[DoYouLiftBro]

I feel hours followed by increasing punishment is much more effective than a large consequence instantly.

Instantly? Man had 11 total warnings, that’s more than enough time to realize something you’re doing is wrong.

  Warns have been used to finalize a grand finale punishment, and that's my point. These warnings are nothing but in-game "badboi points" which I find completely ineffective. A lot of these given warns I've seen show a delay of action and consequence. You could argue a warn is a consequence, but they are the lowest forms of reinforcement. It's very easy to issue a swift punishment to nip the actions of players in the bud than it is to give them a badboi point. It's not about how many points should equal a punishment, it should be about how fast you can defuse a situation or player in a reasonable timeframe. Any form of banning punishment of >24 hours can actually do surprising well as a break period instead of a larger punishment which tends to generate animosity. This isn't simply about Ernesto and his large number of warns; as it applies to most scenarios.

Im responding to this line, and in particular, Ernest here had already received a temp ban because he had been micspamming a ton.  You would think that  a ban of >24 hours would work.  Some people however do not know how to take a clue and instead he came back and continued to do so.  He knows it, yet he continues to do it.  That in part is why he has racked up the amount of warnings he has.  

Ill continue to respond to the rest of this.  Warns are supposed to keep a record of those who consistently break the rules, allowing us to see their history of past rule breaking.  We still stick to our punishment guideline and warns should help a person knock off what ever behavior they are participating in better than a verbal reminder.  When someone has reached the amount of warns like ernest has here, staff discretion comes into play.  In this case, the admin used staff discretion to issue a longer temporary ban that will hopefully get him to learn.

And I guess since I am here, Ernest just serve the rest of the ban bro. You know better.

[Demi Lovato's Heroin Spoon]

I feel hours followed by increasing punishment is much more effective than a large consequence instantly.

Instantly? Man had 11 total warnings, that’s more than enough time to realize something you’re doing is wrong.

  Warns have been used to finalize a grand finale punishment, and that's my point. These warnings are nothing but in-game "badboi points" which I find completely ineffective. A lot of these given warns I've seen show a delay of action and consequence. You could argue a warn is a consequence, but they are the lowest forms of reinforcement. It's very easy to issue a swift punishment to nip the actions of players in the bud than it is to give them a badboi point. It's not about how many points should equal a punishment, it should be about how fast you can defuse a situation or player in a reasonable timeframe. Any form of banning punishment of >24 hours can actually do surprising well as a break period instead of a larger punishment which tends to generate animosity. This isn't simply about Ernesto and his large number of warns; as it applies to most scenarios.

Im responding to this line, and in particular, Ernest here had already received a temp ban because he had been micspamming a ton.  You would think that  a ban of >24 hours would work.  Some people however do not know how to take a clue and instead he came back and continued to do so.  He knows it, yet he continues to do it.  That in part is why he has racked up the amount of warnings he has.  

Ill continue to respond to the rest of this.  Warns are supposed to keep a record of those who consistently break the rules, allowing us to see their history of past rule breaking.  We still stick to our punishment guideline and warns should help a person knock off what ever behavior they are participating in better than a verbal reminder.  When someone has reached the amount of warns like ernest has here, staff discretion comes into play.  In this case, the admin used staff discretion to issue a longer temporary ban that will hopefully get him to learn.

And I guess since I am here,  Ernest just serve the rest of the ban bro.  You know better.

  It's very similar to looking under a microscope for every infraction. I've always considered stacking warns a very poor way to handle situations. I'm going to avoid nitpicking players I've played with tonight, but the warn system is just odd on how it's used. 11 warns is a very high number, but how many warns can a player receive in such a small timeframe before actual punishment is taken to prevent that player from garnering more? As I previously mentioned, imo, it's being used to microscope players to justify large punishments. The warn system isn't horrible as you mentioned it's equivalent to the ulx whitelist which notifies staff of users actions, but I dislike the implementation and how I've seen it used. Where is this staff discretion used to prevent the player from stacking warns upon warns? It does not seem fair, though, I do agree Ernie had it coming and I'm not justifying his actions.

 It's no doubt that Ernie is pushing boundaries, but these warns cannot be classified as punishments. I think it's unfair to be lenient, trap him into a self-sustained "warn corner" and then punishing him more intensely.

[Foxka]

I feel hours followed by increasing punishment is much more effective than a large consequence instantly.

Instantly? Man had 11 total warnings, that’s more than enough time to realize something you’re doing is wrong.

