Ladle 83 Rule Change Discussion

A place for threads related to tournaments and the like, and things related too.

Moderator: Light

owned
Shutout Match Winner
Posts: 876
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: Ladle 83 Voting Ban Discussion

Post by owned »

Well thanks for the link. I admit I was wrong.

Anyways, I think kyle made a good point that there are several things we need to change. From now on this will be a thread about all rule changes like my suggestion, the op rule, and anything else.

I'll tentatively set the vote to start July 20th.

User avatar
sinewav
Graphic Artist
Posts: 6303
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:37 am
Contact:

Re: Ladle 83 Rule Change Discussion

Post by sinewav »

The current penalty system is brilliant once you take the time to read it carefully. I'll rewrite it for clarity later. One possible change could be to make it easier to put someone in the penalty box and make the warnings permanent. Vogue is a repeat offender, but had she been in the box for her first offense those warnings would have expired long ago.

epsy
Adjust Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 2006
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 6:02 pm
Location: paris
Contact:

Re: Ladle 83 Voting Ban Discussion

Post by epsy »

I would like to clarify on behalf of pickup that jsour's actions in this log do not constitute any wrongdoing on jsour's part.

The rest is just my opinion:
owned wrote:
Vogue wrote:Owned & co are looking to change the rules only to give me a longer+harsher sentence, I figured that was glaringly obvious but I guess not.
Yeah I'm looking to change the rules so the community is able to punish people like you. It's a joke that after your repeated infringements you're only getting banned from one ladle.
Maybe it is your intent, but the longer you ban someone, the closer you are to giving up on them ever reforming. The ladle system, with its one month ban plus 12 months of elevated potential punishments would allow her to stay around if she respects the rules, but become ever more threatening if she infringes on them again.

Also, regarding jsour "not belonging in this conversation": There is nothing wrong with defending a friend, client or what-have-you. It's how our law system permits lawyers to do any meaningful work. If jsour's points are as weak as you seem to imply, you will have no problem countering them properly. Need I remind you I look down upon posts claiming other people "don't have the right to speak here" and that I have a snip- and banhammer?

Vogue
Match Winner
Posts: 759
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:50 pm

ui

Post by Vogue »

owned wrote:Yeah I'm looking to change the rules so the community is able to punish people like you. It's a joke that after your repeated infringements you're only getting banned from one ladle.
"repeated infringments"

I broke a rule 4 years ago & the 2nd one this week. Quit acting like I've been terrorizing the ladle for years and years, you're being completely overdramatic. I've gotten my 1-ladle-punishment, time to put on your big boy pants and move on.

There's no reason to do a complete rule overhaul, the system is fine the way it is.

Hoax
Shutout Match Winner
Posts: 892
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 5:24 pm
Location: UK

Re: Ladle 83 Voting Ban Discussion

Post by Hoax »

Everything on the wiki was ratified iirc
sinewav wrote:People come to me as the de facto rule guy because I am most familiar with them and it's easier to simply ask me a question rather than reading the wiki, just like it is easier to do a Google search rather than reading on-line documentation. I do not enforce the rules. The only power I have is over my own server. And rather than go around in circles about policy, which is only ineffective because the community is spineless, I am using the only power I have to do what I think is right. Don't want to use my servers because I banned a few cheaters? You are in luck because there are other servers! Hooooray! \o/
Which is why it was weird for you to go ahead and do your own thing instead of just waiting for whatever is on the wiki to be done. I wouldn't say spineless either, just as you say, most will wait for those more knowledable to take action.

User avatar
matchbox53
Round Winner
Posts: 255
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:18 pm

Re: Ladle 83 Rule Change Discussion

Post by matchbox53 »

I really think adding a rule like that is a valid point, at the same time we shouldn't ban Liz right now due to the old circumstances that it wasn't implemented but it should be clear now that starting from next ladle and forth anyone who does that action will be banned 1 ladle.

User avatar
wap
Round Winner
Posts: 286
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Ladle 83 Rule Change Discussion

Post by wap »

matchbox53 wrote:I really think adding a rule like that is a valid point, at the same time we shouldn't ban Liz right now due to the old circumstances that it wasn't implemented but it should be clear now that starting from next ladle and forth anyone who does that action will be banned 1 ladle.
She is banned one ladle

User avatar
Pr3
Round Winner
Posts: 356
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 5:41 pm
Contact:

Re: ui

Post by Pr3 »

One problem I have with these rules is that we lump them all together with equal punishments. "You may only play for one team each Ladle." A rule that is of great importance, but is put on the end of the 2nd line. A rule that I consider one of the biggest bannable offenses in the ladle, yet the max punishment is a 1 ladle ban. I think a lot of us agree that a one ladle ban is nothing but a slap on the wrists (regardless of who committed the offense), and that combined with the "IDGAF" Liz has created a lot of frustration. This whole thing has went out of proportion, but has opened our eyes to problems we didn't know existed (even if they were voted through at the time). In fact, changes are already underway to prevent OP privileges and hiding logins. I don't think change is a bad thing. Everything can be improved upon and this existing warning/punishment is not an exception. I think Owned had good intentions in creating something new that was more agreeable to this community. In my opinion it is not up to a few to deny it, but rather a vote of this whole community to decide. However, I agree that Liz/Mr should be banned on past written procedures and not be subject to any new punishment we create. We are a community and this is a game not congress.

User avatar
kyle
Reverse Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 1863
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 3:33 pm
Location: Indiana, USA, Earth, Milky Way Galaxy, Universe, Multiverse
Contact:

Re: Ladle 83 Rule Change Discussion

Post by kyle »

Let me say this as one of the people who gave input to this penalty warning system. Let me start with the circumstance for why the rules were created in the first place. They all came after Flex completely changed the 2 Speeders teams after the challenge board was set. Basically regrouping all the stronger players on one team and settings the weakest players to the other team.

