Just a little correction there, but the majority of this thread is people arguing it isn't necessary, without an actual case against it. Not really anyone has argued against most of the points I've brought up.
If you would read my last post you could see I said that there's very few people who continuously keep up debates. This is one known technique you use to keep debates going endlessly, you nitpick and start entire discussions about single words or sentences, in or out of context. This thread has seen its arguing days now, let it rest. Most people are clearly against it.
And a large chunk are still for it. Just because the majority is against it doesn't mean it's wrong. Again, nobody has actually addressed the points I've brought up. Last I checked, when it came to rules, popularity didn't win over, what was fair and correct did. Edit: It's also only been 1 day, so...
'what was fair and correct' that has already been brought up. Multiple times. Please read back my posts on page 2 or 3, and other's on the later pages. 'nobody has actually adressed the points you brought up' yes, sure. I guess the 2 pages of basically a conversation between just you and casual don't count. two entire pages of simply replying to you and answering all ur points. There, all your points are invalid. Please cease creating issues out of thin air. Though I am 100% sure you will find something else to 'discuss' but it ceased to be a discussion a long time ago, since you aren't willing to read what others actually say nor are you willing to look at the other side of the debate. You're just desperately clinging on to your beliefs and your conviction and people who do that can never discuss. They can only dictate what they think and they aren't open to the other side.
Well, that's just a whole bunch of bullshit, now isn't it? Or are you not reading what is being said? I just read the entire thread again to make sure, but I say again: The vast majority of points I have made go unaddressed, unless it's Casual or someone else saying "There is no problem". Which is the bulk of this thread: Me explaining the various ways I see this as a problem, and Casual saying there is none. Nobody even touched what @ink said, not even you, even though it was a direct reply. And unless you're going to call this A proper reply to this Then no, my points have not been addressed. I even went so far as to compile a list of highlights, something that nobody really wanted to discuss. Because, for your side, all you have to do is say "I don't think this is an issue", and that constitutes as an argument, apparently.
Having mulled this suggestion over in my head, and re-reading the actual suggestion (Sorry Arty, can't be bothered to read pages worth of inconsequential debate) : Spoiler: Suggestion & regarding my previous post I strive to be lenient as it's my experience this benefits the server environment as a whole, so I don't hold players liable for ancient slays. To me, that becomes punishment for punishment's sake in some cases and to avoid that as a whole, I work on aforementioned 3 map cycle. Mass RDM is repeated and continuous; every map - not once every 3rd of 4th map. Originally I added a different conclusion but given that my wording, upon review, failed to illustrate my point, I rephrased it as not knowing. In review, the point I was getting at fell short of what I meant and seemed silly. I could support a 3 map cycle, because that seems fair to me and that is what I already use, since it's very easy to track without any additional exertion. But that's bias :^) A longer expiration would strongarm me into additional work for no real benefit as I'll more often punish players who aren't a real problem, a shorter expiration wouldn't make sense. That said, I value fairness over consistency. Our rules are set up to be fair, just, and consistent. Inconsistency in the interest of fairness and justice is one aspect of admin discretion. (Improbable, but) if two players in the completely same situation were punished differently, that'd be unfair and inconsistent. And for that reason: However, as I said, I don't know if that's fair. It's what I believe to be fair and I'm partial to my own opinion. Many (new) players will deem it unfair to be slain for 30 non-lethal damage, but we still slay them. You can deem this inconsistency (RDM expiration) that never seems to manifest as a problem unfair, but that doesn't mean a(ny) change would be fair or just A consistent expiration would be conducive to fairness and would make it clear to a player why they're getting two slays for one RDM. But depending on resolution it will likely also a) cause more work; b) cause more punishment; and or c) hamper a moderator's ability to moderate on their own. And so it loops back around to what I suppose Casual has been trying to say: qualify that it'd be a positive change.
