Forum ban could come with a chat ban, as people who say offensive things on the forum are probably more likely to say offensive things in chat, but again gameplay has nothing to do with either of them.

If you get banned from one for trolling, there's a high probability you'll start complaining on the other one.

I disagree there is any connection at all, but even if there were, what does 'complaining' even mean? If you get banned from the forum, who are you going to do this 'complaining' to about the game, Fizzer? Banning people just to reduce complaint emails about the game? That makes little logical sense. If they do indeed send those unwanted complaint emails, it wouldn't be hard to then ban them from the game, too.

Some people just are on the forum to troll right? So they don't care if they are banned from that, its only punishment if they are off the game for awhile. Not sure thats just what it sounds like to me :)

Edited 6/8/2016 12:25:53

You could phrase it that way but more accurate would be that some people are more likely than others to say something on the forum that gets them banned, and they know it, and don't want to get banned from the game.

"Trolling" doesn't appear to get anybody banned on the forum.

Edited 6/8/2016 13:20:38

Trolling is bad for you. That's why I'm changing my ways of Fizzer will let me.

I mean seriously, just be respectful. I have literally never gotten banned or suspended, and I post on the forums all the time.

And I think it's a bit much to say that there should be no favoritism. If you have some troll who's been on warlight for two weeks and is constantly getting suspended, why should they receive the same treatment as someone who has played thousands of games, or someone who has released several maps and are being considered for their first suspension?

Edited 6/8/2016 14:53:07

Trolling is bad for you.

luls no.

Hard for us to 'fix' something when only Fizzer knows hows things work - TBest

How do 'things work'?

Well, here's a go at it.

1) Someone i) hurts someones feelings and/or ii) gets their feelings hurt.

2) A report button is clicked, and the person that got their feelings hurt selects text from a drop down.

3) They hit submit report, and an automatic message comes up saying that the reason they got their feelings hurt is not against the rules. Perhaps you should read the rules and not be so sensative.

4) Steps 2 and 3 are repeated until they find a reason that lets them complain.

5) Someone, a first level reviewer, get the reason they complained in a report. They i) recommend a suspension/ban/warning, or ii) simply ignore. The reports have information regarding a link the the game, excerpted text (think nasty key words) from team chat/private messages, how many previous warnings, reports, suspensions, accounts with same/similar IP's, etc. Sometimes the first level reviewer leaves a note or further explanation, such as, Google Translate says it means.... They can also enter in the text that a warning/suspension will read out for the player, so that they know what they did wrong.

6) For reports that go the path of 5i, a second level reviewer reviews the report, The level 2 report is very similar to the level 1 report, but maybe 1 or two more bits of information that are private from the level 1 reviewer. Similar to step 5, the second level reviewer takes a look at the level 1 recommendation, the report, the history, etc. in order to decide on the warning/suspension/ban, or simply to ignore.

7) Reports ignored in either 5 or 6 simply tick up the number of "times reported" counter, which is different than a warning. If this gets extremely high (more than double digits) its cause for further investigation into past behavior when deciding on a warning or a suspension.

8) Occasionally, there are tough calls. The second level reviewer either lets those reports languish for a week or two to see if it pops up again via the report system, sometimes Fizzer is brought into the system, or sometimes the second level reviewer simply ignores the behavior. Other times, the second level reviewer decides a suspension/ban/warning is appropriate, and issues such action, then hears about it in the forums on how Fizzer is a Nazi, knowing full well that it wasn't Fizzer that was the Nazi, just some Joe Schmo that does this for free on the side, 20-100 times a day, reading comments made by some of the best and smartest people on the Internet.

9) There's some feedback from Fizzer to the Level 2 and from the Level 2 to the Level 1, but only in about 1-5% of the reports.

TBest? Any bits of advice now that this may have shed some light onto the system?

reading comments made by some of the best and smartest people on the Internet.

I nearly choked on that one. You trying to kill people Pooh?!

If I were, would I get banned for it?

da only reforms tht need to b made r tht wacos are immune from any ban/suspension mmm

Maybe Fizzer shouldn't have a Mexican judging things, not that there's anything wrong with that, I'm just saying.

Please don't misconstrue my previous statement.

TBest? Any bits of advice now that this may have shed some light onto the system?

Make it transparent. Say..... you can view your own past warnings and suspensions. For a start.

EDIT v. Silly, you would never give up any names. Only Date, Resone and Action (Suspend/Warn)

Edited 6/8/2016 19:30:35

To what end? So you can see the people that are complaining about you, even if it isn't against the rules?

As is, when 2 people, in series, decide its over the line, then you find out you crossed it.

It is RARE that someone goes from 0 warnings to a suspension or even a ban.

I bet people have to have like 2-3 warnings, or a previous suspensions, before getting a suspension.

Truly trollish behavior out of the gates, such as a Level 1 player with 55 alts, and a username of: Kill all ______, where you can fill in the blank with any group of people you want, would deservera ban from the get go.

Otherwise, you get a warning, type in "I agree" and move on with your day, conscious that you crossed the line in the past, and be wary of crossing it again, for fear of harsher punishment.

Count Grishnackh wrote:
> Separate bans

Adding that option to the system would cost a bunch of development time. In order to do what, make sure people who misbehave don't suffer too many consequences? That seems a mighty strange goal to aim for.
I have a counter-proposal: behave properly on the forums and behave properly in the game, that's a great way to not get a suspension in either of them!

> Ban appeals
> There are countless instances when bans were unfair. There should be a ban appeals
> section on the forums where one can petition a ban to be revoked or reduced. Nothing
> should be final, opinions change, new evidence comes in. Ban reasons are subjective
> anyway.

