Not disputing a ban, just pointing out...

[bat3415]

If we're going to have things such as
killing horses=7 day ban (later reduced to 3 days)
combat logging=7 day ban(with no meeting of admins disputing reasoning, such as the case of Zerst [Later reduced to 4 days])
Exploiting into a chest=4 day ban(after disputing with admins and being markedly against banning said exploiter)
I think for the sake of fairness and rules possibly being held over people, I believe that we should have posted punishments for rules being broken, and such cases being disputed by admins and the said player before being banned or punished for their crime. I don't intend to dispute my ban, as I believe that I did break a rule, even if the rule is "intentionally vague," I simply believe that for the sake of fairness, the punishment should fit the crime, and not be doled out within 10 seconds of the crime with no dispute over reasoning, whereas cases such as Krivens(Exploiting) and Zerstoneun(Town Betrayal) are debated for days with a seeming reluctance to ban said player.

 

[bat3415]

And Now my watch begins...

 

[EastBowmen]

I can tell you what they are going to say without talking to them. They want bans that don't fall along the specific rules to remain up to the admins' judgement because otherwise people are going to do negative things and say "well it's not in the rules."

 

[Skuhoo]

Well said, Bat. Currently, rule enforcement seems to be hugely inconsistent and is something that needs to be worked on.

Here's two things I'd like to bring up in regards to rule enforcement and punishments:

• Reducing bans for explaining how one exploited shouldn't be rewarded with a reduced ban, it should be a requirement to be unbanned at all.

Not reporting a discovered exploit is already skirting the rules. Explaining an exploit after "the jig is up" should in no way be rewarded, it should be expected.​

• Inconsistencies in the banning process leads to distrust and needless accusations.

Some bans occur days after the initial event occurred while others take mere seconds. If one report (Krivens) requires the accuser(s) to prove, for days, that the accused is guilty, why does another (Bat) have no similar requirements? Bat wasn't even given time to explain himself before being banned for a week, whereas Krivens wasn't even talked to before being ruled innocent until after I complained to Crypt the next day. The complete lack of consistency and transparency is silly.
​

 

[Cryptite]

I won't disagree with your first part; the second, however is more a matter of who was around at the time. When bat combat logged, I was myself watching from console, then immediately confronted bat about it on Discord. As for Krivens, it took some time to figure out what happened once I got involved because Prism was seemingly showing some strange, potentially false data.

I would urge you not to be so quick to assume you know exactly how we've handled things, Sku. The distrust and needless accusations can be a two-way street. Sometimes we don't get to things as fast as we should, but that's life. We're not perfect, nor will our handling of rule violations always be.

 

[Skuhoo]

I would urge you not to be so quick to assume you know exactly how we've handled things, Sku. The distrust and needless accusations can be a two-way street. Sometimes we don't get to things as fast as we should, but that's life. We're not perfect, nor will our handling of rule violations always be.

I completely agree, and that's entirely my point. Obviously nobody is perfect and mistakes will inevitably be made. It's when players are kept in the dark that the distrust starts to fester. It's clear even when talking with players with no relation to anyone recently banned about what happened. Things like "Oh, this is nothing new" or "They did that to me, too" are often said and their concerns need to be addressed. I'm not sure I have a solution, so it's probably just something that staff need to keep in the back of their heads.

I think Loka has a great community, both players and staff. It's one I'm glad I've found and one I intend on staying with. And just for clarification, my posts are criticism, not attacks. I, like you, only want the best for Loka. My thoughts are what I feel, from a player's perspective, needs improvement.

 

[Wolfegger]

Currently, rule enforcement seems to be hugely inconsistent and is something that needs to be worked on.

Hugely inconsistent? Could you make a case for that? I'm not sure how you got that impression.

Inconsistencies in the banning process leads to distrust and needless accusations.

It is weird how you go from the scenario of a player breaking the rules to distrusting admins. But Cryptite covered this one.

 

[Skuhoo]

Hugely inconsistent? Could you make a case for that? I'm not sure how you got that impression.

I did. I was referring to the difference in how Krivens was banned versus how Bat was banned. Krivens getting banned required an admin meeting and me specifically asking Crypt that he not be let off scot-free. Bat was banned after 10 seconds of Crypt "watching the console". Nobody even asked Bat what happened leading up to him logging out before banning him. I guess that is my biggest problem.

