Didn’t I just give a whole rundown on how this could work before you guys started arguing earlier today? 
What argument? It’s been pretty civil in this thread
3 Likes
Yeah, wrong choice of words… I meant debate or exchange of ideas maybe. “Argument” doesn’t have to be negative, but I suppose it can take on a negative connotation if not used contextually.
Anyway, point being, I drew out a whole method that could work up above, including a message system similar to what codemage mentioned later.
Earlier, if we’re gonna split hairs 
Point being, it’s pretty normal to sometimes have to repeat or rehash something you or someone else has already said, on the same thread, or on another, or on many other threads before. Not every participant in a discussion will have read every single message in it. 
1 Like
Justice has always a degree of inefficiency. You need to accept that. For instance, dictatorial regimens are very efficient when compared to democracies. Which would you prefer? The same applies here.
My questions towards the community were genuine, not rhetorical. If collectively we have deemed the downsides of a warning system are outweighed by their benefit, that’s cool with me. My only wish was to point out that in the elaborate systems being proposed - transparent communication, report authentication, and warning system - I think the warning system part does the least good for the highest cost of the three.
If FC were to implement only a warning system and neither of the former, I think our situation would only deteriorate further.
Also, I have rarely found it productive to argue with metaphors or appeals to governments or law here on the forums: One, we are all so ideologically diverse that the discussion gets bogged down trying to find common ground to work with. Two, I think people are often too willing to stretch their metaphors, ignoring the obvious nuances that distinguish said metaphor from benign discussions about things like a warning system.
2 Likes
Something needs to change in order to maintain a healthy population on the game. So many have left and continue to leave. The new players aren’t going to fill that void because the issue isn’t being solved. My last ban was a bit brutal because we went out of our way to avoid breaking the tos yet it did not help. My whole clan was permanently banned. 3 of which got this punishment on their first offense. They submitted tickets the day it happened and 2 months later nothing has changed. This leads me to think there are major issues with the tos/enforcement in general. A warning system is a step in the right direction. Is it the perfect fix? No but we’ve literally tried bringing up every possible solution we can think of. They’ve all ended in closed threads and no response from funcom. This is possibly the first thread on this topic that hasn’t broken into a big argument…why? Because with every passing week there will be less and less players. This will effect everyone at some point. The fact that their are still players trying to come up with solutions to such a devastating game feature is a miracle. It’s been more or less the same core people trying to make change.
Funcom please give us something to go on?? How can you sit there and ban your paying playerbase with no feedback or warning??
2 Likes
But in this case, if you aim for a fair system, you need to accept a certain slowliness that inevitably comes with it. I just gave the example of democracy because it’s easy to understand. Dictatorships are very efficient. However, I don’t believe anyone here would prefer to live under such political regimen. The aim was not, in any way imaginable, to mingle politics in the discussion and I don’t believe it could slide that way. Your caution, in this case seems unadjusted and it only diverts from the fair point I made. If you want a just system, you must be prepared to deal with what such process brings along.
1 Like
Yes, you have presupposed that I (the reader) desire a fair system rather than an efficient one. Or rather that I should. I think this is evidenced by your metaphor which IMO poisons the well of any such possible discussion, by tying the good implications of democracy to fair systems and the negative implications of dictatorships to efficient systems - which I think is undue and overly simplified. However, I am honestly not sure the discussion is improved much by debating this specifically, which is all I was trying to say before. I am amicable to agreeing to disagree on the presupposition. I’m not really that opposed to your conclusion.
3 Likes
I explicitly said if you (or anyone) want a fair system, you must accept the problems it brings. If you prefer efficiency or a compromise between both, I’m OK with that. That’s my stand, a compromise. If I were you I would stop projecting my intentions. Nobody wants an unjust process. People who do, should get counseling. Sometimes we get and accept an unjust process because justice isn’t possible by other irredeemable factors, not because we want it. So, that well is poisoned a priori.