I'm copying this because, even though it doesn't quite line up with what you were saying @Snowflake❄️, it still represents what I'd like to see happen, and gives you what you'd want as well. It's a positive change because it cements the server's rules. When a situation comes up that involves the current way of doing things, it is muddy waters at best, and I still remember a bit of the debate going on in SB that sponsored me to make the first suggestion about this. Someone got banned for mass RDM over the span of 4+ maps. And nowhere was it mentioned these maps were ever RTV'd . And it was completely fine, because it was within the staff's discretion to do so. And, the simple truth of the matter is that bad apples sometimes to get in with the rest of the staff. This is perhaps the most subtle and unprovable way for someone to demonstrate bias or maliciousness as a staff member with minimal risk to personal consequence. One name comes to mind who I would be incredibly surprised if they didn't do this at some point. (And if you are really going to demand proof, go read SGMLeaks and tell me that this isn't the exact level of pettiness and obscurity at least one ex-staff would have exploited against people they didn't like) Overall, the positives are few and small. It's a nuance of a rule that is nearly obsolete because such a little number of staff members exploit it, intentionally or not. However, 'few and small' is not none. 'Little' is not nobody. Done the way suggested above, with a method to track slays*, there are no negatives, either, beyond having to adjust to an ultimately minor rule change. *Seriously, it isn't labor intensive or time consuming to just use a google doc or some related text service. I could track slays given AND people entering and leaving using nothing more than shoutbox, and I would barely lose a minute of gametime. And that's assuming it is in any way difficult to code a slay-tracker in-game
1) Setting a max, sure. But then that just limits the freedom, it doesn't remove it. It remains inconsistent and thus your point of removing inconsistency falls flat, it just limits it slightly. 2) I'm all for prevention, I'm not ready to have kids. But it does not cement the servers rules at all. It has no bearing on the rules. It's not a rule change. It's a change of punishment. The only thing it can feasibly achieve in your interest is limiting the stacking of offenses to a certain timeframe, however that is meted out. 3) Minor adjustments with a positive effect are not worthless. Any change is weighed in pros and cons: if it has more positive effects than negative consequences/requirements, it's worthwhile. I don't know much about technical requirements and resource requirements for implementing a tracker, but even given that, unless forced I would stick to my current MO. 4) Regarding "just track it yourself ezpz", it's not difficult, it's not very time-consuming, but it "would strongarm me into additional work for no real benefit". Between making sure rounds aren't delayed, investigating RDM reports, controlling micspam, preventing harassment, and other duties of an online mod, additional work is unappealing. Doing any of the aforementioned is not very difficult, but it all takes time and focus, and juggling multiple things at the same time. I don't need an additional thing for no benefit. So, in conclusion, sure, set an upper limit of ... I don't know, whatever works. 3 or 4 maps back would cover pretty much all situations I can think of. But that still leaves inconsistencies and that still leaves situations where 2 people can get 2 different punishments from 2 different mods. And so, why bother if the maximum =/= the minimum? And if the maximum = the minimum, what should that value be? In my opinion and experience over the last year that I've been here, it works fine and is not abused.
I'm beyond done with arguing in circles here, at this point. I've said what I had to say and I think everyone else has, too. Time to let this one go, we'll let you know from the development side of things if we decide to implement a system for this, but I wouldn't keep your hopes up too high on that front.