  Warns have been used to finalize a grand finale punishment, and that's my point. These warnings are nothing but in-game "badboi points" which I find completely ineffective. A lot of these given warns I've seen show a delay of action and consequence. You could argue a warn is a consequence, but they are the lowest forms of reinforcement. It's very easy to issue a swift punishment to nip the actions of players in the bud than it is to give them a badboi point. It's not about how many points should equal a punishment, it should be about how fast you can defuse a situation or player in a reasonable timeframe. Any form of banning punishment of >24 hours can actually do surprising well as a break period instead of a larger punishment which tends to generate animosity. This isn't simply about Ernesto and his large number of warns; as it applies to most scenarios.

Im responding to this line, and in particular, Ernest here had already received a temp ban because he had been micspamming a ton.  You would think that  a ban of >24 hours would work.  Some people however do not know how to take a clue and instead he came back and continued to do so.  He knows it, yet he continues to do it.  That in part is why he has racked up the amount of warnings he has.  

Ill continue to respond to the rest of this.  Warns are supposed to keep a record of those who consistently break the rules, allowing us to see their history of past rule breaking.  We still stick to our punishment guideline and warns should help a person knock off what ever behavior they are participating in better than a verbal reminder.  When someone has reached the amount of warns like ernest has here, staff discretion comes into play.  In this case, the admin used staff discretion to issue a longer temporary ban that will hopefully get him to learn.

And I guess since I am here,  Ernest just serve the rest of the ban bro.  You know better.

  It's very similar to looking under a microscope for every infraction. I've always considered stacking warns a very poor way to handle situations. I'm going to avoid nitpicking players I've played with tonight, but the warn system is just odd on how it's used. 11 warns is a very high number, but how many warns can a player receive in such a small timeframe before actual punishment is taken to prevent that player from garnering more? As I previously mentioned, imo, it's being used to microscope players to justify large punishments. The warn system isn't horrible as you mentioned it's equivalent to the ulx whitelist which notifies staff of users actions, but I dislike the implementation and how I've seen it used. Where is this staff discretion used to prevent the player from stacking warns upon warns? It does not seem fair, though, I do agree Ernie had it coming and I'm not justifying his actions.

 It's no doubt that Ernie is pushing boundaries, but these warns cannot be classified as punishments. I think it's unfair to be lenient, trap him into a self-sustained "warn corner" and then punishing him more intensely.

Do u know what a criminal record is

[Ckg]

Where is this staff discretion used to prevent the player from stacking warns upon warns? It does not seem fair, though, I do agree Ernie had it coming and I'm not justifying his actions.

 It's no doubt that Ernie is pushing boundaries, but these warns cannot be classified as punishments. I think it's unfair to be lenient, trap him into a self-sustained "warn corner" and then punishing him more intensely.

Addressing the bolded parts of your argument, players bring warns upon themself.  We decided to give Ernie the benefit of the doubt multiple times and he continued to break the same rules.  I don't know what you mean by it doesn't seem fair conserving we gave him sufficient warnings, verbal and aware, to change his behavior and he decided not to.  I'd argue actually, that is more fair to give him warnings to stop breaking the rules, as opposed to just banning him outright.  It also pretty unreasonable to ask staff to stop players from breaking the rules and doing actions that would generate warns along with other punishments.  Like if I tell someone "hey stop micspamming" and they ignore me that's on them and not on me for not preventing from stacking up punishments and warns as they continue.  As staff we enforce the rules, if someone wants to cheat, troll, or continuously micspam, we can't really stop them completely except for banning them.

The second argument you make is that warns cannot be classified as punishments.  They are not punishments, but are given alongside punishments (i.e gags, or kicks).  It is more of a way of keeping track of infractions for staff.  Warnings are usually given after the 3rd punishment and coincide with a kick, and then subsequently after that for continuing to break the rules.  We are not "trapping" players in breaking the rules, like I'm genuinely confused to what you even mean by this.  You yourself describe it as "self-sustained" meaning he is one who is keeping the cycle going, not the staff.  You know what he could do to not sustain the cycle? Not break the rules. :o

If he chooses to break the rules how are we trapping him???  It not like we're going "haha let's change the rules to prevent micspam without telling Ernie so he goes and unknowingly breaks them".  Like this argument of us trapping him, by him, independently, choosing to continuously break the rules and not listen to warnings given by staff is utterly non-sensible.  By being lenient we are allowing him more than enough chances to change how he was acting and not have it come to this, because he chose not to he was punished accordingly.

[Foxka]

-snip-

Do u know what a criminal record is

Snipped

Lmfaoooo you know what I mean though, warnings are there for a reason. You cant expect to rack up 11 warnings and NOT be banned

[Demi Lovato's Heroin Spoon]

[/quote]
Do u know what a criminal record is
[/quote]

Yikes. That's an entire can of worms better left untouched.