I don’t think that Funcom will ever be able to please everyone and that is ok. I don’t even think any of this is a matter of fairness but a system implemented that seemed like the best thing to do at the time. Zendesk was necessary, it is just failing many of us, both in reporting and receiving punishment at this time.
As has been pointed out many times over many months, people cannot learn if they do not understand what they did wrong. Updating the Terms of Conduct, Guidelines and Procedures is a wonderful way to ensure that players are properly informed. The current document is incomplete and leaves much up for interpretation. Then questions. Originally this prompted Umborls to create an entirely new forum post attempting to clarify what land claim issues were. Ok great! That actually helped me and others in my clan and extended acquaintances in understanding what our rights and responsibilities are.
How this information in the current state is being delivered went through many levels of iteration. Since 3.0, there’s been a MoTD that directs the player base to the ToC. Except you can’t copy and paste the link they provide. It has been suggested that Funcom add it as a a hyperlink button, perhaps in the menu, that brings the user to the rules.
For those receiving adminwipes and suspensions, not even the system itself is 100% working in game. The retrieval of suspension information message shows an error, so they don’t even know what happened.
It has been directed to affected players to seek clarification of their suspension by putting in a ticket through Zendesk. The ONLY option is ban appeal, and you will not receive a suspension removal through this method, so it confuses those requesting information. If they did receive the message in game that they can’t join official servers with the “reason”, they only receive the same information in the Zendesk inquiry. IF they get a response.
So they’re no further ahead in understanding what happened, only that they’ve been affected.
Of course some come back, take a break but also choose to shut down the game entirely. Why would any company want to lose players this way? It baffles me.
I’ve stuck around despite what happened to me and my friends. Others in this forum have been pushing for a better system. Not one that is in perspective of fairness, but that we have the ability to actually understand our responsibilities and play. To have fun.
5 Likes
This can be easily rectified with a ToS violation Report that would show up as a link as you attempt to log in. The link will take you to the report that will show…
- The server and or clan association that you were part of that got enforced on.
- The ToS section you violated.
- the evidence supporting said violation (screen shots)
4)Appeal process link
That’s it. The evidence would help get players in sync with what is being observed and the current interpretation of the ToS reg. Also by having this in a data format, the moderators would have access to similar ticket issues and can get consistency in enforcement.
2 Likes
I haven’t read the comments yet, but i want to add my few words. I definitely agree with autor. One can never tell, about what they get eventually reported by whoever. Or can they?
There are official rules about building and claims.
I don’t see any reason to ban anybody, who:
- Is not blocking pathways
- Is not blocking important resource nodes
- Is not spamming foundations without a reason
In my opinion the size of the base doesn’t matter that much.
Also my experience is, that on PvE-C server admins deleted one trap base, although according to official rules the person did not broke any rules. Everyone was happy about it tho, because trap bases are not stuff of PvE or PvE-C.
1 Like
Most practical systems are a compromise of the two. Even in democracies the population likely does not directly vote on every single minutiae. Me saying “I think a warning system alone complicates an already failing and inefficient system” is not avocation for an unjust system. Nor does it rise to the moral gravity of dictatorship vs. democracy.
Are you the pot or the kettle?
1 Like
I never accused you of such. Did it sound like that? That wasn’t my intention in the least.
Efficiency in democracies vs dictatorships was just an example so people quicky understood the conundrum.
I meant you plural. Everyone. Not you particularly. We have two diferent words for you singular and you plural in Portuguese. Maybe we’re experiencing the effects of a language barrier worsened by my lack of time to think my wording thouroughly at the moment. If you feel I’m attacking you, please don’t. I’m not, even indirectly. That’s not my intention at all.
2 Likes
First, I would like to thank those who expressed concern for my well-being. I feel much better today and look forward to the recent changes I have made in my personal life.
Now, regarding OP’s post.
