My suggestion is quite a straightforward one; the introduction of a clear set of responses from the sites administrators in relation to violations of game rules and a complaints handling procedure for users to follow if they are not satisfied with the handling of the violation.

It should be noted at outset, that you cannot provide a set of responses that cover all eventualities and there will always be nuance to the situation. A first infraction might require a warning in some scenarios or a ban if it is something particularly malicious. The key is transparency and consistency, which I will outline below and an attempt to follow a basic pattern of escalation; first strike, second strike, third strike etc.

I would suggest that rule violations all follow the same format:

• The user is notified via mobmail or, if more severe, placed in admin jail with a reason of "Under review. Rule Violation [Name of Rule] [Link to site rules]"
• The administration can then proceed to obtain whatever evidence they require to investigate the matter fully if this has not already occurred
• Upon completion of an evidenced-based assessment, a punishment is determined in line with the following basic principle:
  • First infraction; warning
  • Second infraction; admin jail
  • Third infraction; character kill/ban as appropriate
• Following a punishment being determined, this is applied to the user who is then notified of the rule they are broken, the reason why they are alleged to have broken this rule and how they can address this if they feel it is unfair (complaints handling procedure)

If the above system is adopted, there will be no grey areas regarding punishments. Each user joins the site and accepts the site rules. If their conduct falls below the accepted player conduct policy, then punishment is necessary and this is an accepted consequence of playing.

Vague or ambiguous reasons unrelated to the site rules should be avoided. Each infraction should be related back to a specific rule, which prevents any moving of goalposts by users or administration. If the rules are not robust enough, this can be reviewed (although they seem comprehensive) and players can reconfirm they accept them after every change or retire their account. 

Punishments should be consistent, reasonable and relative to the infraction. Clearly a bag exploiting bug should be treated more harshly than a conduct violation where inappropriate remarks were made. The punishment should always be the same for the infraction committed though, i.e. 24 hours, 48 hours, 7 days, 30 days etc. Consistency weeds out accusations of bias. 

The user can now clearly see what rule they are alleged to have broken, why the administration believes they have broken and the level of punishment they are receiving for that. They should now be referred to a complaints handling procedure if they do not accept this punishment.

The complaints handling procedure (CHP) should follow this basic premise:

• A complaint must be put in writing, via email, not a live chat, forum thread or lounge discussion
• The complaint must address only the rule alleged to have been broken and nothing else
• It must be an evidenced-based submission as to why the rule has not been broken or why the punishment is unfair
• This should be acknowledged in a reasonable time relative to the punishment
• This should be reviewed initially by the person who issued the punishment
• A decision should then be made on the complaint and the user notified of the administration's response by email
• If the user remains unhappy with the administrations response, they can refer this to another member of the administration to review and make a judgement
• Another member of the administration should perform their own independent assessment of the matter and then consider the conduct of the initial staff member who handled the complaint
• They should determine if the punishment is correct and make a judgement which is final

A complaints handling procedure is not supposed to be a volatile, emotion-driven back and forth held in the court of public opinion. It is supposed to be an objective assessment as to what has occurred, where clear heads can make an evidenced based judgement against a set of black and white rules which have been agreed to by all users. 

Attempts by users to hold these discussions in lounge or PM with specific administrators should be responded to only to tell the user to follow the complaints handling procedure. 

Attempts by other users to ask for information about what is going on should be referred to the admin jail reasoning and a reminder that the matter is under review. This reasoning should be clear enough that a user can see for themselves what is alleged to have occurred and they do not need to ask, i.e. Grin-08, suspended for violation of player interaction policy, rule 5. 

Introduction of a CHP like this should remove many of the acrimonious interactions in the forums/lounge over punishments. These moments are unseemly and take up an extraordinary amount of time for those involved unnecessarily. Follow the procedures and remove the time-cost and animosity from the interaction. If a rule has been broken and evidence is available, everything else is irrelevant, including personal feelings. 

I would also suggest the following addendum to site rules/administration thinking:

• Players should report all bugs or exploitation they become aware of and failure to do so will be punishable
• Players should not be asked to police or administer any site rule on behalf of the administration, regardless of any in-character position they hold within the game (CL, RHM, LHM, sponsor etc.)
• Players should not be asked to police or administer any forum rule on behalf of the administration, regardless of any in-character position they hold within game (CL, RHM, LHM, sponsor, etc.)
• Players should only be concerned with playing the game, fairly and within the rules
• All code of conduct/forum rules/game rules matters should be reviewed, policed and resolved by objective administrators with access to full information in line with the rules users have agreed to abide by

Let players just play. If staff are required, these can be advertised for or approached by the administrators and they can then deal with matters as part of that team. A blanket policy that places a burden on players to do things outside of just playing the game within the rules is grossly unfair and contrary to the experience they signed up for. 

