EOL Rules and banning - 2 year on

Kopaka · Post by **Kopaka** » 6 Aug 2012, 18:27

Was talking with some people a little while ago about rules and the banning system in EOL. So I thought that now after two years with current rules and ban system it might be time to evaluate them. You can see the current rules and an explanation of the ban system here: http://zworqy.com/elmawiki/Rules

Generally I'm pretty satisfied with the rules as they are and that was the opinion of those I talked with aswell. Their concern were more the ban system. Sometimes it seems quite harsh to give a 1 year ban for a 4th time minor offense. Maybe it should be possible to continue giving 2 week bans a number of times. There's a thing or two I might want added to the rules, like don't play own battles (with special battle rights you can tick allow starter) and don't give tips to others in your battles. But rules shouldn't be too long and complicated either.

Discussion rules
Do people do stuff you think they should not be allowed to?
Is there stuff in rules that you think should be allowed?
etc.

Discussion ban system
Are bans too harsh?
Are bans too mild?
Should bans be more variable? eg. banners can decide exactly how many days a specific offense should be punished.
etc.

I would also like to hear from people who have gotten bans. Did you do it because you don't agree with rules, because you don't know the rules, because you don't care about the rules, was it a simple mistake, did you feel fairly punished etc.

Lukazz · Post by **Lukazz** » 6 Aug 2012, 18:55

Kopaka wrote:Discussion rules
Do people do stuff you think they should not be allowed to?

Jappe is banning people. He shouldn't be allowed to do that.

Discussion ban system
Are bans too harsh?
Are bans too mild?
Should bans be more variable? eg. banners can decide exactly how many days a specific offense should be punished.
etc.

I think sometimes the "english only" rule is a bit too harsh. We all know that Nekit just can't do any better and I really don't care if he sometimes talks a few sentences in russian with someone. Yeah and like I already said, Jappe shouldn't be able to give bans.

I would also like to hear from people who have gotten bans. Did you do it because you don't agree with rules, because you don't know the rules, because you don't care about the rules, was it a simple mistake, did you feel fairly punished etc.

Sometimes it seems quite harsh to give a 1 year ban for a 4th time minor offense. Maybe it should be possible to continue giving 2 week bans a number of times.

I agree. For not talking english I think a two week ban is always enough, no need for a 1 year chatban.

Madness · Post by **Madness** » 6 Aug 2012, 19:17

There should be people with some common sense to enforce the rules.

virus · Post by **virus** » 6 Aug 2012, 20:13

true with luki, jappe shouldn't have ban rights. He can ban with no sense. In eol we all knows each other over 5+ years. So why such brutal rules. I think need to give banhammer only for too much rage and abuse.

pawq · Post by **pawq** » 6 Aug 2012, 23:40

Lukazz wrote:
I would also like to hear from people who have gotten bans. Did you do it because you don't agree with rules, because you don't know the rules, because you don't care about the rules, was it a simple mistake, did you feel fairly punished etc.

all of my bans came from jappe and after my request were cancelled by kopa, so I only sign below the anti-jappe petition

plus i pretty much agree with everything that was said so far, very long bans should be enforced only after repetitive offensive behaviour or a serious abuse of the game. i agree on the mildening of the english-only rule too.

However, I don't think there should be a very strict rule stating that starters can't play. There are plenty of situations (especially during late night or in the morning) when there are no battles on for a long time. It is quite tempting then to make a quick random balle, not test it whatsoever and play instead. I know it's rather impsy to enforce untestingness, but maybe we could afford to trust the ballemakers a bit. Plus, the obvious cases of ownage by the starters could be immediately reported here.
Then state for example that "battle starters are not allowed to play their own battles, unless the queue is empty" or somesach. what do mans think?

Pab · Post by **Pab** » 7 Aug 2012, 00:04

when you say "banners" who are they? i heard that last year or so, markku did one ban and the rest were by jappe2

Bjenn · Post by **Bjenn** » 7 Aug 2012, 00:04

1st time: Warning
2nd time: 1 week ban
3rd time: 2 week ban
4th time: 1 year ban

This should be changed to something like this

1st time: Warning
2nd time: 1 week ban
3rd time: 2 week ban
4th time: 1 month ban
5th time: 2 month ban
6th time: 4 month ban...
--------------------------------------------------
Also this one should be taken away completely.
3.4 Starting a battle in internals
Or possibly make a system so that each player only can start one internal battle per week or something, it's so boring that they are all long gone, when for example 1hTT still exists.
Internal battles are the best battles I and many other knew in belma, sadly so many people dislike them.

