Forum Rules Amendments 16/06/2016

[MoronPipllyd]

Forum Rules Amendments 16/06/2016​

Hey guys, small thread but I thought it was needed so that a small amendment to the Forum Rules could be brought to your attention. Basically it's been an increasing issue that people are replying to threads in the above section without actually providing a constructive and useful opinion, it is also often the case where individuals are commenting without even being fully aware of the situation. To help eliminate this issue the Forum Rules will be changed as following:

2.4 Constructive Supports

Users should only reply to the threads within the Ban Appeal, Warning Dispute, Refund Request and Action Request section if they were directly involved in the situation in question. When replying to Suggestions and Staff Applications users are expected to be constructive with their replies by providing their reasoning.

However, if you do have an opinion or concern you would like to post you are more than welcome to bring it to the attention of a staff member. As we do understand some users may desire to voice opinions even though they weren't involved in the situation. We made this decision in order to avoid cluttering threads to make it easier for Admins to evaluate situations.

Rule 2.6 will also be amended to remove the sentence 'with no chance of appeal'.

Please note that for the time being these updates won't be live on the 'Forum Rules' tab at the top of the site, however they can be viewed here and will be actively enforced.

 

[Deleted member 4084]

Personally. I'd like to address this:

Action Request section if they were directly involved in the situation in question.

So we can no longer add our opinion in Action Requests?

 

[MattIs]

Personally. I'd like to address this:

So we can no longer add our opinion in Action Requests?

I don't agree with this because:

• It's going to make it harder for newer players to have their rule knowledge known, I remember for a fact in Admin Meetings - we used to look at what players used to reply to Action Requests like for a general knowledge of how they behave on the forums in serious situations.
• It kinda takes the whole point of doing them on the forum out of the question - might as well be a private section.
• It will make admin's decision a hell of a lot harder, as they wont have public support to make judgement upon. I remember for a fact when I was a staff member, if it was confirmed that a serious rule breakage takes place, you only have to skip through the video and not have to be constantly surged upon the screen for little nifty things.

 

[ΙεΙίος1]

Please note that for the time being these updates won't be live on the 'Forum Rules' tab at the top of the site, however they can be viewed here and will be actively enforced.

I don't get the logic behind that. How are people supposed to know this rule change if they read the forum rules from the top of the site and do not see this post here? Free warnings given?

 

[MoronPipllyd]

How are people supposed to know this rule change if they read the forum rules from the top of the site and do not see this post here? Free warnings given?

As many have already stated the issue is that the Forum Rules section has to be manually updated which may take some time. But I still don't get your point, if your concern is that Warnings are going to be given regardless of people being aware of the change then the 'Forum Rules' tab being updated isn't going to fix that whatsoever. If you've read this post you will have been directed to the thread containing the updated forum rules and you will now be aware of the new and actively enforced rules. If you haven't read this thread you will not be aware of the newly updated rules, this is the case regardless of whether or not the Forum Rules tab has been updated. Unless you're one of very few people who check the Forum Rules on a daily basis but don't check the 'Home' tab of the website this shouldn't be an issue. If it is however still a concern I will add a notification in the relevant sections alerting people of the Amendment.

Regarding your issue with the rule amendment itself let me clarify some things. ''not allowing people to post their opinions? Not the solution.'' Correct, it's not the ideal solution but its the best we've got. Even if you're opinion is perfectly valid and constructive it still doesn't really matter all that much to the situation itself as the only things being truly considered are the evidence and testaments of those involved in the situation. If you still want to voice your opinion regarding the matter as I stated in the thread you can feel free to contact various relevant staff members. I may be wrong here but I assume that the goal in sharing your opinion on a thread is to eventually have some effect on the outcome and express any concerns, if anything contacting a staff member directly will achieve this more effectively. Unless of course your goal in posting is to gain ratings..

 

[Death Howl]

As you know I do but into action requests and try to help both sides of the arguments by pointing out key details and voicing opinions. I have been doing this for awhile and no-one has had any issue with it but now I believe that I am more restricted to do so now. I understand you intentions but helping people can come naturally to us plus some reviewing AR's give it a review with other staff and just make the choice, why should they have to agree to us voicing our opinions while they are deciding the fate of those in the said AR.