The second argument you make is that warns cannot be classified as punishments.  They are not punishments, but are given alongside punishments (i.e gags, or kicks).  It is more of a way of keeping track of infractions for staff.  Warnings are usually given after the 3rd punishment and coincide with a kick, and then subsequently after that for continuing to break the rules.  We are not "trapping" players in breaking the rules, like I'm genuinely confused to what you even mean by this.  You yourself describe it as "self-sustained" meaning he is one who is keeping the cycle going, not the staff.  You know what he could do to not sustain the cycle? Not break the rules. :o

If he chooses to break the rules how are we trapping him???  It not like we're going "haha let's change the rules to prevent micspam without telling Ernie so he goes and unknowingly breaks them".  Like this argument of us trapping him, by him, independently, choosing to continuously break the rules and not listen to warnings given by staff is utterly non-sensible.  By being lenient we are allowing him more than enough chances to change how he was acting and not have it come to this, because he chose not to he was punished accordingly.

Some players can actively receive 1-4 warns per few map cycles without significant punishment, farming them pretty easily. These warns are turning into lazy reinforcement stickers. If you are allowing players to gain a large amount of warns within a short timeframe to punish them you are trapping them. A warning should be followed by punishment rather than allowing a player to gain multiple before an action is taken - huh, kinda like a crime. At the moment they're given very loosely to anybody who breaks a rule which is bizarre. As Garry's Mod players you notice players develop habitual gameplay that is positive or negative, so it's less about how they can stop rather than how can you address it. It's pretty bold to expect anything less from a game that's reminiscent of an MW2 lobby.

Displaying leniency in the form of warns and then justifying a large punishment as an effect of weak reprimand is the issue. They should work in conjunction rather than having a player need to reach a threshold that is easily gained. You're warned for 0.5 seconds of a loud microphone, a burp, a slur, and every other easily repeatable action. This is less about Ernie and rather how the staff team is throwing out empty disciplinary warns that don't accompany anything and then being shocked when a player continues their actions. If we're arguing criminal cases, then we should argue how disciplinary warnings in multiple court cases have been deemed not forms of punishment and were considered to not be lawfully used to justify punishment - oh wait, this is a game. This will most likely be locked, but feel free to message me on Discord because I can whip up a mean MS Paint chart.

[dong]

This is just my view, but this whole staff vs regular drama is so unneeded. You all say “staff” as a general term, but no I know for a fact that 95% of our staff don’t overuse awarn. That word in this scenario is only applicable to 2-3 people, so why not say their name instead of applying it to an entire team. Acknowledge the issue head on rather than pointing the finger at all of us. 

Pardon my French here, but why shit on all of us for the actions of a few? We try to make the game playable for all people, we aren’t going out of our way to screw up your time so why attack us anytime you are able?

As for Ernie, I apologize that you’ve had a few warnings that weren’t needed, but you have had quite a few legitimate ones. You had also just came off of a ban. My advice to you is next time you’re on a GMod server go to settings, then voice tab, and turn down the voice transmit volume. That should fix how loud your mic is. As for my vote on the appeal I’m neutral to all outcomes, just thought I’d add my two cents in.

[Ckg]

“Some players can actively receive 1-4 warns per few map cycles without significant punishment, farming them pretty easily. These warns are turning into lazy reinforcement stickers. If you are allowing players to gain a large amount of warns within a short timeframe to punish them you are trapping them.
Displaying leniency in the form of warns and then justifying a large punishment as an effect of weak reprimand is the issue. They should work in conjunction rather than having a player need to reach a threshold that is easily gained..”


They [warnings] are not punishments, but are given alongside punishments (i.e gags, or kicks).

Warnings are a way for staff to keep track of how many infractions someone has had, while at the same time having proof that we have sufficiently informed them on how to act properly.  The warning also shows up in chat for them so they can see it as opposed to a verbal warning which may be lost amongst other voices. It seems like in response you overlooked the fact the the warnings in themselves aren’t a punishment but coincide with a punishment to let players know for sure what they are being punished for and for staff to keep track of the players who constantly cause trouble.  You’re being unreasonable asking staff to control players who refuse to be controlled.  I would pose to you the question as to what to do if you told someone to stop micspamming and they decided to continue even after you issued them multiple gags? Considering you thought this ban was too harsh for Ernie, a ban for anything less would not be fair according to you. So that takes bans out of the options, leaving only gags and kicks.  It’s unreasonable to kick someone every time they micspam, because if they join back and continue the endless cycle of kicks won’t achieve anything.  This leaves only gags, which we already have levels of that we passed, and it seems as if you’re suggesting to only move up in gag length. At that point if someone is quiet after a round gag and a map gag why are they gonna stop after a 30 min gag, a 2 map gag, an hour gag, or anything until it’s just a ban or permanent gag.  While I recognize you don’t have staffing experience it’s incredibly unreasonable to ask staff to keep track of specific timing for multiple gags while trying to handle everything else.
Thus in the end the only system that works with the steps you request is to have staff completely disregard micspam for efficiency and fairness’ sake, which is just dumb.  You can’t ask staff to change their ways without us having another effective way to get our message across or enforce the rules.

