Before I get started... This is not about the rights and wrongs of what has gone on over the last week or even last few months. In here, the suggestions forum I couldn't care less whether or not your Crewleader account was DD'ed and not revived or revived, nor whether you as a user and a member thought it was the right action to take or the wrong action. 

What I do care about is the absurd amount of pathetic back and forth going on about the admins being unfair or the user base pushing the limits of the human beings behind the Admin and staff accounts. We all have our limits and by god have they been tested. 

Now i'd be surprised if the MafiaReturns staff haven't already had a discussion along the same lines as what I am hoping this will be. A way to fairly and justly dismiss someones account from the game without the major backlash of the users who have been punished and their friends. The reason I bring it up here is because we as the users are the ones who bitch, cry and moan when an action is taken by the Administration that we do not agree with. We are the ones who shout cheat or believe that we have been hard done by due to a simple disliking or negative opinion of someone.

So, because it seems we as the user base feel so strongly about it. Why don't we try to help come up with a way that is fair and just for all involved? Let's try and get rid of the animosity and clouded judgement that entombs these decisions. Everyone seems to have an opinion on how much they disagree with the actions taken surrounding damn near every DD but very few try to offer a fair alternative. I strongly believe that a Dishonourable Discharge is needed in some cases, now how should that Dishonourable Discharge be actioned?

First of all, I believe no one should ever be DD'ed straight away. I feel that whenever disciplinary action needs to be taken on a staff level it should always be started with a suspension from one of the Helpdesk team or an Admin Jail from an Assistant or Administrator. Depending on how bad the rule breaking was. If it was severe, make it a suspension so the person has no ability to do anything in game. If it's not that bad, make it an Admin Jail so that person can still communicate with family in crew chat. I believe this will help stop the revivals of accounts that have been DD'ed as a first port of call and I also believe it will help all parties involved cool down to a point where a civil conversation can be had. As once you say something, you can never un-say it. 

Now after this, for certain situations that warrant it... I wanted to say the HelpDeskers should then get together in a public room for the purposes of discussing the potential need for a dishonourable discharge. Unfortunately though it is now apparent that the user base are very capable and willing to seek revenge on staffers playing accounts for actions taken on their staff account. After that I had a thought about using a randomly selected committee of the users (Selected as and when needed, so it would be different each time) but the cynic in me feels that some people selected will not be able to remain subjective and open depending on who the person up for discussion is. The cynic in me also feels that it could be used for inadvertent power plays if the situation where to arise that the person up for the discussion was currently a powerful member of the community at that time. The reason I feel something like this is needed is because the amount of bashing and abuse the Administration team get over stuff like this is overwhelming. I know if my integrity was questioned as much as I have seen i'd have snapped a long time a go. However, I can't quite come up with a way at the moment that would be fair on both the Admins, Staff and Users. Which is why I bring it here. 

The way I see it, if the decisions for final dishonourable discharges was in the hands of the users or the staff, or even a mixture of the users, staff and administrators. In one public room, where everyone has a fair say and something like a vote was taken, there would be a lot less to bitch about as the dishonourable discharge would then be a majority decision. 

After the fact, I believe that no one should ever be revived as long as something along the lines of the above has been followed. 

Now, who has another idea or would like to add or tweak what i've said above?

(For the love of god, do not use the actions of the last week to make your point. We all know what happened and how and it's been discussed to death in about 3 other threads. Please just give unbiased, thought out suggestions on how you would like to see it handled in the future. The moment this becomes a slanging match about how "This shouldn't have happened" and "This is what should have been done" is the moment that any decent and well thought out opinions on bettering the system starts to fall on death ears.)

this is very similar to a suggestion that i have seen about a month or two back about a DD being delayed and a "appeals process" be started with a "jury" of either players and staff or even just players

the selection could be done with a random user id number generator and those involved be given a channel and password on irc to discuss the dd or the approriate actions where the users in the channel are simply user #1 user #2 and so on to keep it anonymous yet trackable by the admins to see who was in the room through a invite system incase things get out of hand in there

there has long been a case where the staff face the full brunt of the userbase force when a dd is made or a punishment is given which is why i think some of the decision making load should be passed onto the userbase, if the userbase dont really get a say in it they never really know how often certain things are happening and the best way to combat things is to keep the userbase in the know about what is going on some may say ignorance is bliss however if the users have a part in dealing with rule infringements than they are more likely to crackdown themselves as opposed to just leave it with the admins

The problem with all of this is just how unbelievably entitled the users of this game believe themselves to be. I've actually never encountered a game before where the users expect every decision to be explained to them like it is their right to be included in each and every process, punishment or development that occurs. 

So much of the pointless drama that happens here could be removed by adding a layer of detachment between the operators and the users of the game. All that is really required is an updated player code of conduct/site rules, a disciplinary procedure which is followed when someone doesn't comply with these and a formal complaints procedure for when people feel they have been treated unfairly.