I have read through all comments up until this point and some good suggestions have been made, so I can’t imagine I have anything new to add to the “Warning System” part. I will say this:
One huge issue I see discussed in every thread about bans/suspensions is that clarification is lacking. I personally have not received a ban message but from what I understand it looks similar to this (bear with me):
Pending Connection Failure
Could not connect to server. User is banned from this server.
So, here we now have a player who is told they are banned during an attempted log in but the reason is unknown. The next step would be to go through the Zendesk Ban Appeal/Ban information (Why was I banned?) process to at least gather more information on the specifics of the ban.
The player checks their email and it is a standard copy-and-paste email saying something like:
Greetings Exile,
your account has been temporarily suspended from playing on official servers for 14 days as a warning due to claim spam and content block. Your suspension should end (given date).
So not only was a Zendesk report filed, acted upon, and closed, but another Zendesk ticket is opened just for clarification for the first ticket. I see wasted time for both the Zendesk backlog and for the banned player at this stage, but I will return to this point in just one moment.
At the Ban appeal/Ban information stage, I see players express frustration as the message is usually along the lines of “claim spam and content block”. The player at this stage either knows what this means in regards to their builds or they do not know.
I suggest that the process should look a bit more like this:
-
Player submits a report (legitimate) with all evidence
-
Admin receives the report, investigates, and upon taking action- a ban or wipe- the admin must provide a short specific description of the violation with at least 1 screenshot of the offense.
2.a). I am not suggesting the admin use a screenshot from the report part of this process, as using a player-sent screenshot may have identifiers that would cause problems for the reporters. I believe if someone is using the report system, they should be using in good faith and be anonymous from the one being reported to avoid harassment or targeted revenge. When I say the admin must provide a screenshot, it should be a new screenshot of the specific offending build or buildings, taken by the admin before wiping the build.
2.b) The admin should then provide a brief few sentences explaining what the photograph shows, the grid location of the offending build and the rule being broken- I suggest referring to the post by Umborls and citing one of the specific examples if it applies.
Will this take the admin more time? Yes, it will. Considering all of the back and forth already happening between players and admins in Zendesk trying to get information, perhaps the admins taking just a few minutes more to properly show and give a brief explanation will end up saving more time in the long run by reducing the Zndesk ticket numbers. I came to this conclusion because all the info would be provided the 1st time around and with clear visual and detailed information on the rules being broken, the player has no choice but to accept their ban and learn from their mistake or -better yet- we find that some or actions being taken are actually not warranted and might need to be overturned.
Apologies for the length of the comment, if you’re familiar with some of my posts you know I struggle to communicate effectively. Sorry OP for being off-topic.
5 Likes
I think the cost benefit in this case is much more favorable for players. Rulings that we can disseminate and review would go a long way in establishing a well informed playerbase. They would also give us a voice on the specifics of moderation by serving as a focus to point to, debate and build consensus.
The caveat is that it creates a standard that FC is beholden too - at least in terms of their moderation reputation. If they mess up, lack consistency or are doing something we generally disagree with, we would have the ammo to sling at them.
I’d like that system. Given that they don’t allow litigation on the forums and their hesitancy to have an open dialogue on the subject - I’m doubtful we will ever see ruling transparency.
3 Likes
I respect your take here.
Mind, in my long post I hope I did not allude to a possible way to have a back-and-forth exchange with the Admin. That would not be healthy in my opinion, and I think just providing all the information upfront to the player and then closing the ticket is probably best.
Having this be immediately available is key in my opinion. And Erjoh also makes a point by stating:
With the player base on the same page, that’s a win.
Huge win in my opinion. I see accusations on the forums of admins not properly investigating tickets. I hope to remove all doubt with transparency.
3 Likes
I don’t think you did. If I take your prescription of a screenshot and a brief description, which I personally think would be great, over time those would build a body of evidence in the hands of the playerbase. This body would give a contextualized understanding of the rules even if they remain vague. I don’t think FC is comfortable with such a body existing, less so being the ones to generate it given their past behavior. I’d be happy to be wrong about that.
2 Likes