Just cause I'm bored, and honestly I've seen you do this dance every single godamn time where you just dictate your opinion and refuse to actually see the other person's point of view and drag things out almost indefinitely until a lead closes the thread or gives their final result (not opinion because you'd debate that too), i decided to just reply with facts to your statements. To make it easy, I've numbered them. Feel free to check its literally just copy/pasted but with numbers added so its easier to respond. Spoiler: 1. And a large chunk are still for it. More than 60% of people are against it, as they voted to keep it the way it currently is. Spoiler: 2. Just because the majority is against it doesn't mean it's wrong. I never said anything about right or wrong. This is an attempt to twist words into something more convenient to you, as you can then debate right/wrong while it never came up previously. But hey,.. You started this dance and I accepted, so lets get into it shall we. Requesting a rule to change or to be added isn't something that can be wrong or right. It either fits with the way sgm wants to do things or it doesn't. It can fit, or it can't fit. It doesn't mean the rule (or change) itself is wrong, it just doesn't fit at the current time. Spoiler: 3 Again, nobody has actually addressed the points I've brought up. People addressing points you brought up (Note: Each link is a new post where somebody addresses a point you brought up) https://www.seriousgmod.com/threads/rdm-expiration-to-be-defined.46752/#post-475734 https://www.seriousgmod.com/threads/rdm-expiration-to-be-defined.46752/#post-475738 https://www.seriousgmod.com/threads/rdm-expiration-to-be-defined.46752/#post-475742 https://www.seriousgmod.com/threads/rdm-expiration-to-be-defined.46752/page-3#post-475836 https://www.seriousgmod.com/threads/rdm-expiration-to-be-defined.46752/page-3#post-475840 https://www.seriousgmod.com/threads/rdm-expiration-to-be-defined.46752/page-3#post-475843 https://www.seriousgmod.com/threads/rdm-expiration-to-be-defined.46752/page-3#post-475850 https://www.seriousgmod.com/threads/rdm-expiration-to-be-defined.46752/page-3#post-475880 https://www.seriousgmod.com/threads/rdm-expiration-to-be-defined.46752/page-3#post-475884 https://www.seriousgmod.com/threads/rdm-expiration-to-be-defined.46752/page-3#post-475886 https://www.seriousgmod.com/threads/rdm-expiration-to-be-defined.46752/page-4#post-475893 https://www.seriousgmod.com/threads/rdm-expiration-to-be-defined.46752/page-4#post-476009 https://www.seriousgmod.com/threads/rdm-expiration-to-be-defined.46752/page-5#post-476031 https://www.seriousgmod.com/threads/rdm-expiration-to-be-defined.46752/page-5#post-476034 https://www.seriousgmod.com/threads/rdm-expiration-to-be-defined.46752/page-5#post-476036 https://www.seriousgmod.com/threads/rdm-expiration-to-be-defined.46752/page-5#post-476040 https://www.seriousgmod.com/threads/rdm-expiration-to-be-defined.46752/page-5#post-476043 https://www.seriousgmod.com/threads/rdm-expiration-to-be-defined.46752/page-6#post-476062 -I will create another special part for people asking you to prove your ... opinions/conjectures as you yourself said you didn't see that as addressing your points, eventhough I do see it as such as they want to address it, but want proof of it being like that first. Since, if you don't even have to prove your own arguments you could state you were president of the united states and we'd have to believe you. https://www.seriousgmod.com/threads/rdm-expiration-to-be-defined.46752/page-2#post-475750 https://www.seriousgmod.com/threads/rdm-expiration-to-be-defined.46752/page-4#post-475890 https://www.seriousgmod.com/threads/rdm-expiration-to-be-defined.46752/page-4#post-475897 Spoiler: 4. Last I checked, when it came to rules, popularity didn't win over, what was fair and correct did. This has been addressed time and time again, and all you do is evade what we bring up, you continue to do your little fish-on-the-dry-land routine but don't actually bother to see other sides of the argument, which is why I said that this has stopped being a discussion a long time ago. Plus you never even replied to our arguments of fairness. Explanation of why this initiative would not be fair: https://www.seriousgmod.com/threads/rdm-expiration-to-be-defined.46752/page-3#post-475847 You literally ignored that post completely, but you then try to use it as your own argument? We discussed how it isn't fair, you didn't disprove anything I said, you have absolutely no right to bring up 'fairness' as we discussed how it wasn't fair and you chose not to reply. That makes it simply look like you're only picking at things here and there to keep the drama going, but you aren't actually discussing the core of the issue, since you can't win there. Others touching the fairness of implementing this: https://www.seriousgmod.com/threads/rdm-expiration-to-be-defined.46752/page-5 https://www.seriousgmod.com/threads/rdm-expiration-to-be-defined.46752/page-5#post-476032 