It is weird how you go from the scenario of a player breaking the rules to distrusting admins. But Cryptite covered this one.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Do you find it weird that I would suggest that inconsistencies leads to distrust? I fully acknowledged that it's a two-way street. All I'm doing is pointing out a problem in our community that should be addressed. I'm not blaming or attacking anyone.

 

[Cryptite]

Nobody even asked Bat what happened leading up to him logging out before banning him. I guess that is my biggest problem.

This is twice you've said this now. How is it, exactly, that you know nobody asked him or talked to him? See my previous post:

When bat combat logged, I was myself watching from console, then immediately confronted bat about it on Discord

 

[Skuhoo]

This is twice you've said this now. How is it, exactly, that you know nobody asked him or talked to him? See my previous post:

Huh? I was in Discord with him when it all went down. All you did was join our Discord channel and say something along the lines of "You know that's against the rules, so you're temp banned for a week".

 

[Wolfegger]

I followed Bat and Krivens as they skirted Auru, and I watched the whole thing. But you didn't know that, and there is a lot that you don't get to know about what we see, what we discuss. For the record, Bat logged off--what sort of communication would you expect in that scenario? Wait around until he logs on again (whenever) to discuss a ban? We are to keep records and have some system that continuously tracks his activity so that we are notified the moment he logs on again (and one of us will necessarily be on at that time?)? It makes perfect sense to me, in the situation of Bat being logged off, to ban him right then. He, as we see here, has the forum through which to open communication.

 

[Wolfegger]

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Do you find it weird that I would suggest that inconsistencies leads to distrust? I fully acknowledged that it's a two-way street. All I'm doing is pointing out a problem in our community that should be addressed. I'm not blaming or attacking anyone.

You have not made a case for said inconsistencies. And yes, I find it weird that you overlook that a player breaking the rules should more than anything have people's distrust placed on that player.

 

[Cryptite]

I came into the Discord channel, said "Bat did you just Combat Log?" Aside from saying "well I was out of their draw distance..." he immediately admitted that yes, he was running away, then logged off (he was still in Auru, even). Bat himself doesn't even dispute the thing, so why are you so at arms about championing for the unfairness of his being banned? If your only point is the inequality of it compared to Krivens, then fine. There's nothing else to debate about the what he was doing; he combat logged, and he was caught by multiple people.

 

[kallious]

You have not made a case for said inconsistencies. And yes, I find it weird that you overlook that a player breaking the rules should more than anything place people's distrust on that player.

I'm not sure what the point of this was, or why a lack of inconsistencies is being repeated over and over. Skuhoo has mentioned then before, and once again, our issue is that the players simply don't know. Evidence for Krivens exploiting was gathered within an hour of it happening. I can understand waiting until Crypt, Magpie, or so is online to ban him, but he was still not banned a few days later. And even then he wouldn't have been banned for breaking the rules if Skuhoo had not pressed Crypt about it.

For the record, Bat logged off--what sort of communication would you expect in that scenario? Wait around until he logs on again (whenever) to discuss a ban?

And this also does not make any sense. Bat was talked to in discord seconds after he logged off, being told he was banned for combat logging. I don't fully agree that it was combat logging considering he was out of render distance. We would just like some more clarifications added to the rules. The combat logging rule is incredibly vague, and the update to combat logging, found here: http://lokamc.com/forums/index.php?threads/update-to-combat-logging-rule.933/ is not even mentioned in the main rule thread. Even if it was in the main rule thread, if Bat was out of their render distance why would this rule apply? You can't be about to die if no player is even in render distance. Also, Crypt felt that just returning the stolen diamonds to Eldritch would be sufficient and not require a ban, but didn't ask Bat to just immediately log back in.

 

[Cryptite]

And even then he wouldn't have been banned for breaking the rules if Skuhoo had not pressed Crypt about it.

That's a fair complaint.

The combat logging rule is incredibly vague, and the update to combat logging, found here: http://lokamc.com/forums/index.php?threads/update-to-combat-logging-rule.933/ is not even mentioned in the main rule

That is not the update to the logging rule (that post was 3 years ago). The latest update to combat logging was 2 years ago. Bat was logging out after a fight he'd had less than a minute prior. By our judgement, it was to avoid further fights.

