The 3-Strikes Policy - Is it really a good thing?

[Jijifli]

You're not given specific information, but as far as I can tell from others reports (since I've not been even warned in the 10+ years I have been playing this game) , they at least give you the category you are being actioned upon. So while it IS difficult to stick down exactly what you said and did, if you know you have several infractions for say harassment you can probably surmise that you should maybe calm your interactions with others.

Given a system where minor infractions such as swearing or other "bad manners" are forgiven after a time, you can maybe breathe a little easier about what you say if there's a few months/years since your last action as you won't need to worry your next accidental swear/quit/offense will be your last.

Also while the punishments are vague as to the specifics.. I'm relatively sure if you (as in players, not specifically you) just payed a little more attention to the letters you're smashing out before hitting enter, you can probably figure out what you shouldn't be typing. Many MANY players seem to avoid this "inevitable" accruing of strikes against them for going on a decade now while maintaining reasonable levels of communication and socializing.

Casual reminder I did almost get a strike because someone spammed me with the C word.

Yes, I was the one getting spammed, I never even spoke to the guy, and I almost got striked for my own ticket. But you're right let me just watch my lang-- Oh wait.

[linayar]

The idea behind it is so that people don't make it a tradition to wait for a year to do one bad thing worthy of a warning every year or something like that.

[TurtlesAWD]

The idea behind it is so that people don't make it a tradition to wait for a year to do one bad thing worthy of a warning every year or something like that.

I don't really think this is going to happen, there's not a strong behavioral motivation or incentive for it. And if it did, it would be pretty recognizable and could be handled as a special case.

[linayar]

I don't really think this is going to happen, there's not a strong behavioral motivation or incentive for it. And if it did, it would be pretty recognizable and could be handled as a special case.

Perhaps, but maybe they also think three strikes are more than enough if most people wouldn't even have one after years of playing.

[Krotoan]

Casual reminder I did almost get a strike because someone spammed me with the C word.

Yes, I was the one getting spammed, I never even spoke to the guy, and I almost got striked for my own ticket. But you're right let me just watch my lang-- Oh wait.

While that is a big oops, and a bad one.. I don't see you actually being in danger of getting a strike. They don't strike you till you get a chance to talk to them and it's pretty obvious once they did they realized their mistake and made SURE to let you know that it wasn't a violation against you. So while you did get a "fun" visit to the gaol, you still haven't made any evidence that even innocent people are racking up strikes against themselves.

[Jijifli]

While that is a big oops, and a bad one.. I don't see you actually being in danger of getting a strike. They don't strike you till you get a chance to talk to them and it's pretty obvious once they did they realized their mistake and made SURE to let you know that it wasn't a violation against you. So while you did get a "fun" visit to the gaol, you still haven't made any evidence that even innocent people are racking up strikes against themselves.

Except for the fact I was only painfully lucky that he re-looked at it, as I technically was asking for information on what occurred which is a no go.

I also know it would be a strike, and I know it would be a 3 day (As I got a 3 day for saying F word after this, oops to me, but imagine what it could have been if instead of 1 F it was 30 C's.)

I also can only assume that this was my report being taken in reverse, which isn't even a confirmation, because of the line "Regarding another case" Which, if I wanna sit and think on that, would mean a ticket with 0 relation to me marked me as the culprit. Imagine if I didn't question it, as 99% of the time it's just a waste to ask them to re-look at it?

That could have been a permanent mark on my account. I already gotta deal with having 2 (the first was like 5 1/2 years ago, for emoting too many times, where I also apologized and stopped but nobody cares about that </3) so having another where I couldn't have done anything wrong permanently sitting on me is not a very welcoming adventure.

[Theodric]

I'd quite like to see some sort of 'forgiveness' system implemented. At least for minor transgressions. I'd also quite like to see more businesses acknowledge the elephant in the room that is strict rules being weaponised by those with major chips atop their shoulders.

[TurtlesAWD]

While that is a big oops, and a bad one.. I don't see you actually being in danger of getting a strike. They don't strike you till you get a chance to talk to them and it's pretty obvious once they did they realized their mistake and made SURE to let you know that it wasn't a violation against you. So while you did get a "fun" visit to the gaol, you still haven't made any evidence that even innocent people are racking up strikes against themselves.

It's not really about innocence, it's about the fact that if the strictest interpretation employed by GMs was used as the standard uniformly, literally 100% of the community would be guilty.

So it becomes a question of having your report get handled by the right GM on the right day, which means any and all rules are arbitrary since there's no reason to believe they will or won't apply to you for a given case. How much information you even get isn't even consistent.

[Saefinn]

I think in some ways it probably should be handled better. I think the issue of not knowing what you did can be a difficult one.

I expect the GM's have to go into "customer service staff mode", because that's how their replies often read to me and that's tell you something without telling you much at all. It was the challenge service agents struggled with when I worked in complaints, because you are very limited to what you can and can't say. 1) is to combat lawyering and 2) is to not give away information that's inappropriate to give out but that information may have gone behind that decision. And 3) there are legal and policy considerations too.

I think one of the potential struggles is not giving away information that could help you identify the person who raised the ticket against you so it doesn't put their anonymity at risk, especially if it's something that comes to bite them. But at the same time they need to communicate how you violated the rules, but the rules themselves are pretty broad.

Personally, I am not sure what the best solution is for the dilemma, because if you don't know exactly what you did wrong, it's hard to correct that behaviour.

[Nothv13]

I think in some ways it probably should be handled better. I think the issue of not knowing what you did can be a difficult one.

I expect the GM's have to go into "customer service staff mode", because that's how their replies often read to me and that's tell you something without telling you much at all. It was the challenge service agents struggled with when I worked in complaints, because you are very limited to what you can and can't say. 1) is to combat lawyering and 2) is to not give away information that's inappropriate to give out but that information may have gone behind that decision. And 3) there are legal and policy considerations too.

I think one of the potential struggles is not giving away information that could help you identify the person who raised the ticket against you so it doesn't put their anonymity at risk, especially if it's something that comes to bite them. But at the same time they need to communicate how you violated the rules, but the rules themselves are pretty broad.

Personally, I am not sure what the best solution is for the dilemma, because if you don't know exactly what you did wrong, it's hard to correct that behavior.

The solution is quite simple, though take more work from the GMs. You give the punished the detail needed to correct the behavior and that they will be watched for awhile. If it leads to them identifying the person who reported and harassments begins, much harsher punishments are handed out (including those who bandwagon onto the harrassment). Other things that would help is making the rules less board, and less subjective.