If I see the need to I will help out in AR's by giving my opinion, pointing out key points and details and anything else relevent but I would prefer not having to ask the staff member enforcing it since well people get banned everyday and about 1-3 AR's get posted each day, would make some wonder is it really worth the effort

A solution could be to identify people who help out in Action Requests so that they do not need to go to a staff member possibly 3 times a day just to point something out that everyone missed.

Oh god im setting the return of the helper rank doing this.


I will await your reply to this but I respect your choice to modify the rules it was kinda needed.

 

[JC Denton]

+support. Rules add realism.

Hopefully this will be the end of unneeded +supports. nice.

 

[Walker]

I get the reasoning behind this however I don't think a rule that stops users not involved replying was needed. Why not just "If its already been said or is not constructive". Users are pretty good at pointing out things staff sometimes miss and contacting a staff member personally is not the best option. What if it takes several users together to figure something out.

To me it just seems like the rules went too far to solve a problem that wasn't actually a problem - more of a annoyance.

Disable ratings on posts if you think users post to get them, not this.

I also disagree with users not being able to voice their opinions before decisions are made on matters like this.

 

[joR]

I think this is a great idea - most communities nowadays do not even have the administration boards such as ban appeals and ban requests in the public domain, threads are only able to be seen by people involved and staff members. It makes the forums a lot more sleek and prevents any unnecessary by community members, so we are pretty lucky. The staff team are in-charge of punishing individuals and unbanning them, we don't tag along to all in-game reports and give our verdict on the situation as it's not our duty. Of course it's nice being able to have an input on the forums but it's extremely unnecessary and imo it just causes so much ph drama which can all be avoided.

@MoronPipllyd has provided us with a method on how we can give input on a situation if necessary, I don't see the big deal here, our opinions aren't being barred? Just seems people are looking to complain about something.

Regarding your issue with the rule amendment itself let me clarify some things. ''not allowing people to post their opinions? Not the solution.'' Correct, it's not the ideal solution but its the best we've got. Even if you're opinion is perfectly valid and constructive it still doesn't really matter all that much to the situation itself as the only things being truly considered are the evidence and testaments of those involved in the situation. If you still want to voice your opinion regarding the matter as I stated in the thread you can feel free to contact various relevant staff members. I may be wrong here but I assume that the goal in sharing your opinion on a thread is to eventually have some effect on the outcome and express any concerns, if anything contacting a staff member directly will achieve this more effectively. Unless of course your goal in posting is to gain ratings..

 

[blobvis 2.0]

May I ask one question,

Some enforcer applications get mowed down because they don't show themselves enough on the forum. With this new rule amendment this means that people not can show their activity (as they are most of the times not involved within the situation), rule knowledge on the forum anymore and have to do this all in game (except for making own AR's).

 

[Chrissy]

ARs are generally based around two people disagreeing over an in character matter in which one party believes a rule break occurred.

Whilst I do love some good beef, it's silly to let the whole community over analyse a situation where a person probably had seconds to make a decision.

For example, there was an AR against me in which I shot a person's vehicle up as cop as I believed that they were attempting to run myself or my partner over. Of course, not missing the chance to throw some shade, a large section of the forum began to overanalyse the situation, stating multiple other options I could have used. I am also aware that at least two forum members attempted to place my actions into a negative light as they had personal, OOC issues with myself. Not because they actually believed it.

I was given a warning after that and successfully disputed it. The only reason I got that warning is because the staff member dealing with it looked at what others had posted. They failed to take into account that this community loves beef, and that at the time I had literally about 2 seconds to make a decision. The majority of posts in that AR were against myself, and the staff member simply went with the majority because they couldn't be arsed to consider the evidence and thought they'd let the community do it instead.

Trial by peers is not a good option when your peers have no fucking clue what they're doing
[DOUBLEPOST=1466145375,1466145186][/DOUBLEPOST]

May I ask one question,

Some enforcer applications get mowed down because they don't show themselves enough on the forum. With this new rule amendment this means that people not can show their activity (as they are most of the times not involved within the situation), rule knowledge on the forum anymore and have to do this all in game (except for making own AR's).

There are 24 other sections not related to ARs etc or enforcer apps that a complete newbie can access.

Plenty of places to be active

/Phone
[DOUBLEPOST=1466147553][/DOUBLEPOST]

ARs are generally based around two people disagreeing over an in character matter in which one party believes a rule break occurred.

