Warning for "Grief" Tactics?!

[Padudu]

I would think that in many cases a GM could just say something like "You have a long running history (having consulted logs) of doing X." In which case no specific incident is discussed. There is no way in that case to identify who reported. For all you know it could have been a series of reports over possibly months or years that they have just reached the tipping point with.

I definitely like this idea of going about it instead of just "go file an appeal and await results." knowing full well that it could take a while to even get a response. Even though the OP's attitude and being "disliked by many" is contested and called into question in this thread, I will say is that I empathize with the anxiety the OP must feel from being stonewalled from a proper explanation and not knowing exactly what led to the warning, one report or many. I would be anxious too, and this is me full well knowing that sometimes I can act like a total jabroni in /say lol

[Myrany]

I definitely like this idea of going about it instead of just "go file an appeal and await results." knowing full well that it could take a while to even get a response. Even though the OP's attitude and being "disliked by many" is contested and called into question in this thread, I will say is that I empathize with the anxiety the OP must feel from being stonewalled from a proper explanation and not knowing exactly what led to the warning, one report or many. I would be anxious too, and this is me full well knowing that sometimes I can act like a total jabroni in /say lol

I think we all have acted the fool at some point or another.

Honestly I think the really important takeaway from the thread is not the OPs guilt or innocence as much as it is it could happen to any of us that we incur a penalty and will never be told what we did to incur it. That is frankly a bit frightening.

[kaynide]

I definitely like this idea of going about it instead of just "go file an appeal and await results." knowing full well that it could take a while to even get a response.

While I agree, I can understand why they don't as it adds a huge layer of busywork for the GMs and puts it firmly on them to sort out. Often it's very easy to reflect oneself, read the ToS and see "Ohhh I see that's what I did", then never need to file in the first place.

In my case I mocked a troll on the forum and got a 10 day ban for it. (Bravo to you, space-bunny-alien-fairy-person; you baited me and got me). Didn't realize that was what it was but I could figure it out in about 20-30 minutes of digging.

[Myrany]

While I agree, I can understand why they don't as it adds a huge layer of busywork for the GMs and puts it firmly on them to sort out. Often it's very easy to reflect oneself, read the ToS and see "Ohhh I see that's what I did", then never need to file in the first place.

In my case I mocked a troll on the forum and got a 10 day ban for it. (Bravo to you, space-bunny-alien-fairy-person; you baited me and got me). Didn't realize that was what it was but I could figure it out in about 20-30 minutes of digging.

Except that it is a GMs job to sort out problems. So I have no sympathy on the busywork front.

In your example you were able to sort out what you did. That is great. For many that won't be true. Perhaps they just do not see the behavior as offensive or maybe they just don't interpret a rule the same way as SE intended it. For the latter see the huge threads when the new examples of actionable behavior were put out not long ago. Individual interpretations of those example were widely varied to the point where some people had diametrically opposing views on what they meant.

If the GM is doing their job properly and looking in to the problem incident to make a fair judgement it would not add "busywork" to allow them to give a statement of what the infraction was without identifying a specific incident or person. Simply saying "griefing" is far too general.

EDIT: I actually rather suspect this is a policy dictated by SE's legal team to cover themselves vs laws varying in multiple countries. In which case it is unlikely to change.

[kaynide]

Except that it is a GMs job to sort out problems. So I have no sympathy on the busywork front.

I respectfully disagree; I feel it's their job to "maintain the peace" as it were and to adjudicate/execute the "law". While I do agree they could tell you once a report is filed, I don't think they should need to lead with a detailed report on what you did beyond what specific ToS line you broke.

Again, agree to disagree, and that's ok.

[Myrany]

I respectfully disagree; I feel it's their job to "maintain the peace" as it were and to adjudicate/execute the "law". While I do agree they could tell you once a report is filed, I don't think they should need to lead with a detailed report on what you did beyond what specific ToS line you broke.

Again, agree to disagree, and that's ok.

1st I believe the GM needs to do the research to be able to "maintain the peace" or adjudicate something properly.

2nd they do not have to give a detailed report. They do in my opinion need to give a bit more than "griefing." For example a general statement such as "a pattern of not healing your party" that would not single anyone out as the reporter and give the player enough to know what to work on in thier own behavior.

[Padudu]

While I agree, I can understand why they don't as it adds a huge layer of busywork for the GMs and puts it firmly on them to sort out. Often it's very easy to reflect oneself, read the ToS and see "Ohhh I see that's what I did", then never need to file in the first place.

In my case I mocked a troll on the forum and got a 10 day ban for it. (Bravo to you, space-bunny-alien-fairy-person; you baited me and got me). Didn't realize that was what it was but I could figure it out in about 20-30 minutes of digging.

Oh yeah I 100% see where you're coming from with that and I can see why they don't exactly do it that way. I can see how it puts a lot of pressure on the GM when they're going to be dealing with someone who's going to be upset and frustrated from the get-go. I can't imagine the amount of abuse that the GMs must get towards certain people every day they log in. At the same time, it's their job. While they might not be able to give out a specifics of the report and what went down, there should be a better alternative than "well you get a warning, you wanna contest it appeal".

While I do agree that we should do some reflection every once in a while, especially after a report, it's not that easy. Don't get me wrong here-- I've done my fair share of naughty things, emote spamming and cursing in /say, or trolling just a bit too hard. If I get pulled into GM baby jail for that I can at least be aware of the fact that those things, or a combination of, is what got me the warning.

But for warnings like griefing, that becomes a bit more convoluted. What's griefing to you and to someone else may be different, sans obvious cases like the person who posted about their party member aiming the laser at other alliances at Puppet's Bunker. Heck, even in the comment the OP made about how they plays healer, people are divided on whether or not that constitutes griefing. People run duties multiple times a day, and I'd be hard pressed to remember my actions in every dungeon and whether or not the stuff I did counted as a reportable offense. People definitely need a GM to clarify what led to a warning like that, not just self-reflection.

I think we all have acted the fool at some point or another.

Honestly I think the really important takeaway from the thread is not the OPs guilt or innocence as much as it is it could happen to any of us that we incur a penalty and will never be told what we did to incur it. That is frankly a bit frightening.

I 100% agree with you here.