Warnings instead of bans?

[Rossss]

Recently I noticed warnings being given out on player reports. I'm not against the idea if it's the person's first time breaking a minor rule or if it's a mistake, but giving warnings when the staff team admit that it is RDM is not really fair when others recieve bans.

Why and when are warnings given out when people should be banned (as others are)?

 

[C H A R L I E]

I Think it depends on the rule that is broken.... I mean if people are getting banned and others are not I see what you mean but I'm sure the admin/ staff team sometimes don't have enough time to ban as there is a ban database probley so don't think that it's unfair and stuff I think that because you have notified them they will pick up on it -@ConnorTheGreatt 

 

[Smith]

At the end of the day, it comes down to the discretion of the member of staff dealing with the situation. In some cases, be it for reasons such as the player is clearly new and has committed a first offence, made a genuine mistake, etc. All situations are unique, and we use our judgement and experience to come to the best possible outcome in order to ensure that everyone can have a safe and enjoyable experience here.

 

[Samatlewis]

Essentially what @Lt Smith said.

Players first offence in a tricky situation? We'd rather warn them. Player is in a grey area? Warn them if it's not something they do all the time (evidenced by other reports/ staff seeing them in game)

Basically as Smith stated it's disgression. See it unfairly if you wish but it's a matter of opinion and up to staff discretion. If it's an outcome that management/leads are unhappy with they can step in, however it's much better than banning every tom dick and Harry for doing something wrong in a tense and easily misunderstood situation.

With a bigger and expanding team we have more time and have the capability to be more proactive than when we were smaller. 

 

[WhoisDan]

With a bigger and expanding team we have more time and have the capability to be more proactive than when we were smaller. 

I agree with that but having such a large team also causes a shit tonne of confusion. Not gonna name any names or specific situations, but there have been a few instances where one staff member has told someone one thing and another has told someone else the complete opposite. The same thing applies to this, some staff members give warnings for rule breaks that other staff ban outright for. 

 

[Samatlewis]

@WhoisDan and that's something that has and always will happen. Currently we are pushing for more consistency with common issues and will be brought up at the next staff meeting to ensure all if not most of the team are on the same page! 

 

[WhoisDan]

@WhoisDan and that's something that has and always will happen. Currently we are pushing for more consistency with common issues and will be brought up at the next staff meeting to ensure all if not most of the team are on the same page! 

Of course it's something that has always happened, but speaking with the perspective of what it was like when the staff team was a lot smaller, it was a lot easier to get everyone on the same page and that, in my opinion, was when the staff team was in it's best state. 

 

[Rossss]

Of course it's something that has always happened, but speaking with the perspective of what it was like when the staff team was a lot smaller, it was a lot easier to get everyone on the same page and that, in my opinion, was when the staff team was in it's best state. 

Unwritten rules adds to this problem.

Ie "You can't knock someone out if they have a gun aimed at you" because it's fail RP, which isn't a rule. Yes, it is poor RP, but how do people new to the server know this?

 

[Samatlewis]

Unwritten rules adds to this problem.

Ie "You can't knock someone out if they have a gun aimed at you" because it's fail RP, which isn't a rule. Yes, it is poor RP, but how do people new to the server know this?

That's a very good point and I can't help but agree with your argument. In some aspects it's poor but in others it's perfectly plausible. If someone has a gun aimed but not at you directly (to the side/you're behind etc) and you KO the guy it's fine imo but then it becomes problematic if it's directly aimed at you

 

[Zeito]

That's a very good point and I can't help but agree with your argument. In some aspects it's poor but in others it's perfectly plausible. If someone has a gun aimed but not at you directly (to the side/you're behind etc) and you KO the guy it's fine imo but then it becomes problematic if it's directly aimed at you

Steven Segal says no.

 

[TinyBigJacko]

This thread is living proof of the maxim that "you cannot please all of the people all of the time." And frankly, you're lucky if you can please anyone, any of the time!

@WhoisDan makes a fair point, that it is easier to ensure consistent rulings when there are fewer staff; but the flipside is, fewer staff means fewer admins on server, fewer issues dealt with quickly, fewer forum reports actioned, cleaned-up, resolved, etc. So we can't win. We now have a bigger team, and yes, consistency is a little harder, but at the end of the day, we have a very workable system of staff-ranks internally, and some good mentoring and information-sharing, plus we generally only pick people for staff roles who are trustworthy, sensible and even-handed. As a result, in terms of the key things, we have reasonable consistency; in terms of a few things, we have 'discretionary variation'.

@Rossss (OP) says that it's unfair for one RDM case to end up as a ban, while another may end up with a warning. Well, maybe that's true. It's also a bit like life. Real life. One judge or jury may rule on a crime, in a court of law, differently from another. Is that fair? Kinda. Kinda not. Shit happens. In both cases, it boils down to (hopefully) trusted people who are called-upon to make the judgement, doing so on the basis of the evidence that they have to hand, and in as responsible, measured and fair way as their discretion allows them, working within the framework of a ruleset which isn't always totally unambiguous or which sometimes doesn't cater for that explicit set of circumstances. In other words, they do their best. And then they move on, and do the next case, and the case after that, and the next... and for very little love or thanks, usually.

The moral of this story is, whether it is fair or unfair to be 'sentenced' differently, is not the point. The point is, don't commit the fucking crime in the first place, because you're at the mercy of the judge, if you do!