This should be brought over to the "allowed" part of starting battles.
Practice/Train levels

Both of those mentioned above really helped internal scene many times when it was allowed in belma, it raises the motivation to the max when you see a lot of other people playing the same internal level as one self. I think this is why I lost interest from internals more after belma died, because there is no place for this internal competition online anymore.

Don't go all flaming-mode on me now, this is just my opinion. PS. Fuck you all
Oh, and Jappe shouldn't have right to ban people, very inappropriate person to have sach.

Grace · Post by **Grace** » 7 Aug 2012, 00:05

I think in the cases of MOST rules, more warning is required. The only things i can think of that deserve bans is stealing levels/playing own etc.

Talking in english - sometimes you have to speak other language to get a point across. If someone is unhappy and asks for them to speak in english, that's fine, they speak in english. If they continue to talk in rus or fin or w/e THEN we talk of ban mb. I think mods too triggerhappy mb.

Pab · Post by **Pab** » 7 Aug 2012, 00:13

Bjenn wrote: Also this one should be taken away completely.
3.4 Starting a battle in internals
Or possibly make a system so that each player only can start one internal battle per week or something, it's so boring that they are all long gone, when for example 1hTT still exists.
Internal battles are the best battles I and many other knew in belma, sadly so many people dislike them.

Cant agree more with bjorn, and i dont even hoyla internals. This is necessary.

Lousku · Post by **Lousku** » 7 Aug 2012, 00:15

Pab wrote:i heard that last year or so, markku did one ban

Heh, I think that was the only necessary chatban ever (Death).

Lukazz · Post by **Lukazz** » 7 Aug 2012, 00:37

Pawq wrote:Then state for example that "battle starters are not allowed to play their own battles, unless the queue is empty" or somesach. what do mans think?

Maybe, if it's possible to do, as a compromise the starter could shows up in the results, but he doesn't get any points and others get their points like the battlestarter didn't play? Shouldn't be used all the time either of course, but like pawq said, in the nighttime i think it would be funnier sometimes, if there are only 2 or 3 guys, that the battlestarter's time is shown too.

Bjenn wrote:3.4 Starting a battle in internals
Or possibly make a system so that each player only can start one internal battle per week or something

Actually that sounds quite reasonable. Not everybody has the right to start internals anyway, and I think those who have know when it's appropriate to start internal battles and that it's not cool to start 60 mins warm up when there are other battles.

Haruhi wrote:I think in the cases of MOST rules, more warning is required. The only things i can think of that deserve bans is stealing levels/playing own etc.

yeah, i think so too.
and by the way: give less people banning rights and more people aborting-rights.

Lousku wrote:
Pab wrote:i heard that last year or so, markku did one ban
Heh, I think that was the only necessary chatban ever (Death).

yeah, he's really the only one who ever deserved a chatban in my opinion.

PS: thx kopa for asking us about our opinion, democracy rules

pawq · Post by **pawq** » 7 Aug 2012, 01:07

i totally agree with Bjorn on the internals stuff!!!

Lukazz wrote:as a compromise the starter could shows up in the results, but he doesn't get any points and others get their points like the battlestarter didn't play?

YES!!!!!!!

Lukazz wrote:and by the way: give less people banning rights and more people aborting-rights.

agree on this too

and huge props to Kopa for creating this thread, indeed!

Hosp · Post by **Hosp** » 7 Aug 2012, 01:42

Bjorn is right. Change is coming. (I think.)

Lousku · Post by **Lousku** » 7 Aug 2012, 02:37

Bjenn wrote:Also this one should be taken away completely.
3.4 Starting a battle in internals
Or possibly make a system so that each player only can start one internal battle per week or something, it's so boring that they are all long gone, when for example 1hTT still exists.
Internal battles are the best battles I and many other knew in belma, sadly so many people dislike them.