TLDR: play stupid games, win stupid prizes. 

[Demi Lovato's Heroin Spoon]

This is just my view, but this whole staff vs regular drama is so unneeded. You all say “staff” as a general term, but no I know for a fact that 95% of our staff don’t overuse awarn. That word in this scenario is only applicable to 2-3 people, so why not say their name instead of applying it to an entire team.  So pardon my French here, but why shit on all of us? We try to make the game playable for all people, we aren’t going out of our way to screw up your time so why attack us anytime you can? As for Ernie, I apologize that you’ve had a few warnings that weren’t needed, but you have had quite a few legitimate ones. You had also just came off of a ban. My advice to you is next time you’re on a GMod server go to settings, then voice tab, and turn down the voice transmit volume. That should fix how loud your mic is. As for my vote on the appeal I’m neutral to all outcomes, just thought I’d add my two cents in.

I'm sorry you feel that way. It's not my intent to say the staff are doing a poor job. I'm just implying that the warn system in its current state isn't a fair or reasonable system and should be revaluated. I'm firmly against witch-hunting specific individuals, so I'd prefer not to throw any names into the bonfire for the sake of all parties.

Warnings are a way for staff to keep track of how many infractions someone has had, while at the same time having proof that we have sufficiently informed them on how to act properly.  The warning also shows up in chat for them so they can see it as opposed to a verbal warning which may be lost amongst other voices. It seems like in response you overlooked the fact the the warnings in themselves aren’t a punishment but coincide with a punishment to let players know for sure what they are being punished for and for staff to keep track of the players who constantly cause trouble.  You’re being unreasonable asking staff to control players who refuse to be controlled.  I would pose to you the question as to what to do if you told someone to stop micspamming and they decided to continue even after you issued them multiple gags? Considering you thought this ban was too harsh for Ernie, a ban for anything less would not be fair according to you. So that takes bans out of the options, leaving only gags and kicks.  It’s unreasonable to kick someone every time they micspam, because if they join back and continue the endless cycle of kicks won’t achieve anything.  This leaves only gags, which we already have levels of that we passed, and it seems as if you’re suggesting to only move up in gag length. At that point if someone is quiet after a round gag and a map gag why are they gonna stop after a 30 min gag, a 2 map gag, an hour gag, or anything until it’s just a ban or permanent gag.  While I recognize you don’t have staffing experience it’s incredibly unreasonable to ask staff to keep track of specific timing for multiple gags while trying to handle everything else.
Thus in the end the only system that works with the steps you request is to have staff completely disregard micspam for efficiency and fairness’ sake, which is just dumb.  You can’t ask staff to change their ways without us having another effective way to get our message across or enforce the rules.

TLDR: play stupid games, win stupid prizes. 

As my other post mentioned, I was a staff member and community manager of an older community that ran for near double-digit years. The default ulx menu by Ulysses came with the whitelist option that is a silent system for staff members to see user notes that share the same function as the warn system and both of them are equally fair to use, but the warn system being more advanced. The warning system, as you mentioned, is used in conjunction with a punishment AFTER 3 warns. My entire issue is how easy it is to garner these mass amounts of warns to then be used against the player, sometimes not being punished even after 3. You're grasping at straws to imply my reasoning. I am entirely for round gags, map gags, kicks, and bans of increasing increments. People have said that warns are not a punishment, but when you're microscoping a player's infractions to finalize present and future punishments it doesn't seem fair to me; highlighting the problem with how easy it is to gain warnings. As many players and staff alike have brought up, they're using the ridiculously large number of warns against him that show the dichotomy between these not being punishments and being punishments - as you're using this to punish him on an appeal. At this point, you'd be better off installing a ballpit ulx command that separates players from the main voice channel and have them appeal that like a ZS server since nothing works. What I am entirely against is the time disparities in punishments that I've seen jump from a day to permanent. I believe it's fair to agree to disagree at this point as we both aren't seeing the same sides of a coin. I respect your thoughts, but I don't agree.

[Battons]

keep this post on track for ernie, this is his ban appeal. If you want to talk more about the warn system please create a new thread. Also stop quoting each others text walls its annoying.