People will always want clarification on rules. Sometimes we will add clarification, other times we won't. Most of the times we won't is because the second we say, for example, that combat logging is doing so within 2 minutes of a fight, somebody will log out at 2 minutes 1 second and then cry foul because they "weren't breaking the literal rule". This has happened countless times in the history of Loka and is not at all unusual.

Further there will always be distrust between those who skirt rules and those who enforce them. It is the natural, unchanging order of things. Anytime somebody else gets to judge you for an action and the judgement isn't what you'd like, short of a blatant offense, there will always be salt.

There will always be salt.


There will always be salt.

 

[EastBowmen]

Most of the times we won't is because the second we say, for example, that combat logging is doing so within 2 minutes of a fight, somebody will log out at 2 minutes 1 second and then cry foul because they "weren't breaking the literal rule". This has happened countless times in the history of Loka and is not at all unusual.

Told ya.

 

[Wolfegger]

I'm not sure what the point of this was, or why a lack of inconsistencies is being repeated over and over. Skuhoo has mentioned then before, and once again, our issue is that the players simply don't know.

Skuhoo made the "hugely inconsistent" claim. I'm asking him to back it up. Support the claim. Mentioning does not suffice, especially when it is a hyperbolic mischaracterization.

Evidence for Krivens exploiting was gathered within an hour of it happening.

Cryptite has addressed this: "As for Krivens, it took some time to figure out what happened once I got involved because Prism was seemingly showing some strange, potentially false data."

And this also does not make any sense. Bat was talked to in discord seconds after he logged off, being told he was banned for combat logging. I don't fully agree that it was combat logging considering he was out of render distance.

What I wrote makes sense. Skuhoo was arguing for systemic change: I infer that he wanted us, going forward, to discuss bans with combat loggers before they are applied. I addressed this by using a scenario like Bat's as an illustration for how we should deal with combat logging. That a player may or may not be tracked down on Discord is irrelevant (I'll be damned if the onus is placed upon me to have to go hunt down a logged-off player who combat logged).

 

[kallious]

People will always want clarification on rules. Sometimes we will add clarification, other times we won't. Most of the times we won't is because the second we say, for example, that combat logging is doing so within 2 minutes of a fight, somebody will log out at 2 minutes 1 second and then cry foul because they "weren't breaking the literal rule". This has happened countless times in the history of Loka and is not at all unusual.

Something like this happened recently with New Ibbish turning Eldritch's resources into furnaces and other useless blocks. They even said the same thing, saying it wasn't against the rules, and it wasn't greifing. And then the rule was added to clarify it but their greifing wasn't punished or reverted.

And I still do not see why in the case of Bat instead of him being banned he wasn't just told to go back on the server. A ban for something which should just result in the loss of all your items is already fairly absurd. If you log out a few seconds after being in combat and get killed by the plugin, will that be punishable by a ban too? If you combat log immediately, the punishment is the loss of your items. But 60 seconds, and multiple chunks away and the result is seven day ban, later reduced. Why would not giving the logging out member's items to the other party not suffice for something like this?

Exploiting into a locked room and accessing chests is obviously against the rules, there just needed to be sufficient evidence to prove it. Once the evidence was gathered there was no party involved that could refute that. But in the case of Bat, due to how the rules are written he could not have known if what he was doing was combat logging. But our complaint here is not about Bat being banned, but rather the fact that Bat would not have logged out there if the rules were more clear. I understand the rule is written so that admins have more freedom with enforcing it, but if that results in more people breaking the rules themselves that can hardly be a healthy system. This is like a cop ticketing a driver for breaking a law which states "Don't go too fast". The reason laws like this do not exist is because both parties having differing opinion on the interpretation of the law results in a worse society as a whole.

 

[kallious]

Skuhoo made the "hugely inconsistent" claim. I'm asking him to back it up. Support the claim. Mentioning does not suffice, especially when it is a hyperbolic mischaracterization.

Bat is the one that mentioned the inconsistency with punishments, Skuhoo simply further expanded upon the point. If you reread the first post in the forum you will see your evidence.

 

[Cryptite]

Like stated before, I agree with you about bat as a whole.

And then the rule was added to clarify it but their greifing wasn't punished or reverted

If it wasn't reverted, that was probably accidentally overlooked. In terms of punishment, we've made a habit of never retroactively applying punishment. It's pretty shitty to punish a player for something we didn't have a rule on. Whether you could lump it under griefing is beside the point, because, of course, everybody has a different definition of it. That's why griefing rules are some of the more spelled-out ones.