This should be brought over to the "allowed" part of starting battles.
Practice/Train levels

Both of those mentioned above really helped internal scene many times when it was allowed in belma, it raises the motivation to the max when you see a lot of other people playing the same internal level as one self. I think this is why I lost interest from internals more after belma died, because there is no place for this internal competition online anymore.

Disagree with everything there. I really don't understand why you need internals and your train levs to be battled. Sharing is as simple as entering the lev. Battling is only interesting when there are several people who can win. With internals you'll get results almost directly from the players' personal records. It's not as if they have anything to do with activity in internal höyling anyway. There are int parties every once in a while and they are not initiated by battles.

ville_j · Post by **ville_j** » 7 Aug 2012, 06:50

Lukazz wrote: PS: thx kopa for asking us about our opinion, democracy rules

This and also everything else Lukazz wrote. And if this discussion does not result in jappe losing his ban-rights, then I refuse to gief any input to this topic!11

Madness · Post by **Madness** » 7 Aug 2012, 09:03

Lukazz wrote:
Pawq wrote:Then state for example that "battle starters are not allowed to play their own battles, unless the queue is empty" or somesach. what do mans think?
Maybe, if it's possible to do, as a compromise the starter could shows up in the results, but he doesn't get any points and others get their points like the battlestarter didn't play?

Sounds great.

Lukazz wrote:and by the way: give less people banning rights and more people aborting-rights.

Hell no. The fewer the better!

Lousku wrote:
Bjenn wrote:[...]
Disagree with everything there. I really don't understand why you need internals and your train levs to be battled. Sharing is as simple as entering the lev. Battling is only interesting when there are several people who can win. With internals you'll get results almost directly from the players' personal records. It's not as if they have anything to do with activity in internal höyling anyway. There are int parties every once in a while and they are not initiated by battles.

But it's much more exciting to compete for the best time than just congregate in a level and play for nothing. It could also resurrect the Internal scene a bit and bring some new styles/ideas/etc. Come on, we need to keep the Internal scene alive! I agree with Bjenn.

Zweq · Post by **Zweq** » 7 Aug 2012, 10:02

The whole belma project was at first some modding for fun by mila. Later it clearly followed the footsteps of #battle where the most, *THE MOST* basic rule always was new levels only. I am veri sori but it will never be changed

Of course one possibility would be separate internal battle, but that would require quite a lot of work and testing from mila once again, so i guess it's about 99.9% that it's nat going to happen. Then again there were teh cups running separately already :p

Lukazz · Post by **Lukazz** » 7 Aug 2012, 10:06

Jappe wrote:my bans are just, and if you dont like the bans then this topic is about changing the rules and ive told people all the time they need to whine about rules not bans

you would've made a damn good nazi.
it would'nt be necessary to change the rules, if you'd just use some common sense. you're the only moderator who gives unreasonable bans all the time, i've never heard someone complain about bans that were not given by you.

Ecchi · Post by **Ecchi** » 7 Aug 2012, 10:09

Lukazz wrote:
Jappe wrote:my bans are just, and if you dont like the bans then this topic is about changing the rules and ive told people all the time they need to whine about rules not bans
you are a damn good nazi

fixed it

8-ball · Post by **8-ball** » 7 Aug 2012, 10:45

I think internals should be allowed to be battled when no other battle is in queue. But they wouldn't affect players ranking/points. And maybe they should end early if a normal battle is added to the queue?

pawq · Post by **pawq** » 7 Aug 2012, 11:08

Lous: I've enjoyed int battles as fuck, even though i was last in all) it's not all about winning, it's about competition as bjern said

Xarthok: I totally agree, maybe there could be a kind of a new set of rules created, that would apply when the queue is empty and that would not affect the rankings: starters can play, ints allowed etc...

Lukazz · Post by **Lukazz** » 7 Aug 2012, 13:06

Xarthok wrote:I think internals should be allowed to be battled when no other battle is in queue. But they wouldn't affect players ranking/points. And maybe they should end early if a normal battle is added to the queue?

good idea!

Bludek · Post by **Bludek** » 7 Aug 2012, 13:16

Internal balles would be great once in a while! internal scene is not what it used to be and this could raise it a bit. I love playing ints, but I kinda lost motivation, coz there is no competition or "need" for it.

also this

1st time: Warning
2nd time: 1 week ban
3rd time: 2 week ban
4th time: 1 month ban
5th time: 2 month ban
6th time: 4 month ban...

