TOPIC: Regarding the current ban discussion

I'm gonna say what Raeker has roughly said since I couldn't say it better my self:
Banned users are not protected by the Zarp staff ethos, Tyler has pointed it out a few times because people that have been banned have also been given more than enough chances but they still break the rules and therefore recent punishments are irrelevant, you should instead look at their entire rap sheet. It's very complicated and a lot of things need to be taken into consideration. After all, everything is just a guideline just like the Zarp staff ethos.

I will clear this up properly at some point when I have the time to do so. Basically when you're banning a user they are no longer protected by the staff ethos and so you will have to look at the whole rapsheet. Who they are, how many rules they have broken and whether or not they have any previous bans. When those punishments have been given matters as well - you're not going to take a one day ban from three months ago into account when you're deciding to ban a user after all. But if someone is breaking a lot of rules at this current time and has had a permanent ban six months earlier (and got unbanned, say, four months ago) then feel free to give them another permanent ban at that point as they clearly didn't learn from the last one.

The idea that the ethos applies to users you are about to ban is invalid. As the staff ethos states, it exists to protect both users and staff member but not to protect blatantly abusive users.

Raeker wrote: finally, I've been trying to get that last point across for so long now but no one ever listened

Raeker wrote:
(However don't completely disregard the ethos and ban people excessively for minor shit (ie. you should try ban for like 1 - 3 days for people who have a lot of recent warns but no bans rather than for months))

TheXnator wrote: There's a lot of compromise to be made between 1-3 days and "months", so I don't exactly understand your point here. The idea that we should keep our bans between a few days is redundant and wrong, as it doesn't state that anywhere within the Ethos.

Although what I said earlier was a rather vague and relatively short way of solving the issue at hand, I did say that I wanted to clear this up properly at some point. You trying to make a point by saying "Oh, but you shouldn't ban excessively" completely refutes what I originally said.

Regardless I guess I might as well clear it up a little bit more right now: when banning a user, the staff ethos no longer applies to them. However the staff ethos can still apply to the staff member in question, meaning that they cannot use their powers excessively. I do feel like that was relatively obvious, even though I didn't mention it originally.

Going to be banning people for 4038 years now for NLR

Bump, please get this stickied it's of high importance!

Nick0GR wrote:
No it's not.

_Lewis wrote: considering how no one's actually been able to read for the past year or however long the ethos has been out, and how this part was completely ignored, i'd say it's pretty important

or maybe people in higher places just like selectively choosing what parts of it are actually followed rather than following the entire thing as intended

and people in higher places like enforcing a guideline like it's a rule, so they feel like they have some level of control in at least one thing in their lives

Nick0GR wrote: No Topoc from you will get stickied

iScarecrow wrote: prntscr.com/j7h9h2
prntscr.com/j7h9nx
(Don't respond to this, this isn't the reason of the topic)

Isn't really that high of importance, just mention it in the moderator meeting while all the staff members are there

Windows wrote: I believe this is important for all servers as well as this should be used in admin pieces of training

Nick0GR wrote:
Pretty sure nobody will think that its ok to ban someone for a day and if they do they will be told off. No need for a thread to be stickied

Raeker wrote: Why do you write an essay when someone passive agressively replies to you?