GMs were often lax in communication with players getting closer to the level of being banned, and we've been working to improve that communication. Just as an example.
I do encourage players to approach me with questions regarding the disciplinary system, their own status, and questions on if the GM team believes in any need for improvement. I have no problems discussing the process or one's own situation if someone wishes to talk about it. Either here, or if you can catch me in-game. Either works.