Anyways, there are a lot of nitpicks I have with it.
In the rules section, I think we should add an 11th rule about unsportsmanlike conduct or something of the sort. The rule could be modeled somewhat like this: If a player does something that is considered unsportsmanlike but is not covered by any of the other rules, they can be put up for a voting trial. This would eliminate the need for the ambiguous wording of "offense" in the following voting trial section.
In the server moderator section:
Do you mean Moderator or higher? If a player has a Moderator or higher access level prior to the tournament, does the server moderator need to strip them of that access level for the tournament? (To be honest I don't think this is necessary, it also might be too tedious for the server owners if they have a lot of admins/moderators to take them off/ give them their powers back)Do not authorise or give anyone other than Global Moderators an access level of Moderator (2). Please also ensure Team Leaders have the correct access level.
In the Vote trial section:
It seems like this is too open to abuse. Anyone who just wants to annoy the entire community or a person in particular could just start a vote trial. Of course, someone could then start a vote trial on that person, but that doesn't seem like a good solution. Maybe only a team leader can start a PM vote trial?1. A Ladle enthusiast creates a new forums thread about the PM Vote Trial.
Also, how do we ensure that the person sending the PMs accurately represents the votes of the people who voted? If a team has multiple team leaders, which team leader does the pmer choose? Should the votes of the team be released or not?
Global Moderators: I think one requirement should be that he/she has no warnings.
The Warnings and Penalties section is just littered with ambiguity.
The first sentence makes you believe that if neither of the 1 warning, 2 warnings, or 3 warnings options gets 2/3 of the votes, then the player automatically get no warnings. In addition, the last rule in my opinion could be a little bit better. For example, if 5 teams vote for three warnings, 4 for two warnings and 5 for 1 warning, then the player would get only 1 warning, even though it's clear the majority wants two or more. Because of this, I think that in order for there to be 1 warning, it must beat 2 and 3 combined, and likewise, in order for there to be 3 warnings, it must beat 1 and 2 combined.If neither option receives 2/3 of the vote, then “No” is the winner. For the “Yes” option to win it must receive 2/3 of the vote. If the “Yes” option is the winner and there is a tie between the number of warning choices, then the leftmost tied-option is the winner.
I do not understand this page: http://wiki.armagetronad.net/index.php? ... enalty_Box
Does it say that people in the penalty box face additional punishments for 4, 8, and 12 ladles respectively? Like on the page given, they can't be a team leader? If so, why does the following rule state that
?If a player has 2 or more active warnings, then they can not be a Team Leader.
If I get whoever made that part right, they mean to put in certain punishments for a player that has 1,2,3, etc. warnings, and a few extra additional punishments for people who get those warnings over the long term. The writer should make that clear.
Why is the maximum 3 warnings? There can be cases of abuse (from what I can think of right now, hacking, and admin abuse) that should warrant more than 3 warnings.(1 warning, 2 warnings, 3 warnings)
This makes it seem like only 3/7 of the community is needed to suspend. The wording should be cleared up.If a very serious violation has accrued, then the community or committee can decide to vote for a direct Ladle suspension, but the decision to suspend must hold a 3:4 ratio.
Notice that very little of my post talked about the merits of both penalty systems. I do think however, that there needs to be more talk on this issue, not only because there are currently two competing systems, but also because both systems could be made better than they are right now.
Actually, not so much. It's mostly the formatting.
Well, I am going to tell you all something. There are a group of us that provide servers, organize votes, write scripts, host settings, and do many other things that keep the ladle functioning. Whenever we have talked in private, via pm, mass pm, IRC, in-game /msg and IM, we are all fed up with the problems and drama. The ladle WILL self destruct, if we don't take action, if only because of how fed up we are with the baloney that has gone on! I truly love the Ladle, for all it has done to teach me how to play fortress, and to aspire to actually be on a winning team someday!