Lakimies · Post by **Lakimies** » 7 Aug 2012, 14:51

bans should go week,month,forever
and ban even if u just write bad english

that is only way to go

näisä asioisa täytyy niin sanotusti pitää vähä jöötä

Kortsu · Post by **Kortsu** » 7 Aug 2012, 15:00

I agree with Lakimies, also Jappe should keep ban rights because he is strict.

anpdad · Post by **anpdad** » 7 Aug 2012, 16:26

Kortsu, he's not strict, he's a bully prone to start conflicts :p With his attitude he doesn't show a good example of a proper behaviour, i'd say he encourages quite opposite in fact. There are enough mature people with banning rights anyway.
Also internals being battled sounds ok for me as long as they don't affect ranking. Starting trainlevs is fine too, just take Bjenn's ballestarting rights away before that ;) FORVEVER.
I agree with what was said about other languages, but it's handled by mods fairly well now either way, so i don't see any reason for changes. No need for variable bans too, lengths are satisfactory already.

Morgan · Post by **Morgan** » 7 Aug 2012, 16:27

1.

Lukazz wrote:
Kopaka wrote:Discussion rules
Do people do stuff you think they should not be allowed to?
Jappe is banning people. He shouldn't be allowed to do that.

totally agree, do something with this!

2. separate internal battles system

Zweq wrote:Of course one possibility would be separate internal battle, but that would require quite a lot of work and testing from mila once again, so i guess it's about 99.9% that it's nat going to happen. Then again there were teh cups running separately already :p

hmm, it doesn't look so hard that requires a lot of work and testing... why do you think that? If it really is impsy, I'm not against Xarthok's option

3. "Allow Starter" option should be disabled permamently, maybe enabled only in internal battles.

Lukazz · Post by **Lukazz** » 7 Aug 2012, 16:30

Kopaka wrote:don't give tips to others in your battles

sounds good, but there should be some exceptions (unless Jappe loses his battle rights, because every other mod is smart enough to know that anyway). for example in FFs when the arrows are bad, people often ask where to go. shouldn't be forbidden to say "go right".

culinko · Post by **culinko** » 7 Aug 2012, 16:51

anpdad wrote:Kortsu, he's not strict, he's a bully prone to start conflicts :p With his attitude he doesn't show a good example of a proper behaviour, i'd say he encourages quite opposite in fact. There are enough mature people with banning rights anyway.
Also internals being battled sounds ok for me as long as they don't affect ranking. Starting trainlevs is fine too, just take Bjenn's ballestarting rights away before that FORVEVER.
I agree with what was said about other languages, but it's handled by mods fairly well now either way, so i don't see any reason for changes. No need for variable bans too, lengths are satisfactory already.

i'm pretty sure the two posts above yours were sarcastic

Morgan · Post by **Morgan** » 7 Aug 2012, 17:34

Lukazz wrote:
Kopaka wrote:don't give tips to others in your battles
sounds good, but there should be some exceptions (unless Jappe loses his battle rights, because every other mod is smart enough to know that anyway). for example in FFs when the arrows are bad, people often ask where to go. shouldn't be forbidden to say "go right".

impsy rule to execute/enforce, becouse some players give tips via private messages, so i would not change this

Zweq · Post by **Zweq** » 7 Aug 2012, 17:56

Morgan wrote:
Zweq wrote:Of course one possibility would be separate internal battle, but that would require quite a lot of work and testing from mila once again, so i guess it's about 99.9% that it's nat going to happen. Then again there were teh cups running separately already :p
hmm, it doesn't look so hard that requires a lot of work and testing... why do you think that? If it really is impsy, I'm not against Xarthok's option

you are right but i guess it could still get messy copy pasting code

but sure i bet mila could do it in a few hours if no unexppected problems + if he gave a fuck

it could be fun tho for internal bitches. like if norm balle is nab ez check "internal battle standings" and see some nab leading teh 3 hour islands in the sky battle, maybe i could finally improve that ancient pr also

pawq · Post by **pawq** » 7 Aug 2012, 20:08

Morgan wrote:3. "Allow Starter" option should be disabled permamently

can you reason that?