https://www.seriousgmod.com/threads/rdm-expiration-to-be-defined.46752/page-6#post-476059 Spoiler: 5 Edit: It's also only been 1 day, so... so? There's been over 50 votes. It's quite clear how the majority thinks. Spoiler: 6. Added for extra illustration of my points: people calling you out on you not actually discussing things: https://www.seriousgmod.com/threads/rdm-expiration-to-be-defined.46752/page-4#post-476008 https://www.seriousgmod.com/threads/rdm-expiration-to-be-defined.46752/page-5#post-476034 https://www.seriousgmod.com/threads/rdm-expiration-to-be-defined.46752/page-4#post-475912 https://www.seriousgmod.com/threads/rdm-expiration-to-be-defined.46752/page-4#post-476009 Let me state in the end, i have thoroughly proven all your statements false. I don't have any personal issues with you, I don't really know you, but I am absolutely sick and tired of seeing you do the same dance time and time again. You have -many times- chosen to completely ignore the core issue: Why should we implement this? Every time we got close to the core of the issue, like for example discussing if this rule would be fair for our user base you completely ignored that post and argued about other things that weren't related to the core of the issue. Edit: I'm done discussing this now. I've said what I wanted to say, something that brinded my bears for a while now. You can take this as constructive criticism and evade being 'that guy' in the future, or you can see it as me being disrespectful (which is not the intent). Up to you buddy, this is enough internet arguments to keep me satisfied for a month forbsle out. Spoiler: Corresponding image I had while writing this all up
As a regular who has been playing on this server for 2 yrs I never had one problem out of the current system, and really don't know anyone who has. I understand what you're trying to say @TomCat™ but is it really an issue? If its not broke don't fix it. I believe some of the staff have gave you plenty of valid points why its unnecessary and I have to agree with them. Your argument is kinda has no grounding because you have been cherry picking arguments against you. So its an -1 from me until someone proves to me the system needs to be changed for the better becauae as of now it really dosent hurt anyone.
Because the original suggestion was to make everything consistent yet nothing has been suggested that actually makes slays completely consistent while keeping it simple and you keep jumping from one thing to another. I am going to use your example of: "Two staff members are moderating the same server. Two people commit the exact same RDM offense. Staff 1 handles RDMr A, Staff 2 handles RDMr B. Two maps later, those same two people commit the exact same RDM offense again. Once again, Staff 1 handles A, Staff 2 handles B. A gets 1 slay, B gets 2, just because of the staff member that handled the report. " 1.) Going time based suggested by Mango n few others has the obvious issues of different moderating speeds. The inconsistency example of this, lets take Mangos 1 hour: Two staff members are moderating the same server. Two people commit the exact same RDM offense. Staff 1 handles RDMr A, Staff 2 handles RDMr B. Staff 1 handles report on RDMr A faster and manages to slay him same round as the report comes in. Staff 2 however needs to ask RDMr B extra information since RDMr B answered report vaguely and meanwhile the round in which RDM happened and 1 more has passed. RDMr B gets slain after further investigation. Time passes and they both commit RDM at the same time again, this time both RDMr A and RDMr B admit to their mistake. Hour and 5 minutes has passed RDMr A got slain so he gets only 1 slay, however RDMr B got slain 2 rounds later(9 minutes) and isnt in the 1 hour reset, so he takes 2 slays. While a rather random example like yours, this would get even worse with trial mods handling and such. You might think "Lets use the time when the player RDMed then" for a second but that obviously falls apart as soon as you realize we have voice KoSes etc and nobody is going to go back to recording to look how many minutes/seconds someone into the round called the KoS. 1.2) Problem with time as you pointed out already is that we do not have constant same amount of people in the server, using just time passage means that players in low count servers are more likely to get banned due to how many rounds they play. Going only by rounds has two different ways: 2) If you go by players rounds the obvious issue is that at that point someone can start playing again after lets say 5 maps after 1st RDM they commit, they get 2 slays next offense because the last time they played they served a slay and then left, not playing enough rounds to clear the RDM offense. Likewise leading to a lot of possible mass RDM bans from nowhere. Also counting player rounds would need a special tool by developers and I assume would be rather pain in the ass to code. 2.2) The only real possible alternative while keeping things simple is going by rounds that have gone by in the servers. Going by