Whilst I do love some good beef, it's silly to let the whole community over analyse a situation where a person probably had seconds to make a decision.

For example, there was an AR against me in which I shot a person's vehicle up as cop as I believed that they were attempting to run myself or my partner over. Of course, not missing the chance to throw some shade, a large section of the forum began to overanalyse the situation, stating multiple other options I could have used. I am also aware that at least two forum members attempted to place my actions into a negative light as they had personal, OOC issues with myself. Not because they actually believed it.

I was given a warning after that and successfully disputed it. The only reason I got that warning is because the staff member dealing with it looked at what others had posted. They failed to take into account that this community loves beef, and that at the time I had literally about 2 seconds to make a decision. The majority of posts in that AR were against myself, and the staff member simply went with the majority because they couldn't be arsed to consider the evidence and thought they'd let the community do it instead.

Trial by peers is not a good option when your peers have no fucking clue what they're doing
[DOUBLEPOST=1466145375,1466145186][/DOUBLEPOST]

There are 24 other sections not related to ARs etc or enforcer apps that a complete newbie can access.

Plenty of places to be active

/Phone

Lelios, unable to comment as on phone but that did happen in my situation. Your method also relies on the staff members to be competent enough to recognise when people are just hating for the sake of it.

 

[Skudist]

Of course, this could remove the chance that the staff members opinion could be biased on a situation (AR, Ban appeal, etc.) due to community members not liking the person who is possibly getting banned or getting someone banned, or getting unbanned. However, I believe that you still should be able to say if there were even more rules broken or if the AR creater missed something in the evidence. Some community members try to become an enforcer, if they got denied (such as I did), they received a reason (at least it was some time ago). A lot of applicants got said to prove their rule knowledge to the administration team. Answering in AR's was a great way to prove your rule knowledge and activity in the forums to the administration team. But yes, this is not the only way to prove your rule knowledge to the administration team. You could play as a police officer more often, however me as a guy who as no administrators as friends has only that option now.
Including that I don't see the (Senior)Administration Team that often in-game.

 

[John Daymon]

What you have to understand is that sometimes in certain action requests, ban appeals, warning disputes and refund requests is completely useless, it may be seen by you as something that's needed to be put in but for us useless.

You may say that it will effect certain users in enforcer applications but you have to understand that the senior-administration will and can adapt in these situations when needed, obviously in this situation they will look into new things, this might be the times where some users will be put into consideration where they will be looked into more carefully, I don't think this is something you need to be afraid of, the senior administration have their ways of looking into applicants.

Also while where on the enforcer applications why don't we just quote rule 2.6;

Users should only reply to the threads within the Ban Appeal, Warning Dispute, Refund Request and Action Request section if they were directly involved in the situation in question. When replying to Suggestions and Staff Applications users are expected to be constructive with their replies by providing their reasoning.

As you may see here in this rule it's stated that you're expected to be constructive with your replies by providing your reasoning, this obviously means that when you reply to a rule discussion for example you can prove yourself in a way. For example you can pull out pro's and con's with the new / old rule.

As you can see on this thread made by Chris;
https://perpheads.com/threads/5-2-forced-withdrawals.15087/

I don't see any replies here, not even by any enforcer applicants where I believe people who apply for enforcer should be hanging out, this is where you should prove yourself a lot on the forums and your general behaviour on here, this is where you can shine, I don't think action requests and ban appeals means that much to be honest as you can simply just look at someone elses support and straight off copy them.

 

[Deleted member 1235]

What if there is a post that whilst someone may not be be involved, they are offering constructive criticism for the appeal itself (not the actual content of the AR/Appeal).

For example when someone makes an AR but they forget the template or miss out a peice of information such as a steam ID or In-game name, are we now no longer able to help provide that information?

The only reason I say this as on Teemos recent appeal he didn't add a demo, whilst I replied saying it would benefit the staff and himself if he did post one, is that now breaking forum rules? Are some of us to be punished for simply helping?

I can understand the reason behind it, we all remember the clusters and juicy that surrounded an AR on Luke Person or such. But if you want to keep it directly between staff and those involved then why not just do it the same way staff complaints are handled? Where normal users are unable to view the threads except for the ones they posted?