I strongly feel if user/admin interactions were handled in a manner similar to the above, all parties would benefit.

Upon completion of an evidenced-based assessment, a punishment is determined in line with the following basic principle:

• First infraction; warning
• Second infraction; admin jail
• Third infraction; character kill/ban as appropriate

Just no. No slaps on the wrist for first offense. This will lead to people knowingly violating a rule well aware they will just get a slap on the wrist. Punishment must be in line with the offense. Some offenses should not get a warning. There are times admin jail and wacks are the appropriate first response. 

I believe the new administrators are working on a cut and dry policy as we speak. Lets see what they bring forward.

I said more or less exactly that here:

It should be noted at outset, that you cannot provide a set of responses that cover all eventualities and there will always be nuance to the situation. A first infraction might require a warning in some scenarios or a ban if it is something particularly malicious. The key is transparency and consistency

However, you should not dismiss a warning out of hand as not all rule infractions are malicious. For example, I would imagine a warning is a perfectly reasonable response if say, I'm a first time sponsor and I mistakenly ask what name you were before or if I know you. That breaks a game rule but I had no malicious intent, suspending or killing my account is not likely to achieve the goal; better education to play within the rules. 

All punishments require a case-by-case approach, but consistency is important. 

Mercury I believe you may have missed the part above what you quoted where Grin also said that “some first infractions can require a warning, where others could require a ban if its particularly malicious”. It covers what you’ve said. If something heinous occurs, of course they wouldn’t just be given a warning under Grins suggested deal. 

Grin beat me to it. Ignore me. 

Do we hold any standards to be held accountable of what is shared? I think being deceitful / lying / not being honest with providing information should be held to standards of banning if we are going to follow such a guideline. 

I did miss it. With that in mind, that first rule shouldn't even be included then. It does not cover what he said above it.

The site already has rules covering some named things and the purpose of this wasn't really to get into the specifics of what punishment each specific action requires. It is actually virtually impossible to do that as there are unique events and situations, which is why an evidence based assessment specific to the site rules is the desired approach. 

The reason I opted for a 3 strike approach being the usual standard, is because I personally feel a warning is fine in a lot of circumstances where someone innocently breaks a site rule. The idea of a punishment is prevent a repeat of the negative behaviour and I can see a lot of scenarios where that would best achieve it. However, that isn't the be-all-end-all and each circumstance will likely necessitate a response dependent entirely on it's merits. 

Grin-08 - I agree to all of this.

An example I'd like you to consider:

Player A harasses/threatens Player B.  Player C reports it.  Player A is admin jailed pending investigation, and evidence supports a ban.  Should Player B's input have any bearing on the fate of Player A?

I noticed that this was conveniently left out of the suggestions above. Surely this will be included and grandfathered in since it predates the resignation?

https://mafiareturns.com/comm/thread/1534402#295491

It wasn't conveniently left out. This is not a replacement for the rules, it is an addendum and alteration to how the rules are administers, like I said. 

What is your problem? Go back and read the suggestion in full or please stop commenting. 

I wholeheartedly agree this idea. The implementation of this proposal would greatly improve the general happiness of all player experiences. I am also certain it will improve the quality of work life for all staff. There is rarely a downside to improving a system's efficiency and practical user experience. 

I don't have a problem grin. My question is to toby-. Since this is a recent rule related to directly why we have this big change I am curious as to it's status. I felt it should have been mentioned/questioned. Frankly, I'd like to see that revised in some manner as well.

I don't think it should be. I think it should be included in the thought process. I believe it should be revised in some form if left in place.

Just for clarification, grandfathering something in refers to before the thought process and is left as is. What I am looking for is if it is their plan to grandfather this in as is. It was in the form of a question.

Do you believe that should stand as is? I don't. Some form of it, maybe but that was harsh.

Having just read the new severity system, I want to strongly suggest that this clear process be enacted instead.  Essentially every thing was given a severity that allows adman wack for a first infraction.  The biggest issue with the way rules are currently enforced is that the severity of punishment is generally out of proportion with the original crime.  This is driving players away from the game.  A little bit more leniency and understanding would be a welcome change.  

I would like it to be outlined that it would generally not result in an admin wack for a first offense for almost all issues, unless it was literal cheating or grossly over the line as decided by Tony and Syn with in game evidence of the offense.  I would like it to be like any other game, essentially. 

Be of age, don't cheat/dupe, do not harass others. 

I am sure that not every offense will result in an admin wack, but I am also sure that hardly anything on the rules lists should result in an admin wack for a first offense.  I don't feel like I really need a trial run to identify something I already know.