Clarification of the Code of Conduct

quote: Teams - ALL WELCOMED

Have you considered that you may take the result of an online game too seriously if someone new is "ruining" your fun? A better outlook would most definitely provide you with more fun rather than a simple "I only have fun when I win".

Is not the reason we play these games to enjoy them or escape the stress of the real world?

Besides that, we were all new at one point or time. You need to show some compassion/patience for your fellow human beings on the other side of the monitor(s) trying to escape from the stresses of the real world (much like yourself). To stress yourself further by desiring nothing less than a victory is just adding unnecessary stress with little to no benefit should you find victory..

Yogzototh
Platinum.

Newbies are fun:
http://zero-k.info/Battles/Detail/281135

Yogzototh - I really wish you'd stop spewing nonsense. Hurling abuses at a new player never contributes towards making them a pro, but encouraging them to keep playing and improving, to read the manual and watch replays, and advising them on what to do/not do next time certainly does. It is these facts the CoC is based on, and most of the community is quite satisfied with it. I suggest you read it again (I wonder if you ever actually have, though), along with KingRaptor's post back there.

CarRepairer - That raises a question - should one not make the offender aware of the Code and their offence first? It is possible that they weren't aware of the Code or that (for example) their attempt at humor was in poor taste...and perhaps only when they persist in the offensive behaviour should they be reported?

Just because someone is trying to derail this thread with their opinions about the CoC, which we've already heard multiple times in previous threads, doesn't warrant a lock imo. The OP's question is valid and the discussion's mostly been good.

Edit: Tho I guess OP's question has been answered a couple of times already so whatevs. I just got a bit of a "terrorists win" vibe from the thought of having to lock this thread.

quote: Ive tried to play Platinum recently. We had a nice 3vs3. Then a random NOOB (ban me) came, did !move Springiee, more NOOBS (ban me twice) voted !y and the platinum was ruined.

I hate it when that happens. Why cant !votemove be removed? All it does is annoy people.

quote: You keep flogging a dead horse. You keep insisting that some players (specifically the [TROLL clan]) are given worse treatment, despite your lack of any evidence at all. You accuse the admins of refusing to consider any arguments you make, which as the record shows is a case of a man pitching stones in glass houses. Also, your logic and reading comprehension skills are beyond terrible.

This will be the sixth time we have dealt with petulant bawwage, and we have become exceedingly efficient at it.

Sprung it seems silly to deny that admins are less lenient on repeat offenders when admins themselves wouldn't deny that fact

For instance when Googlefrog banned sfireman without even checking the replay, just because somebody filed a complaint. I think the ban was later lifted when people actually checked the replay but it's a good example of what ZK moderators are like

On the topic of this thread, I think people need to stop bickering like catholic housewives on this matter and accept that people on online games aren't always going to be as friendly as you want them to be, trying to enforce some strict policy of politeness is ridiculous

quote: So 1st of all, decide what is an ''offence''. When reciever felt offended? Or when other people thoutgh that the receiver might have felt offended? Or even when the sender intended to offend the reciever (even if failed)?

The way I see it:

1) Some words (e.g. racial slurs) are considered intrinsically offensive, and are to be immediately punished even when not directed at anyone; barring certain circumstances (example: giving an example of the category of words rather than actually using it).

2) Most words in the language do not, of course, fall into such a category. Spamming markers with things like "MAKE LLT FFS" on an ally's base might be penalized, but this is not a function of any of the words involved in themselves.

3) Words like "fool" and the [Nn][AaOoUu]+[Bb] family occupy a position in between. Though they have an insulting connotation, they may not always be used for such a purpose. Under such circumstances we examine the context (see #2 above) to determine whether verbal abuse is occurring, in which case the words involved can be treated as increasing the severity of the offence.

4) As an addendum to #2 and #3, the filing of reports (particularly by the person the words were directed at) are usually considered indicative that the speech was indeed considered hostile or offensive. However (importantly), this is not always the case (anyone remember Vigevanese?)

5) All that said, a certain group of people (we'll refer to them as Bad Guys for convenience, despite the imprecision of the term) will be more readily treated as being offensive and/or having an aggressive intent towards others. Factors involved in landing you in this category include:
- Repeat offences get you moved towards the Bad Guy category
- Getting defensive and double down when confronted with your bad behaviour gets you moved towards the Bad Guy category
- Making baww threads after receiving penalties gets you moved towards the Bad Guy category
- Using illogical arguments to defend yourself gets you treated as being unhelpable, which is functionally the same as being treated as a Bad Guy
- Lying, using intellectually dishonest arguments, etc. gets you moved towards the Bad Guy category
- If your conduct generally involves treating others badly (I'm thinking of @[TROLL]st[O_ot]man here) you will be quickly placed in the Bad Guy category
- If you verbally abuse us we might just mute or ban you off the bat. If you think this is unfair, try heckling the host at the next social event you go to and see how long it takes for you to be ejected from the premises.

These factors act in concert: the more of them you have/do, the more likely we are to banhammer first and ask questions later.

^This sums up the issue quite well. Well said Sprung.