Bjenn · Post by **Bjenn** » 8 Aug 2012, 07:30

Or it could pasibly exist a weekly internal battle in the background of all normal battles like zweq said except it's one week and not 3h ;o
Good idea? Then it would almost be same as cup system yes?

Igge · Post by **Igge** » 8 Aug 2012, 07:34

Bjenn wrote:Or it could pasibly exist a weekly internal battle in the background of all normal battles like zweq said except it's one week and not 3h ;o
Good idea? Then it would almost be same as cup system yes?

This would actually be really cool! I think it would encourage more int playing just like those random int fests in belma/eol do. And they almost add up perfectly over a year as well, only no need to play flat track and spiral because those levels suck. It's perfect!

abruzzi · Post by **abruzzi** » 8 Aug 2012, 07:36

every day random-internal cup lasting 24h. that would be MASSIVE. also SHOWER or WRs would occur weekly. ez to implement as bjen said cups are already being in background, also competition for int-eleet

Grace · Post by **Grace** » 8 Aug 2012, 08:20

abruzzi wrote:every day random-internal cup lasting 24h. that would be MASSIVE. also SHOWER or WRs would occur weekly. ez to implement as bjen said cups are already being in background, also competition for int-eleet

Kopa - is it possible to extend the current cup system to int levels?

i think this idea revives int scene

pawq · Post by **pawq** » 8 Aug 2012, 14:12

yes, sounds maax o,o

Hosp · Post by **Hosp** » 8 Aug 2012, 20:41

Yes it does.

Kopaka · Post by **Kopaka** » 9 Aug 2012, 19:42

I have collected the most talked about points, and my opinion underneath:
Less harsh banning for non-english chat
I just find it pretty annoying to not know what people are saying. But I can agree that a few lines now and then can be okay to clear something out if someone is not too good in english. And there should be room for the occasional accidental private line in general chat etc. Longer conversations should be kept in english, private or elsewhere, but I think people agree on that.

More/better/less banners
More wouldn't hurt for sure, but impossible to always have one online I guess. Can only encourage people to use report feature, if a banner is absent.

More/less aborters
Could use more for sure. One reason I haven't added more is that I don't want to just add people dictatorially, but nor do I really have a good place to discuss this with admin team. Admin team being aborters/banners/mods. Admin team members can reply how they would like such a place to discus new members/bans etc. IRC channel, secret lauta subforum, annonymous vote on EOL site could be ideas.

Allow starters when few players
It's possible to filter designer out when calculating the rankings yes. I have had many an enjoyable battle at meetings or #dkbattle where designer was allowed, but I'm not sure about the whole "seperate ruleset during no-queue / off peak hours". Will be hard to administrate and might overcomplicate rules. How big a deal is it?

Internal battles when few players
Can only agree with zweq.

Internal battles in "background"
See below.

Ban levels
There seem to be these two systems in talks, more or less:
1st time: Warning
2nd time: 1 week ban
3rd time: 2 week ban
4th time: 2 week ban
5th time: 2 week ban
6th time: 2 week ban
7th time: 2 week ban
8th time: 2 week ban
9th time: 2 week ban
10th time: 1 year ban
VS
1st time: Warning
2nd time: 1 week ban
3rd time: 2 week ban
4th time: 1 month ban
5th time: 2 month ban
6th time: 4 month ban
7th time: 6 month ban
8th time: 8 month ban
9th time: 10 month ban
10th time: 1 year ban
(But always possible to go directly to higher one)
I would be prone to the first one (simpler), but more opinions are welcome.

Lukazz wrote:
Kopaka wrote:don't give tips to others in your battles
sounds good, but there should be some exceptions (unless Jappe loses his battle rights, because every other mod is smart enough to know that anyway). for example in FFs when the arrows are bad, people often ask where to go. shouldn't be forbidden to say "go right".

My point with not allowing tips is to make it 100% fair for all. Even in a case like yours there will always be people who are not at the same place at that moment so they don't know what poeple are talking about, or have chat off and/or too shy or whatever to ask when they get there themselves. I get the point of course that if there is a bad arrow and there is two places to go, it's more about luck than skill to choose the right way in an FF. More opinions are welcome

.

