Re: Calm Down Punishments

[Emviar]

The original "Calm Down Punishments" suggestion thread (created by @unstinc) is now locked because "the suggestion is getting nowhere," so I'm opening a thread to continue the discussion. It's in the General section because I'd like to continue the discussion of "trigger happy" punishments before somebody makes another suggestion later.

So, what does everyone think? The original idea behind the suggestion was that the punishment system in PartyZone is too strict, or that enough time wasn't spent to think things through before issuing a punishment. The suggestion was that the system should be tweaked so that more time gets put into the decision-making process to make sure fewer users are wrongfully punished, and/or that the punishments should be toned back because (to summarize the general idea) too-harsh/frequent punishments are causing players to leave the network.

That's the idea, anyway.

There are a couple of things that I'm interested in discussing, though, and here they are:

• What's the actual average age of players on the network? An excuse for keeping punishments strict is that we have a lot of younger players on the network, but I'd like to see some hard data to back that up if any is available.
• What's the purpose of appeals? Some say that the purpose is for a player to find out why they were punished, but I believe the purpose of appeals should be (and, in a way, already is) for the player to present their case and explain why they were wrongly punished. Discussion between players and staff regarding their punishments shouldn't be strictly between the punished player and the staff member who issued the punishment - I believe there should be more staff members/witnesses involved in the discussion so that there are no biases from either party.
• What are some actual examples of punishments being too strict/corrupt? Some feedback from the original thread was that there weren't enough examples of this happening, and that it was all just opinions, not fact. I have an example of this, and I've shared it before, but I'd like to hear more if they're relevant to the discussion.

Okay, my rant is over, for now. So this is open for discussion. :wink:

 

[asuyo]

I have two examples (in no way do I want to get involved with what happened I am simply giving an explanation and a valid example as to why rules are too strict and pretty much sometimes biased)

I have two examples from two of my lovely friends and i'll leave the longer one for the end;


oldrice

this is an example of it being biased from a situation yesterday.
Yesterday me and my friend were joking around saying we were related and then someone said "I'm your daddy" so then I said to oldrice "Call me daddy" (as in we were still on the topic of families) so he said "Okay daddy" and got muted for it. Sorry but i'd like an explanation as to why that is fair when others at the time were using the exact same word but didn't get a punishment or told to stop.

Okay! Now i'm moving onto an older example but this is from an old friend of mine so I'm going to just prove the point more by explaining what happened.

Some remember allykardashian (Who was banned and I was one of the groups of people she told and gave screenshots of what happened but I no longer have those screenshots due to me having to make some space on my phone). Now this did involve the Cattoes situation and she (I would say immaturely) made her backups username Kattoes. Now in no way am I saying she should've gotten away with it because she did make a few jokes here and there. But she was banned for staff harassment. Now, I checked when Cattoes changed his username and I am pretty sure (ally) made the username maybe a day or 3 days after he changed his username. So in no way was it staff harassment. Now this is the part where it was biased (From what i've seen). Others at the time were making jokes as well as ally did. Although she did not harass him in any sharp or form with the username "Kattoes" but from what I saw when online someone else made a username which would've been a lot more inappropriate as it did say Cattoes and I think an insult?

In no way was I trying to bring up the past to just start something unnecessary I brought it up for the sake of the forum and as you were looking for examples. Which quite clearly in both are examples.
Thank you.


Edit:

I forgot to say but in the Cattoes one others were punished at the same time as her for the cattoes incident but she was the only one out of the few people that was permanently banned and the rest told her they were either banned for a month or so, or a few weeks, but I no longer have the screenshots to the messages. Also I'd like to point out that throughout the night she had messaged numerous staff members asking why she was banned and said it was unfair as she was not harassing him in anyway, as a result she got numerous different stories as to why she was banned and never got a full answer.

Also a definition of harassment to back it up

(I looked up two types of harassment's just in case)

Harassment = aggressive pressure or intimidation.

Online Harassment = Cyber harassment refers to online harassment. Cyber harassment or bullying is the use of email, instant messaging, and derogatory websites to bully or otherwise harass an individual or group through personal attacks.

Thank you yet again

 

[Pqndar]

Saying well known websites like namemc.com should be allowed, how isn't it related to Minecraft, I got a 30 day ban from saying it.

(30 Warning Ban)

Do not get me involved.

 

[LlamaInTheWild]

I got warned for telling someone they were gonna get banned on my plot. I guess saying banned is now considered "mini-modding."

 

[J3T]

• What's the actual average age of players on the network? An excuse for keeping punishments strict is that we have a lot of younger players on the network, but I'd like to see some hard data to back that up if any is available.

um, it's a minecraft server. you can't get hard data on that. sure, a survey or poll can be held, but there's probably going to be a lot of people who lie about their age. it's evident from the overall maturity of the user base. the way that a person acts, speaks, and conducts themselves is very telling. the majority of players, at least on the forums, appear to be 12-14.

it's not an excuse, it's literally the truth, with or without data. although i don't think the rules need to be enforced so harshly, and i don't find the idea of "family friendly" necessary. i promise you, one minecraft server won't shield a kid from the rest of the internet, or their own peers. the innocence of younger kids is this concept that people put in their minds, and i think by around 12, or as late as 13, they're most certainly going to be exposing themselves to "inappropriate content."

it's one thing to enforce the idea of a safer and friendlier environment with minimal swearing, but it's a whole other level when it's completely family friendly. in the case of this server, i think swearing should be permitted to an extent.

• What's the purpose of appeals? Some say that the purpose is for a player to find out why they were punished, but I believe the purpose of appeals should be (and, in a way, already is) for the player to present their case and explain why they were wrongly punished. Discussion between players and staff regarding their punishments shouldn't be strictly between the punished player and the staff member who issued the punishment - I believe there should be more staff members/witnesses involved in the discussion so that there are no biases from either party.

the standard for, like, 90% of servers is to let the staff member who dealt the punishment deal with the appeal. of course, they have to explain their side. in that case, they can justify their actions with proper proof. i've never been banned or punished myself on here, so i wouldn't know how exactly it works, but i'm guessing seniors/admins are able to have a word about punishments, as well as confirmed witnesses.

i wouldn't put it past anyone, staff included, to jump in and defend their friends to prevent them getting banned, or to unban them. that's the other side of a bias, as you mentioned. in my opinion, i think it's more likely for other staff members who aren't involved to jump in with a bias. i've seen it happen before with a (now ex) senior moderator.

if a bias was an issue regarding bans, well, it wouldn't be. a staff member who can't do their job won't ban their friends, or will be very, very, hesitant to. once again, i've seen it happen before.

 

[ABennn]

I haven't read much of the thread (besides your first point) or any of the replies, but I'd like to say this: Its not that there are tons of little kids on PZ (even though I know a good majority are 11-13 years old, at least on the discord), but it's the fact that PZ is trying to appeal to a new generation of players as well as keep their old playerbase.