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

[DreadCrow]

On one hand, I want to say yes. I don't think that anyone ever has a reason for not being decent to their fellow human beings... But I also think that people grow. The games been around for a decade now, if you count count 1.0. I knew people who said a lot of hateful things when they were younger, even directed towards me... But they grew up and became better people. They let go of a lot of their toxicity. Even if someone was said the worst possible things ten years ago... They would be a much better person now.

On the other hand, I want to say no. Since I think it sort of keeps peace... Although I think it should really depend. If you call someone a slur? That stays on. Call them something else that isn't charitable but not intended to disparage their identity? That'll leave in three years. Rage quit a dungeon? That'll fall off in a year.

[SturmChurro]

I've gotta admit when a lot of truth started coming out about the reasoning behind many of the warnings, I was in support of SE, and the GM(s) in question. I was saddened to see SE having to rollback the warnings, over what looks to be because of the highly public outrage. I was also amazed to see the moderators of this forum step in and stop the downward spiral that one particular thread was going in. While I may have my own criticisms of SE's enforcement of the ToS, or moderation in general, sometimes it has to be harsh to stamp out certain behaviors.

[Nakarumi]

I've gotta admit when a lot of truth started coming out about the reasoning behind many of the warnings, I was in support of SE, and the GM(s) in question. I was saddened to see SE having to rollback the warnings, over what looks to be because of the highly public outrage. I was also amazed to see the moderators of this forum step in and stop the downward spiral that one particular thread was going in. While I may have my own criticisms of SE's enforcement of the ToS, or moderation in general, sometimes it has to be harsh to stamp out certain behaviors.

I too was strongly upset at the direction of that thread too. Heck, I was the one that started it and tried my best to keep it on track. Little did I know that there is a post limitation on the website and once I started getting the message telling me that I could no longer reply for the day... the thread spiraled out of control and there was nothing I could do about it beyond that point.

However, the mass and systematic actions of the one GM was in error and unjust for the players. Especially given the lack of reasoning that is provided when a player is pulled for whatever the reason may be. And while the other thread did get wildly out of control once I could no longer regulate it myself, the angry calls for the GMs removal or demotion were also uncalled for. We had no way of knowing what the source of the problem was or how it was caused and therefore we couldn't solely place blame on that one GM... however, the situation it produced was still utterly wrong and unfair and has been corrected as it rightfully should have been.

[SturmChurro]

I too was strongly upset at the direction of that thread too. Heck, I was the one that started it and tried my best to keep it on track. Little did I know that there is a post limitation on the website and once I started getting the message telling me that I could no longer reply for the day... the thread spiraled out of control and there was nothing I could do about it beyond that point.

I thought you were incredibly respectful, calm, and measured given the types of responses in that thread over time. Even when I crashed that protest or whatever, I think it was you (?) who said it was okay for me to have my machinist gun out, I was just having fun. I apologize for my fake "roleplay". While I may have eventually lessened my support, I can respect others for remaining calm and collected.

It is too bad there is a post limit, I do not think it is needed in general, or rather it is too low, especially in any topic where there is actual discussion going on. However, also serves the purpose of stopping continuous posts like those seen that may have caused that thread being locked.

However, the mass and systematic actions of the one GM was in error and unjust for the players. Especially given the lack of reasoning that is provided when a player is pulled for whatever the reason may be. And while the other thread did get wildly out of control once I could no longer regulate it myself, the angry calls for the GMs removal or demotion were also uncalled for. We had no way of knowing what the source of the problem was or how it was caused and therefore we couldn't solely place blame on that one GM... however, the situation it produced was still utterly wrong and unfair and has been corrected as it rightfully should have been.

While I disagree on them being unjust, I can respect your opinion. What I think happened was a severe lack of communication with the players involved. I really wish SE would communicate more when it comes to moderation. I wish what they ended up doing with that thread in terms of moderation, would happen more often, you usually see no communication.

[Saefinn]

I too was strongly upset at the direction of that thread too. Heck, I was the one that started it and tried my best to keep it on track. Little did I know that there is a post limitation on the website and once I started getting the message telling me that I could no longer reply for the day... the thread spiraled out of control and there was nothing I could do about it beyond that point.