maps has really only one flaw which is RTVs and going by server round fixes that. Doing server rounds is for most part already what staff basically do, 12 rounds, as mentioned by plethora of moderators and admins so there really is not much change in practice. However to keep staffing in flow, a developer would need to make a system where staff member can input in which round the RDM happened, since if you go by the round slain staff could on purpose delay dealing with the report and slay after limit has been passed. There would also need to be few exceptions made for server crashes etc. I dont really mind this change but it would need a change by developers. Which goes back to what was said on the very 1st page: You have not given me(or anyone) one bit of evidence of a better system that was mentioned on page 1/current system so: TL;DR Current system works, not enough evidence given where changing the system would make any noticeable differences.
What you constantly keep bringing up as "fair" is actually the problem here. I'm not sure if you have set me to ignore or something, but I agree that this discussion is a better one if had in the Staff Discussion subforum to decrease the negative views of a select few players, but look at the situation as staff members. The very specific example that staff are more likely to remember your slay if you are toxic/harassing is the reason to have this protection as a player, and to give this protection as staff. If you recognize that you are applying a rule to someone that you wouldn't to other people is the exact reason staff should look to make the system more fair. A player shouldn't be held up to a higher standard of RDM just because they harassed or something. You never get slain for anything other than RDM, and this is an extra layer of protection to that principle. You may say "oh that's exactly what Admin discretion is.." But that's not what admin discretion is. Admin discretion is giving a player more or less punishment for a rule based on different aspects of their play, NOT applying whether or not more or less rules apply to a given player or not. You shouldn't apply more rules to a player because he's toxic or less rules to another because he's "nice", discretion is forgiving, not ignoring that rules exist for a certain case or not. The thing about this is that a function to check the time doesn't have to take a lot of a staff member's time; implementing this could be done so a staff can check just the last time a person was slain on that server and assign a slay that way. I think the main point you're missing is that you keep thinking that admin discretion is just being nice to nice players, and harsh to harsh players and that's wrong; forgiving is very different than ignore whether something happened at all or not.
So, after reading through some of the replies on this post, I decided to give my final input in regards to a few points brought up a few people here. First, I want to start by saying that I do not believe this was in no way a change that needed to be made to current slay system. I wanted to give a suggestion that I believe would need to be the one implemented if this were to change. The timed SoL is the most consistent form of time between slays that I have seen come up. You may argue that two staff may handle reports at different speeds, but then again, when I see two staff on a server, I tend to see reports handled much faster than if there is a single staff present. I mainly thought that even the command to see the last time someone was slain could be an instrument that our staff team uses to just kind of check their consistency even better. Second, one of the main points I have seen brought up about a few of the suggestions is that they lack consistency based on either player factors or staff factors. However, arguing against something because it is inconsistent would be arguing against the current system due to it being dependant on discretion of each and every staff member. Now, what I would usually do as an admin would be to instruct my mods of a specific timeframe to keep track of slays on a person; at least then I know there would be some kind of consistency. Because I was a less than lenient admin, I would always say it would be per play session. However, I know that my mods would stray from this method, because I would hear it from other members of the community. So, even then, there were times when our staff were inconsistent. It made me look bad as a leader once I knew my mods who yes, were entrusted with responsibility to carry out their duties, would still stray from their direction given to them by their admin. Had they known that all they had to do was follow directions long enough that they would gain more and more responsibility as they staffed, they probably would have seen a little more leniency. The main reason for this is because I've been here a little while now and I've seen plenty of times when staff do show some kind of bias towards their friends. Of course they're not going to let their