Because this effected the game greatly, we wanted to make sure the punishment system was made so that noone would choose to break it. That is why the punishment system is so extreme. At the time we did not think anyone would even get a warning.

With that being said it's been 3 or 4 years since it was last touched. people have forgotten the system we set up and now players have been breaking the rules. I think with the aftermath of what has happened for this ladle, the players have been reminded, we may need to make some adjustments to the system, but just remember this was in place so we did not have long topics of bickering nonsense.
Image

dinobro
Average Program
Posts: 63
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2013 12:45 pm

Re: Ladle 83 Rule Change Discussion

Post by dinobro »

I actually disagree with Pr3 and I really like the current system. Let me explain why:
Player A commits a punishable offence that we all agree is hard. Our poor A gets 3 warnings, which is the harshest punishment he can get. They will miss one ladle which I do agree is merely slap on the wrist. And that's good, because current system promotes playing by the rules - You got your one ladle ban but you carry those 3 warnings for 12 months. Break a rules again, even with some silly, mild one, and you get one more warning that will get you banned for another 2 ladles. Do it again within those 12 months and you can get banned for 4/8 ladles and so on which is a substantial punishment. Basically what this system does - it slaps you on the wrist for first offence, but then forces you to play by the rules as it gets harsher if you are going to be a repeat offender. Just as it should work, so kudos for anyone who came with this system.

User avatar
wap
Round Winner
Posts: 286
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Ladle 83 Rule Change Discussion

Post by wap »

dinobro wrote:I actually disagree with Pr3 and I really like the current system. Let me explain why:
Player A commits a punishable offence that we all agree is hard. Our poor A gets 3 warnings, which is the harshest punishment he can get. They will miss one ladle which I do agree is merely slap on the wrist. And that's good
Except people seem to think a maximum of one ladle ban for all first offenses - however severe they are - could not be enough in some cases. So why not increase this maximum amount of bans now in case something really shitty comes up in four years, so that we don't have to say "ah shit we should've changed the rules back then, now we have to follow them as they are"?
You got your one ladle ban but you carry those 3 warnings for 12 months. Break a rules again, even with some silly, mild one, and you get one more warning that will get you banned for another 2 ladles. Do it again within those 12 months and you can get banned for 4/8 ladles and so on which is a substantial punishment.
Except you don't carry 3 warning for 12 months, but only for 4, 8, and 12 months respectively. With the current system, you can basically break an important ladle rule every year and each time just receive a one-time ladle ban just to get a weak probation for a year again. And don't act like a year is long enough, because the possibility of impostering someone and playing for multiple teams (or even worse) every year and only getting away with the maximum punishment of a one-time ladle ban is not a sufficient punishment, especially seeing as this system is praised for harshly punishing repeated offenders. In order to live up to this statement, changes should be made.

Vogue
Match Winner
Posts: 759
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:50 pm

Re: ui

Post by Vogue »

Pr3 wrote:and that combined with the "IDGAF" Liz has created a lot of frustration.
Oops, is not giving a **** a rule I broke? If so, add some more warnings to my name as I.. DGAF. :D

User avatar
Pr3
Round Winner
Posts: 356
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 5:41 pm
Contact:

Re: ui

Post by Pr3 »

Vogue wrote:
Pr3 wrote:and that combined with the "IDGAF" Liz has created a lot of frustration.
Oops, is not giving a **** a rule I broke? If so, add some more warnings to my name as I.. DGAF. :D
No, you've already proven you DGAF about rules.
Vogue wrote:I have more important things in my life going on than being worried over some ladle rules...

User avatar
sinewav
Graphic Artist
Posts: 6303
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:37 am
Contact:

Re: Ladle 83 Rule Change Discussion

Post by sinewav »

As much as I like the current Warnings & Penalties section, it does seem inadequate given the current situation. I support owned's proposal of a slimmed down process that allows lengthier bans. However, I do propose an upper limit to the number of months a person can be banned in order to stop abuse by the the mob, let's say one year? Six months? We can completely remove "warnings" and re-purpose the Penalty Box as a permanent record of bans rather than a place for warnings to expire. The bans are what is most important. Losing Team Leader status is no incentive to behave well, and a warning is just that.

Here is rough sketch of how we might rewrite the Warnings & Penalties section:
  • Players accused of violating a rule or committing an offense not defined by the rules they can be subject to a voting trial.

    < insert wiki section "How a PM Vote Trial works" >

    The PM should link to all related threads and any available evidence. Each accused player should be listed separately as such:

    "<player> is accused of <violation>. Given the evidence provided, is <player> guilty of breaking a Ladle rule or an offense against the tournament and community? If so, how many Ladles should they be banned for? (0 - 12)"

    At least 2/3 of the votes must be yes for a ban to go into effect. The length of the ban will be the median response, rounded down. Bans take effect immediately and should be recorded in the Penalty Box where they stay as a permanent record. If a banned player is caught playing during Ladle, a Global Moderator should kick/ban them immediately. The player in violation must then restart their ban from the beginning. Example: a player banned for 6 months gets caught playing in month 4. They start another 6 month ban immediately, bringing the total ban length to 10 months. Allowing a banned person to play with you will likely send your entire team to trial, so don't do it!

User avatar
theo
Round Winner
Posts: 204
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 12:06 am

Re: Ladle 83 Rule Change Discussion

Post by theo »

I like it.

Just two things :
  • What if there are several infringements at once. Like playing for two team by not being logged in? Do ban adds (in which case one single action, by breaking 2 rules can reach a 24 months ban)
  • If 0 is an acceptable answer, it would be a warning, right? A rule has been broken but does not deserve any ban.

Post Reply