If something exceptional then happens that isn't contained within the code of conduct/site rules, then that person can be placed in Admin Jail (which will likely be a step in the disciplinary procedure anyway) until an appropriate punishment can be determined. That user can then follow the formal complaints procedure if they feel they have been treated unjustly and, any complaints procedure worth its salt, will include oversight by someone other than the person who decided upon the original course of action; typically one of the principals.

This would not only remove the "threadpocalypse" that we see every single time someone has something happen to them, where everyone and their dog weighs in with an opinion, typically without holding any of the facts, but it would also stop damaging the integrity of the game and make the whole thing a hell of a lot more professional. It looks sloppy and off-putting when the areas of the highest activity pertain to thing outside the scope of the actual game. Can anyone actually remember a time a street thread got treated with the same passion as some of these OOC/Announcement Forum discussions? I can't and that is really sad.

Therefore, in my opinion, there should be no public viewing or commenting on the disciplinary process because it frankly has absolutely nothing to do with anyone other than the participants involved in it. This type of shit shouldn't be at the forefront of the site, it should be quietly and efficiently dealt with in a professional manner so that it doesn't compromise on the actual playing of the game by the majority of the users.

barry please provide examples of games where this process works? this game in particular lives off of a tight knit group of approximately 200-300 players who rarely ever are on at the same time as opposed to some of the other games i play where there is on average 400 people online at the same time this game exists solely because up until recently the userbase has worked in harmony with the admins we are not a large enough community to have room for this seperation and i can honestly probably safely say the admins probably want user input on how punishments are handled because we are this tight knit group of users

so you want the people who are already in question to determine their own fate? forgive me for my disagreement but havent they already put their "life" in their hands when they did something to even warrant being thought of for consideration of a dd?

think of it this way

i extort you IRL (just a example not a threat) i get a pass with a warning

i extort 1 more person i get a 50 50 chance to live

i extort again and i get a 75% chance to die (i roll a live)

i extort again

so 4 infractions before admins get involved? thats a little too much of a buffer if you ask me

i think jury of peers is best bet to give a sufficient "buffer"

Liam, it is nothing like a close group of 200-300 people who influence things here, the number is significantly smaller, and the times I can recall where the relationship between the administration and the players is something like harmonious is when one of the top players is also an admin or an owner. It is no coincidence that the periods with the least direct admin/player conflicts are also the same ones where an admin has a player account towards or at the pinnacle of the game. That tells me that we're going wrong somewhere.

The answer to that problem is 100% not to give the very small percentage of people who make this stuff everyone's business even greater involvement in things that have absolutely nothing to do with them. We don't need a thread every time someone gets a DD and we certainly don't need a public review of every admin jail, suspension or ban. We are totally emphasising the wrong elements.

To me, all of these things could be fixed by:

• Players agree to code of conduct/rules
• Administration outline disciplinary procedure
• Administration outline appeals procedure
• Player violates code of conduct/rule
• Player is punished in line with disciplinary procedure
• Player has right to the appeal 
• Appeal considered, decision finalised

And then the matter is done. It is crystal clear what has happened and why.

As a player, I think it is great that the admins here make changes and code new shit for us to play with, even if those changes aren't always my cup of tea. I also appreciate that there are times from a development perspective where user input and feedback is invaluable and perhaps I misspoke if I gave the impression that I'm calling for that to end, because I'm not. However, those times should never include events where the administration is actually administrating; that is what they are implicitly entrusted by the players to do.

Most people here want to just play the game and I firmly believe that the best way for that to happen is to formalise the procedures and then actually follow them. It would remove so much of the animosity between the administration and the players as well as removing all ambiguity over the punishment themselves.

Barry you could have summed up that long post with a lot less. You want -

Appeal System.

You claim the admins/owner's behavior is dictated by whether they are actively using a personal playing account. That is a BIG assumption and tells me once again, everything you say is based on what you think you know and sometimes lacks rational thinking.

I agree with some points you have made and ideas you have spoken of in the past. I will give you that. Keep in mind, some of the recent events weren't even listed in the Player Conduct Policy because such player/game behavior had not occurred before and the admins/owner had to adjust and update/punish accordingly.

Everything isn't always black and white.. :)

The good thing about my opinion, Smokey, is that I develop it on the basis of evidence. That is why I don't say ridiculously nonsensical things (like 21 individual posts all say the same things, when the evidence categorically proves that they are different) and instead make logical, rational statements. Since you appear to have misunderstood, which isn't very surprising, honestly, what I said was:

..the times I can recall where the relationship between the administration and the players is something like harmonious is when one of the top players is also an admin or an owner.

