TOPIC: [Community Suggestion] Update to the Staff Ethos

Server Name:

Community-wide.

Suggestion Title:

Players who have no intention to play properly

How would it benefit the server:

Essentially, under the staff ethos, people who have clearly no intention to play properly can /somewhat/ gain protection. While it still does say that the staff ethos does not exist to protect blatantly abusive users, this needs to be properly enforced. While I'm all for giving people chances, it gets to a point where it's silly, because you can't ban blatantly abusive users unless they have recent warnings. This is especially prevalent on TTT, where the standard is to only ban if they mass RDM/break other severe rules + LTAP or if they have 11+ recents, and it makes you feel like you're merciless to a regular user who joined just to troll. As staff, we should be allowed to determine whether or not a user is blatantly abusive and punish them much more extensively based on that. If they choose to appeal, HAs can still overrule the decision on whether or not a user is abusive, though.

Potential Issues/Exploits:

N/A.

Additional notes:

N/A.

Thank you for your time!

if you gonna @me fucking do it

KapiJam wrote: this is about a few separate situations combined

none of which involved you

skrtskrt

sorle wrote:
what do you meaaaaan

This is already stated to an extent, the ethos is a guideline and is not there to protect blatantly abusive users.

Morgan wrote: I understand this, however currently it feels like empty words, as that part is not really being enforced, which is the point of this suggestion.

Blocked wrote:
Me right now

As Morgan said this is already present in the current ethos. This does not mean you should go around banning people left and right though, you should be very reasonable with your punishments.

imo "no intent to rp/play properly" is just something you add on if you want an excuse to ban/ban for longer. I mean no offense but rules should stay rules so why punish someone if they don't break them

RealDenis wrote: This is why HAs are here to be able to overrule them. This is added on to other rules, not a standalone rule. It's quite clear if someone has intentions to play properly, and where staff get this wrong reports should be made.

sorle wrote: I don't think you understand what I wrote. I'm saying there's no point punishing or adding to a punishment because you think they are a troll, a troll breaks rules which is what you should punish for. Your not a psychologist so you don't know whether someone is genuinely trying to harm the server or if they are just having some fun.

Basically if this gets added in someone who breaks rules will get punished accordingly but then if someone doesn't like them then they can just add in "no intent to play" as a reason to punish them more. It's just a stupid suggestion.

EDIT: Looks like Raeker's post just proves my point that people just add that on when they wanna punish for longer, there's a prime example right there. A punishment for 3 weeks for no rules broken? That's a reason right there that this suggestion isn't beneficial at all.

Basically what lead to this was me speaking to Sorle today about a three week ban that he placed on a user. I had a bit of a talk with him and although I did tell him that blatantly abusive players can be banned for longer, 3 weeks without any punishments ever was simply too excessive.

I understand it can be irritating, but I just don't see a need for this change. If they continue minging around they'll be banned for longer the second time, and so forth.

Looking at what Raeker said the ban was excessive, ethos or not we want to give players chances because they might actually change and start enjoying playing the server properly. If we were to ban everyone that joined and broke rules, which is very common (the new players breaking rules part), then the servers would lose popularity and go down the ranks. The ethos was placed due to bans that were merciless and excessive. Remember when you would get a permanent ban for Mass RDMing on SSRP? How many players did we lose from that? If people do not learn and keep on breaking rules then yes it would warrant a ban, but not those that do it like once or twice and stop.

Raeker wrote: It was separate incidents that led up to this; consider that the straw that broke the camel's back. Currently, you can't actually ban people if they mass RDM like 10 people and spam random stuff in the report, which is more of the "blatantly abusive user" I'm trying to describe here. You should be able to ban people like that, and just take care of the issue at the source.

RealDenis wrote: Oh no, the guy did break rules - multiple rounds of Mass RDM and Mass Racism. However he had never received a prior punishment to the ban.

I remember joining S2 and instantly banning users who were there to mess around even if they didnt have any previous punishments ( I am talking about a 1-3 day ban not a week one ). I wouldnt bother warning them and letting them free again to go and rulebreak even more. If you think someone is there to troll just ban them for a day or two.

Ethos do not benefit long-term users in any way. It basically allows almost every rulebreaker to minge around for a fairly long time, get warned over multiple times, but not done anything to really avoid them from trolling and ruining other users roleplay experience. I would like to draw some attention on the SSRP servers. Over the time of the big changes of weapons (from the addition of milkor to the addition of fairly new expensive suits), there were no big advancements made in the ethos, to follow up with those changes. And by this I mean, in the past, even if someone lost their weapons or items, it wouldn't matter that much, since they had not paid real money for it, and weapons weren't as expensive then as they are today. Also, it isn't just about in-game items, the community has grown a lot than one could think. It was fairly easy to deal with rulebreakers back then, depending on the size of the community. The point is, there has been huge changes and a huge growth on community, and ethos should catch up to those.

Doesn't this mean giving more power to staff, and a higher chance to abuse? Well, first of all, giving someone a staff rank is a serious matter. It means you trust them enough to represent the name of the community, and even more importantly, the staff team. Therefore, if changes were to encourage someone to abuse, they shouldn't carry the staff rank in the first place.

But... staff members cannot read people's mind, can they? No, we cannot read minds, but it's not hard to tell massive rulebreakers from who are considered to be more decent. It is not rare that a staff calls heads up on a rulebreaker over the admin chat, believing they will most likely break another rule. And by the time it happens which is more often than many think, it becomes too late. So, why not deal with them before, but wait them to rulebreak even more? What is the purpose of this, are we encouraging people to rulebreak, so we can punish them over and over?

Even though you might not agree with how I or some other people think on this subject, it seems time for a change. So please, even if you don't agree, try to counter arguments with reasonable sentences, not with just plain "no"s.

Progr4mm3r wrote: no

Personally I don't like the current ethos as we just baby feed users in which have no interest in the server at all.

Onion wrote: This is the exact point I'm trying to convey, thank you.