However, the mass and systematic actions of the one GM was in error and unjust for the players. Especially given the lack of reasoning that is provided when a player is pulled for whatever the reason may be. And while the other thread did get wildly out of control once I could no longer regulate it myself, the angry calls for the GMs removal or demotion were also uncalled for. We had no way of knowing what the source of the problem was or how it was caused and therefore we couldn't solely place blame on that one GM... however, the situation it produced was still utterly wrong and unfair and has been corrected as it rightfully should have been.

Whilst I contributed to the thread, I agree with the points here. My impression from the get-go was that this was a GM making an error, it just seemed very sudden and out of place where GM's have generally not stopped people doing the aforementioned things on PF. Whilst I get people think they should, that's a different matter. But I am happy with how it was settled.

Of course, not knowing the nature of why the GM got it wrong means calling for their removal is harsh. If we can make mistakes because we're human, so can they.

The important detail is to learn from them. Either way I think overall they handled things pretty well here. It didn't take too long to get an official response who clarified their position and they reversed the actions on accounts they found innocent of wrong doing and locked the thread as it was getting /too/ out of hand and started deleting inappropriate posts.

And it gives me confidence too that if you are innocent of wrong doing, you can contest it and it can be re-reviewed. Which I think make sense to when humans are not infallible creatures.

[DreadCrow]

I've gotta admit when a lot of truth started coming out about the reasoning behind many of the warnings, I was in support of SE, and the GM(s) in question. I was saddened to see SE having to rollback the warnings, over what looks to be because of the highly public outrage. I was also amazed to see the moderators of this forum step in and stop the downward spiral that one particular thread was going in. While I may have my own criticisms of SE's enforcement of the ToS, or moderation in general, sometimes it has to be harsh to stamp out certain behaviors.

But a lot of the moderation actually weren't fair? A lot of the people hit had perfect safe venues and the idea that you can't use Party Finder's "other" section for advertising role-playing venues... Well, it's about six years to late for that since people have done it since it's introduction. And most other GMs, over the course of the game, seemed to think it's okay.

[SturmChurro]

But a lot of the moderation actually weren't fair? A lot of the people hit had perfect safe venues and the idea that you can't use Party Finder's "other" section for advertising role-playing venues... Well, it's about six years to late for that since people have done it since it's introduction. And most other GMs, over the course of the game, seemed to think it's okay.

I thought moderation in this instance was fair. As far as I am aware, most of what was received were warnings - which yes, it's a mark on their account, but it isn't a strike. I think if SE had communicated the whole issue better, it would have been more understandable and well received. Rather than warning individual players, they could have made an announcement. I can truly get behind SE trying to curate the party finder in their game. Personally, I do not think ERP has any place in it, nor RP for that matter. I feel for regular, actually innocent, rpers for the lack of proper social features.

However, as this thread is about the 3 strikes policy I should say, if they had intended to continue curating the PF, and had handled communication better, I think handing out warnings is a great way to discourage this type of behavior. Not an actual strike, but just harsh enough. Because it is known 3 strikes and your out (!), players would be more careful knowing their account was at risk. I do think that, in general, depending on severity, some strikes or warnings should go away over time, however.

[XiXiQ]

When you take into consideration the longevity of the game alone they do need to adjust. Even 3 strikes in 3 years is very strict and more than enough.

[Sove92]

While an account action should indeed stop being considered active for mandatory escalation purposes after a year or so, all strikes should still remain in the account history and be considered whether or not they should matter this time.

If you get a warning, after a year, you are not 100% on the hook for a 3day ban for a warning-worthy offense, but the GM should still consider your earlier offense for penalty determination, it's just no longer mandatory to issue a 72h
If you have had a 72h suspension, after a year, you could receive a warning and a 72h again, instead of the mandatory 240h, but it should still not be a guarantee, your earlier history should still be considered.

There are always people who try to game expiration systems and keeping the history of earlier, now inactive strikes is a way to combat that. If over a few years, someone has accumulated strikes in double digits, it should be grounds for a more severe punishment, regardless of the status of the old strikes.

On the other hand, minor infractions done 6 years ago shouldn't really be a factor for an offense done today.

Now, coming up with a system like this that works consistently is another matter, because it forces a GM to use their own human discretion, something SE seems hesitant on.