Haruhi wrote:
abruzzi wrote:every day random-internal cup lasting 24h. that would be MASSIVE. also SHOWER or WRs would occur weekly. ez to implement as bjen said cups are already being in background, also competition for int-eleet
Kopa - is it possible to extend the current cup system to int levels?

i think this idea revives int scene

If by current system you mean the system that was used for the Kopasite Cup (http://elmaonline.net/statistics/cups/1), then yes, ez. Anyone can make that (when I make last finising touches to it, and open it up).

ville_j · Post by **ville_j** » 9 Aug 2012, 21:16

Kopaka wrote:I have collected the most talked about points, and my opinion underneath:

But you forgot the most talked feature ever, removal of jappe banana rights?!?

Zweq · Post by **Zweq** » 10 Aug 2012, 12:12

I don't think it would be interesting enough to have internal battles on the separate cup system, considering the times are hidden and, to be quite honest all the things you can do in-game are on a whole different interactiveness level compared to alt-tabbing, loading websites and watnat. So those who want internal battles, while not interfering external battles(sacred) may continue the whining

pawq · Post by **pawq** » 10 Aug 2012, 15:46

Kopaka wrote:It's possible to filter designer out when calculating the rankings yes.

would be perfectly enough i suppose =)

and ye, you skipped jappe, is it just that you don't even want to hear about removing his rights?

Kopaka · Post by **Kopaka** » 10 Aug 2012, 16:40

Pawq wrote:and ye, you skipped jappe, is it just that you don't even want to hear about removing his rights?

He is nice scapegoat

Of course I have my opinions but as I said earlier I don't want to be dictator, however democracies doesn't really work either, rather a small trusted group (Jedi council for example). Public simply doesn't know enough about the facts cus they don't have all information. Current mods were selected by giving it to those who took part in the beta testing of EOL (more or less). There has never really been set any formal guidelines how promoting/demoting of mods should work. I said in a thread before EOL was released that I imagined the admin group to have some place to discuss that stuff and choose together, which people seemed to agree with, from what I remember. So please reply to what I asked in my last post, how should such place look like?

Currently igge is right:

Igge wrote:Fucking retards in a messed-up hierarchy.

I know I'm cowardly jumping around making any real decisions like igge said in quoted famous post. But facts are, you don't know who bans you, few if none of those who complains about jappe uses the formal appeal function for their bans, few reports actual situations of what Jappe does. Also he is not banless.

And never got any answer except from Jappe when I suggested ways to make bans more understandable.

Kopaka wrote:Should bans be public in one way or another? I haven't liked that idea before, because it kind of points fingers at people. But clearly something is not working now.

Could also revoke all chatbans and require new ones to have link to specific line(s) in chatlog (which I'll get ready asap).

elmas · Post by **elmas** » 11 Aug 2012, 15:46

Everybody should have right to abort/stop own battles in case no aborters online

pawq · Post by **pawq** » 11 Aug 2012, 15:49

that true

Lousku · Post by **Lousku** » 11 Aug 2012, 18:33

Would it be a hard task to implement aborting/stopping on the site?

Kopaka · Post by **Kopaka** » 11 Aug 2012, 20:02

Lousku wrote:Would it be a hard task to implement aborting/stopping on the site?

Probably, why?

Lousku · Post by **Lousku** » 11 Aug 2012, 20:13

Then you could finally allow players to abort their own battles.

Kopaka · Post by **Kopaka** » 14 Aug 2012, 14:44

So people don't care about about the structure of the admin group or making bans more clear, they just wanna see blood?

Grace · Post by **Grace** » 14 Aug 2012, 15:19

Kopaka wrote:So people don't care about about the structure of the admin group or making bans more clear, they just wanna see blood?

I think the structure of the administration group needs to be good, the bans more clear and the rules more defined, but think of it as politics.

If the party that is in charge of a country does something wrong, people don't call for a new party, they call for a new prime minister/president. In this case, Sure the rules need a little bit of tweaking, but ultimately people are angry at the perpetrator of these bans and punishments because he's a little bit hypocritical.

In regards to admin: I think the current system works okay, but i agree that we need more aborters, maybe some few more mods. Afaik nothing that admins can fix/mods can't is particularly important in regards to being done instantly, so i think having just a few supermods and then a few more mods than we have now would be perfect.

Bans just need a clearer description. This may just be Jappe laziness (i have only seen jappe bans handed out.)

Rule changes need to be discussed in greater depth in regards to each individual rule.