So, with this in mind, let's compare the relationship during say, Roman's time in charge, Marietta's or even DeadlySin's to the current regime or any others in recent memory where an admin/owner wasn't directly at the pinnacle of the game. Are you honestly going to tell me that the level of animosity between the admins and users was similar at those times to what it is when purely players hold sway? If you did, you would be wrong. That fact tells me that we are going wrong somewhere.

I also don't think that correlation is particularly difficult to understand either, because if the admins have a direct line/influence to someone making player decisions they have a lot greater understanding of what is happening and why, than they would otherwise.

Now, the reason why I didn't just make a two word response as you've suggested is because the process I outlined are how most successful games operate in practice. It needs to be formulaic and documented so that most issues are covered, rather than just tacking on an appeals process to the current paradigm as you've naively picked out. I'm also aware that everything isn't always black and white and some things wouldn't be listed in a Player Conduct Policy. Fortunately, I covered that in my earlier post in this thread, which I'm going to assume you missed. Here it is again, anyway:

If something exceptional then happens that isn't contained within the code of conduct/site rules, then that person can be placed in Admin Jail (which will likely be a step in the disciplinary procedure anyway) until an appropriate punishment can be determined. That user can then follow the formal complaints procedure if they feel they have been treated unjustly and, any complaints procedure worth its salt, will include oversight by someone other than the person who decided upon the original course of action; typically one of the principals.

This seems to be the best way forward to me and can I suggest if you're going to target my responses in the future you actually try to engage your brain before doing so. It would save me having to copy and paste things I've already said, which you couldn't be bothered to read the first time, that actually negate the points you were trying to make.

Indeed I did miss that post Barry. Like I said, you have some valid points. Try not to be a troll about everything and I'll take you seriously. I don't know if the rules need to be changed, maybe so?

Barry, I wasn't an Admin at all when I was Godfather. I didn't become Admin until June 7th, about a month after that character died.

It isn't only harmonious when an admin or owner is at the top, and I can recall many many more examples other than the ones you've listed where it could be considered harmonious.

I'd also like to point out, during my time at the top I wasn't admin (yes I know I said that already) - but there was a player in the game who was RH to a Godfather (SammyGarcini, the right hand being Katniss, someone who stepped down from an administrator position to take right hand in game). If you know much about my time at the top alongside these people, you'll probably already know the point I'm going to make. SammyGarcini, with an Admin that had stepped down only so she could be right hand, was admin wacked (and later revived, but still, he was admin wacked). That doesn't seem very harmonious to me, and I would definitely say that Kendra was directly at the pinnacle of the game (or at least as close as it mattered, being RH to that GF).

So anyway, I guess I could sum that whole thing up by saying; the game tends to have 'harmony' between admins and players when rules aren't broken, and lines aren't crossed. Admins that play the game are probably just less likely to cross those lines, or break those rules.

Fair enough, DeadlySin. I do not think one admin wack and revival, really proves or disproves either way the harmony between players and operators. 

My personal interpretation is that the relationship is pretty sour at the moment between the admins and the users at the top of the game and it isn't the first time that has happened regardless of whether rules have been broken or not and indeed, there seemed to be animosity prior to rules being broken in this situation too. 

For that reason, I think adopting the policies I've outlined previously would be beneficial to the game now and in the future.

Apologies, I was just presenting one piece of evidence, I didn't think I'd have to go through every time period in history just to prove my point - I'm also not going to. You brought my name into this debate and I'm going to quote exactly what you said:

"Are you honestly going to tell me that the level of animosity between the admins and users was similar at those times to what it is when purely players hold sway? If you did, you would be wrong. That fact tells me that we are going wrong somewhere."

I was just pointing out that the level of 'animosity' doesn't have such a defined line as "if an admin is in power, there's none", which is exactly what you were saying. Please don't change the argument once I show you that you're wrong, it's slightly annoying and just makes you seem like your dodging valid points.

I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with your idea by the way (and didn't say I did or didn't at any point) - I was just pointing a few things out which I saw wrong with what you were saying, as you brought my name into this.

I've been giving thought to this whole topic, but I haven't really got any cohesive thoughts yet that I could share. If I think of anything you can be sure I'll post in here at some point :P

I've already stated my interpretation of the player/admin animosity situation, so I'm not going to again and I think there is enough evidence to suggest a correlation there. 

I wasn't attempting to dodge valid points or change the parameters of the discussion. Nor do I expect (or want) you or I to trawl through history for examples to attempt to prove or disprove whether the relationship between player/admin has been more or less harmonious over time when an admin has been in charge, because it isn't really pertinent to the conversation and probably won't help all that much at the moment. So, the only thing I am exactly saying is that I feel a problem exists with how these things are dealt with at the moment and they could be improved upon. 

I, mistakenly as it turns out, thought you were an admin at the time of my writing the previous response which mentioned you. I thought I had made it clear I was conceding that point in my reply; if it wasn't, I am. Consider your name retracted.