admin see something that could get them yelled at, because they're obviously smarter than that. Third, we read at the bottom of the MOTD that rules and punishments are subject to change at an admin's discretion. The main reasons it's admin discretion is because we have far less admins than we do moderators and our admins can be expected to be a bit more consistent with judgement; hence why they get the dodger blue name. We've preached this to our players time and time again when they have issues, but it becomes an issue when the trouble maker ends up getting punished differently than someone that 'flies under the radar'. I know I was guilty of doing that when I was an admin because I had the power to do so and no other staff members tended to have an issue with that. I usually see it happen with players that maybe don't rub someone the right way; they do something and the mark tends to last longer even though they only did one thing really wrong per our rules. Not much thought goes into carrying out punishments of those that break rules constantly because it seems 'easy.' However, if one player is going to get a clean slate after playing two maps and another player that argued a slay gets a longer time for a clean slate, then there is a problem; and I don't need to provide evidence when that has been stated by staff/former staff. But remember that it's not really your fault as a staff member to do that. As humans we tend to remember negative events better than positive events. I still have times when I remember players that I have had bad run-ins with and I can't even remember someone that I played with that was just...there. In summary, if there needs to be a change, the most consistent tool that we have at our disposal is time. Even if it's something our staff team can have, adding a !slaycheck could bring consistency to each staffs personal slaying standards. All staff are going to be different and that's alright, but admins must be vigilant in monitoring their mods for inconsistencies in themselves. It's very difficult to call a group of people a team when they all have different ideas of where they should draw a line. And finally keep discretion in the administrator court. It's a numbers game and the fewer people you have holding the stick means the fewer variables you'll have to worry about. Don't let those players that rub you the wrong way get the short end of the bargain just because they did something you don't like even if it's not against the rules. Let the server rules be the governing device used to measure players against.
I think there's one thing we are thinking completely different about that makes you mention things like discretion and forgiving/ignoring someone's offenses. It is a conscious effort/choice to forgo somebody's previous rdm offense I believe it is never a conscious effort/choice to forgo someone's previous rdm offense. See it like this: The server is very busy and the staff member has about 20-30 different reports to handle while also playing, paying attention to (mic)chat, etc. It will now be very hard to everybody's offense. Now add 2 more maps and another 20-30 reports and only then you reach the point where they can no longer see your previous offenses. This is the starting point for my explanation. That means, only once there has been a new map two times staff can no longer see previous offenses and have to remember correctly if they put any slays 2 maps ago. That also means that before this point staff can't choose to forgo previous rdm offenses. they never can. They can still see the previous map's offenses so they must still count offenses. However, once its 2 maps later and you can no longer see the previous slays he had on him, it is up to you to make sure you correctly remember how many slays he had on him already. (Often you will remember the offenses of most people when its not that busy, but once the server gets busy it gets far harder to correctly remember it.) At this point, who would you more easily remember: The person who is toxic and keeps talking to you, or harassing other players so you're paying more attention to him The person who got slain once a few rounds ago-ish but he never talks so you haven't really had to pay attention to him This is what we are saying. We aren't choosing to forget some people, nor are we intentionally trying to forgive/ignore them. We simply remember people who are toxic better than people who're in the background. I am against having staff be permitted to remember the slay amounts for a certain duration, even with new commands/layout/reminders. Reasons are on page3 of this thread. The thing I do think could be benefitial is that there should be a rule that limits for how long offenses could still be increased. So, for how many rounds/maps/time can staff still 'remember' somebody's offenses. Cause theoretically people could be slain even 8 maps later... 8 hours later... 8 days/months/years later. So there should be a limit, for example 4 maps later/28 rounds, then we couldn't abuse the rule.
