About ban of Firepluk

Could the composition of the administration explain, based on the rules of the zero-k community, how it created the 100-year warning for Firepluk?

The very fact of issuing such a warning looks like an inadequate decision, like a rage.

quote: applied to you specifically

How did you create new rules for a specific person out of nothing? Is this adequate?

Firepluk gets a lot of hate but he's actually quite fun to play with, below the crusty lobster layer he brings on a lot of freshness with his plays.

BTW I'm a simple man, I see thread about admin abuse, I upvote.

quote: Its pretty easy when you can just say "because of his history" when his in reality his "history" is him getting banned for saying shit like "lobster" No point analyzing it too deeply, aquanims boss probably gave him a hard time at work or something lol firepluk being the 1 mildly toxic guy in community, admins dont have many choices

I have access to Firepluk's chat history, abuse reports, and penalty history at my fingertips. Everything you said is a gross misrepresentation of all of the above.

The firepluk warning is not exactly a specific rule for firepluk. It's a notice that he will no longer be given tolerance for repeated violations of the CoC and will be more aggressively penalized for them to encourage him to clean up his act.


Some relevant sections that Firepluk was routinely violating:
1. Respect Other People
Be mindful of your language and tone. Good-natured banter is tolerated; being hostile and abusive is not. Remember that intentions can be lost in the format of text chat. Do not flood chat with messages or otherwise attempt to annoy others or disrupt games.
Don't be hostile or abusive when other players play poorly or ignore your advice. Blaming other players for a loss can easily become hostile and abusive. Don't direct your frustration at others.
Spectators can chat with players, offering advice or conversation, in some of the more casual game types. Avoid excessive public commentary, revealing hidden information, and do not heckle. If a player wants to play without interruption then the spectators should respect this desire and cease using public chat. Feel free to discuss the game in spectator chat (hotkey Alt + Enter). Check for the a: or s: in front of your chat message.

We do not tolerate language or any other form of communication that is abusive, bigoted, racist, or sexist.
If somebody has a user name or commander name in poor taste the moderators may require that this name be changed. We do try to be reasonably flexible. If your user name needs changing, or if you need an opinion on whether a name is in poor taste, contact a moderator. (Specific wording of this point, and guidance as to the definition of "poor taste", pending review by moderator team.)
Remember that on the forum you are voting about the post, NOT the person. For example, even if you disagree with something that somebody has said or done, do not downvote unrelated posts of theirs on the forum. Abuse of forum votes in this way may result in the deletion of some or all of your forum voting history.

2. Help New Players
You are not obligated to interact with new players, but if you do, offer them friendly advice and help with any issues they may have. Mentor them and teach them how to play. Be forgiving of their mistakes and be sympathetic when they fail to perform well.
Do not expect or demand that other players (new or otherwise) follow your advice, and do not insult or abuse them if they do not listen to you.

The main apparatus for action for administration is a code of conduct: https://zero-k.info/mediawiki/index.php?title=Zero-K:Code_of_Conduct#1._Respect_Other_People


The main rule from which the blocking comes is 5:

quote: Moderators use their best judgement in deciding when to impose penalties and how severe to make them. They consult with each other to ensure their judgement is appropriate and fair. When reviewing potential violations of this Code of Conduct, moderators apply the spirit rather than the letter of the law. Warnings are preferred over penalties, but penalties can and will be applied where warnings are ignored or the severity of the violation warrants it. New players are given the benefit of the doubt; repeat offenders and verbally abusive players are not.

quote: Moderators use their best judgement in deciding when to impose penalties and how severe to make them.

What about a punishment of 100 years?

quote: When reviewing potential violations of this Code of Conduct, moderators apply the spirit rather than the letter of the law.

Spirit?

quote: For example, even if you disagree with something that somebody has said or done, do not downvote unrelated posts of theirs on the forum. Abuse of forum votes in this way may result in the deletion of some or all of your forum voting history.

That is too strong, imo. I remember writing some very strongly worded response about this topic. Being toxic and and writing mean stuff that can actually hurt someone is one thing, downvoting posts in a childlish manner as a "revenge" is something completely different. Dumb, but that should not be punishable. Here, im my opinion, moderators cross a line.

Also, I understand the warning Firepluk got, his ggs and wtfs and quitting midgame were quite annoying. Maybe that warning should not be publicly visible, but that is another thing. I am just of an opinion that perma banning should not be used (maybe in extreme cases) (and not even on the forum) and since Firepluk wasnt perma banned but just perma warned, I am content.

quote: For example, even if you disagree with something that somebody has said or done, do not downvote unrelated posts of theirs on the forum. Abuse of forum votes in this way may result in the deletion of some or all of your forum voting history.

quote: That is too strong, imo. I remember writing some very strongly worded response about this topic. Being toxic and and writing mean stuff that can actually hurt someone is one thing, downvoting posts in a childlish manner as a "revenge" is something completely different. Dumb, but that should not be punishable. Here, im my opinion, moderators cross a line.

Simply put, this rule is in the Code of Conduct because if downvotes are going to mean "I dislike this person" rather than "I disagree with this post" then we would just delete downvotes from the forum entirely, because "I dislike this person" downvotes seem like a worthless thing to have exist.

tangentially related to this problem, I wish there is a room specifically for banned members such that they can only see that room.

marked as "toxic" or "low priority" or "banned players' room" or "hell" or "purgatory" [Valve also use this method I believe]

other players can join that room but they would be warned/know that whatever happened in that room is not the intended experience of the game and most likely is frown upon.

this way we don't have to completely kick out creative trolls like Firepluk while limiting the spread of undesirable influences.

this also helps with a few other problems:

-decrease lobster pot [since this low priority room can seed a 2nd pot game]
-free speech zone [this low priority room doesn't feel like it need to be moderated or should be moderated]
- let the trolls troll each other [I hope this would encourage empathy to those being trolled]
- chance of redemption [if players with impossibly long ban time can prove that they try their best in the low priority room they sentences can be reduced]
-decrease the severity of banning [since ban doesn't completely cut players off the game, ban can be used more widely]

I don't think there is much point to having a detailed discussion with people who conflate punishment, warning and ban. Firepluk is able to play Zero-K. If he does the things listed, which are already against the CoC, then will receive penalties with increased severity and reduced benefit of the doubt. This is due to his long history of doing these things and not learning from penalties. This is ultimately how it works for everyone. You're just seeing the extreme edge case.

I think Firepluk enjoyed to be on the line of what is considered acceptable according to the code of conduct, both with game style and communication wise. For me the games that resulted ranged from really funny, to really annoying (mostly because he can do fun stuff even if his first thing he tried failed), to just normal.

Somehow I see the 100 year warning similar to what Firepluk does in game/chat - if you take the spirit of it, it's not that bad (basically it says "try to behave a bit nicer, we know you are smart enough to figure out what is nice"), but if you look at every comma you can get offended ("how dare you say I am a useless noob because I made 6 storages?!","why ban of 100 years and not 89.5?!")

I hope he does come and play occasionally (playing 90% probably of the time is not healthy anyhow :-p) and enjoys the game.

Firepluk was one of the people that helped me get into the game, together with Chesti.
I think outside of the game itself it`s a nice person.
But why does he not want to play anymore? It seems for him it`s not about playing zk, it`s about being annoying. And that is the actual problem.

Guys, it´s Firepluks responsibility. Not the admins. Or the game-policy. Firepluk got so many more chances than most players, complaining that people are to strict on him now is absurd.