10th June 2019, 7:43 AM
(This post was last modified: 10th June 2019, 7:45 AM by a7x3. Edited 2 times in total.)
(9th June 2019, 6:57 PM)bi3liu Wrote: I actually believe the majority of the rules are pretty good standards to follow. However, I believe they should not be completely followed. Although strictly following the rules can be seen as a good way to stay objective, not everything is black and white when determining a warning/ban. There are instances when it hard to determine if something warrants a warning/ban.
For example, if someone purposefully breaks the rules to show how unreasonable the pr2 rules are, I believe warning/banning them could just reinforce their current viewpoint.
I believe the problem is, whenever someone breaks the rules, they are usually warned/banned, regardless of the context.
Also, a suggestion:
For chat bans, maybe having mods/admins type out a warning before banning/silencing someone in the chat can be enough to resolve the issue and maybe leave a better impression.
I completely understand what you're saying there. It all comes down to mod preference and what they believe is right, and we should review our methods to find one more suiting, it's just a shame that chat bans aren't separate, that'd make it a lot easier. Since the 30 minute kick option got added to our mod tools we try and use that a lot more than going straight to a one hour ban (I do anyway, kicks also are not recorded in your priors), as some people just need a kick up the backside to understand.
Verbal warnings are also a very good idea, something that we seem to forget can work a lot of the time, a ban or a warning could very much make the situation escalate.
Thank you for the suggestions you made, they will definitely be something we take on board.
