The ban of @Bogdanoff or whatever his name is absurd. Forum bans are something that has been an issue for a while and recently imo its gotten out of hand. Bog told someone "You know if you don't talk, you don't display your stupidity. Sometimes it's best to stay quiet.". He was banned after someone either reported or banned him. The person he was calling stupid, @Paradox, wasn't even aware that he was called such a thing, meaning he didn't report him. So if he didn't report him, why was he banned in the first place?
let me add what Scrungy said in shoutbox on how he thinks the harassment policy should be run, or at least my interpretation of what he said: Only reported harassment that has been reported by the one being harassed should be considered with the exception of extremes like slurs and sexual harassment. Now this isn't just a complaint but a suggestion for a change. Now it's a real discussion. Some other things covered in shoutbox: Possibly having the staff discuss potential harassment if it isn't reported to confirm if the victim feels harassed. A member can try to find out who warned them and appeal it, but is a reactive policy better than a proactive policy?
because you (and everyone else defending bogdanoff) are completely ignoring the fact that bogdanoff has a history of being extremely toxic and derogatory towards members of the community that he doesn't like stop trying make it out as if someone who is in good-standing with the community got targeted by the unfair staff team, because while the message he sent isn't anything special or notable, it's the latest bit of bullshit from a repeat offender
I never meant to sound like this and I am aware of his past. Being known as toxic doesn't cover up the fact that he was banned for calling someone stupid when that someone didn't care. Sure he's an asshole, but what he did was so borderline you had to stretch it so you could ban him because you don't like him.
Poor wording, I mean someone you are actively trying to find a reason to ban someone is unfair, even if he's a toxic member of the community.
So you're saying it will get to a point that if bog even replies to anyone, doesn't matter what it is, he will be banned for harassment?
This would be something I would be willing to bring up, possibly, in a staff meeting, but would also like to include that there would need be some room for admin discretion. The danger of making things black and white is the potential for loopholing. One issue i can see with this, is that warning points are also used to stop a tangent from becoming furthered. If he wasnt warned, how far could it have gone, and does it set the precedent for what is allowed. And context is needed for some warning points. If it is someone with a history, intent comes across different, staff are less lenient, and if you show that you arent here to contribute anything but toxic/snide remarks, why keep you around (not defending either side, just trying to give another point of view) Not for or against the suggestion, but just something to think about
just gonna say that I didn't ban, and I don't know who did however, this isn't actively trying to find a reason to ban someone, this is dealing with someone who is blatantly ignoring the fact that they have been told to cut the bullshit multiple times in the past as for not perma banning him, idk, not my place to decide that, better to ask the people who do make those decisions
Warning means banning. If you disagree change the way the warning system works. If I get warned, I get banned for 2 months and that stays for the next year.
Perma bans should be reserved for pedos, charge backs, hackers and ddosers. With some room left over for people like Doc.
I actually very much like how the warning system works. I wont divulge how we decide lengths, but warnings are meant as a deterrent. Get too many, and you get banned. If you dont know the next one will get you banned, you're taking a risk. The logic is pretty sound, but if you wanna make a suggestion to a different system you can either pitch that to highwon or make a separate suggestion
DDOSers don't get perma'd, they usually get what - 3months or something similar? Hasn't been permaban norm for awhile
Neither do hackers, but I think he was talking about severity of offenses. Anyway, thats not really the point of the thread so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I can see both sides of this, and I honestly think it comes down to context. Let’s say someone in a thread disagrees with me on something I say, they call me a “retarded fucking shithead,” or something along those lines, but it’s a clear joke, or it’s clearly someone I’m cool with who doesn’t actually mean to offend me, I think that’s fine and should be allowed; it’s all just a joke after all. However, let’s say some new user makes some suggestion for something, someone doesn’t like it, and says something like, “your idea is fucking retarded and so are you, you dumb fucking bitch,” I think that should fall under harassment. While I think it may be a step in the right direction to mostly only warn players if they are reported by the person being harassed, we can’t always allow that. Allowing every single comment to be said can promote larger-scale toxicity where things that aren’t okay can be said. We don’t want the Wild West on the forums. again, it’s all context. I don’t think calling someone “stupid,” qualifies as harassment, however that’s if it’s directed at me. Someone else could feel completely harassed at that, and that’s again (like Ryan said) why we can’t make it such a black or white thing. This is something that is VERY grey because harassment means something different to everyone. I get that it seems inconsistent, but it’s hard to have consistency with something that is so tricky
I got banned a few weeks ago for slut shaming someone outside of forums. What is forum banning me for that gonna do lol The mod who banned me for that was just being a simp.