Hell no, that's a horrible idea! :-o It would probably take all of three seconds for somebody to register an alt, go way overboard on unacceptable behaviour, then go to the appeals forum to post lengthy messages along the lines of "I should totally be allowed to say [horrendous racial slur]" or "Oh come on, I agree that [outrageous homophobia] was out of line, but it should only get me a one-week suspension at most; the two weeks I got would be more appropriate if I had said [something even worse]". And they'd be immune to further sanctions, because "they didn't really say it, it was only part of the discussion".
Of course some things should be final. How about the outcome of the appeal; if that weren't final, you could appeal the appeal (ad infinitum). Opinions might slightly shift, but won't completely turnaround. If there truly is new evidence (where exactly did it come from though?) which considerably changes matters, I'm sure Fizzer would be open to an appeal... in private correspondence, not on the forums.
Just because there is a "grey area" (some subjectivity) doesn't mean the suspensions given out aren't clearly "black" (way out of line). If the rule is "don't injure other people", you could argue about whether a slap in the face counts (or whether it's merely "hurting", not "injuring"). However, that argument is utterly irrelevant when somebody empties a machine gun on another person; sure, a grey area exists... but nowhere near that case!

> Clearly defining rule-violating behavior
> (..) Also, bans should spell out which rule was violated instead of quoting things
> you said.

Oh yes, because it would be awesome if people could very carefully read the rules, find a tiny glitch and completely break the spirit of the rules without technically breaking the exact phrasing of the rule. Sure, "be respectful" is rather non-specific, but it's a lot better than "no racism, no sexism, no homophobia", because then Trump *) could come on here and call Mexicans murderers and rapists ("Mexican" is a nationality, not a race, so technically not a violation of this rule).
Going by Fizzer's reply, if all you get as justification for your warning or suspension is a few quotes, you can probably assume you broke the "be a decent person" rule...

*) For my fellow Dutchmen: yes, in our system I would have used "Donald T.". Off-topic: is there anybody who can explain me why that clown isn't in jail yet...!?

> Eliminating favoritism

While you are completely right that favouritism is bad, you have only explained why it's bad; you have not made a case it currently exists on WL. If you have the impression it does, there are a few things to keep in mind:

• If you see somebody get a suspension for something like "jeesh, are you stupid!?", it's entirely possible that's the worst thing you've seen them say, but there is no way to verify it actually is what the suspension was for. They might very well have said far worse things in private chat (or team chat, if you weren't on their team), in another game, in a private message on the forums or in a forum thread you didn't read.
  
• Warnings are invisible to other players: if you see "a friend of Fizzer" say something bad, there is no way for you to know whether they got a warning for it.
  
• Suspensions ("temporary bans") become invisible to other players as soon as they've ended: if you see "a friend of Fizzer" say something extremely bad, the only way for to know whether they got a suspension for it is to keep refreshing their profile page.
  This also means you can't go back to old games and actively search for favouritism; it will seem like nobody ever gets a suspension for anything.
  
• Real bans ("permanent bans") are visible to everyone and remain that way. However, I'd hope that these are extremely rare...
  

---

Prussian Monarchist wrote:
> Separate bans is a basic feature on almost every single gaming site on the web.

That reasoning is flawed: just because "almost every single gaming site" chooses a certain approach, does not automatically mean it's the best one! How would new ideas ever get off the ground if you could only do things the way everybody else does them?

---

Nogals wrote:
> Once I got banned for saying "who cares". No profanity, just "who cares".

Interesting story; did you accidentally forget to include what nobody cares about, or was that on purpose? I can think of several contexts in which the reply "who cares" is worthy of a sanction, even without profanity.

> Banned for a week. Tomateo uses offensive and racist language several times and
> nothing happens.

While I'm very allergic to racism (and commend your finding it unacceptable), I'm afraid I'll have to play devil's advocate here: "nothing happens in a way visible to you". That's a big difference with nothing happening at all. There's a more detailed explanation earlier in this post; see the bulleted list in my reply to Count Grishnackh.

I think that seeing past reportings would be a bad idea since it would lead to reprisals. In many cases, the source of the report would be obvious, and even if not obvious, assumptions would be made as to the source. Would just lead to additional nastiness.

Maybe a counter to show the number of times reported but nothing beyond that indicating when/why. Hell, I'd be curious to see how many times I'd been reported. I think I've formally been warned once.

Edited 6/8/2016 19:39:41

I think in general players complain, because they don't have any information. Yes, Sharpe, knowing why you got a warning may make it possible to figure out who reported you, however I think the 'right' to know why you got a warning is more important.

PS, Since

Hell, I'd be curious to see how many times I'd been reported. I think I've formally been warned once.

Yup, 1 warning, from 5/23/2012. "Please stop being rude to people on the forums." You have been reported 6 times. And you have filed 7 reports.

Edited 6/8/2016 19:45:42

TBest wrote:
> Say..... you can view your own past warnings and suspensions.

I think it's important to note merely getting reported (and the report-handling staff deciding no action needs to be taken) doesn't actually seem to do anything, so there's no reason to show that stat to people.
That leaves actual warnings and suspension. Well, if you really want to, I guess you could make a screenshot every time you get one and keep track yourself? On the other hand, what purpose would it serve exactly...!? I'd like to think that people who get their first warning realise "ow crap, I went way too far there" and want to put the whole thing behind them (and go at least a few years before getting another one). In other words: what do you gain from going back and reliving your worst moment...!? Furthermore, the exact number of warnings you've received should be easy enough to remember, even without keeping screenshots: after all, the only options are zero, one and far too many!