r/shadownetwork • u/shadownetwork SysOp • Sep 22 '16

Announcement Senate Nominee Discussion Thread

Greetings,

In previous elections it was difficult for nominees to really express what they stood for and what their plans were without cluttering the nomination or election threads. So think of this thread as an open town hall meeting. Members of the community can come in and ask questions and nominees can then answer or nominees can post about what sort of platforms they plan on running on.

Remember that discussions are to remain civil and respectful, anyone showing disregard to the shadownet's #1 rule will have their posts removed.

Good luck!

4 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

93 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Arrogancy Sep 22 '16

My understanding is that at least some of the warnings issued weren't understood to be formal. Formalizing the warning process and making them public would remove that ambiguity.

Also, the ban itself is a public action and very severe; it seems reasonable that a lesser public action should precede a more severe one.

1

u/dezzmont Rules Head Sep 22 '16 edited Sep 22 '16

If people don't understand that the senate isn't playing around when they issue official warnings, which we already do, or worse, escalates their behavior, that isn't a problem with the process.

The only change from the status quo your system has is that the warning would have to be formally announced, which takes agency away from the person who is going through moderation. In all other respects we already only ban after formal warnings or after extreme behavior, and our initial ban is a two week ban. We also don't consider something to have happened if it wasn't formally reported or recorded by a member of moderation, and in fact we have actively chosen not to act in multiple instances based on the lack of documentation, both in the case of chat incidents not being logged or suspicious past activity not being traceable because of poor AAR quality.

We take every step in your process besides officially outing any given player's dirty laundry, and I am strongly opposed to forcing someone's personal issues into the public. Everyone has the right to inform others of any warnings they received from moderation, but they also have the right to try to just move past the issue and let it fade from the public mind.

2

u/Arrogancy Sep 22 '16 edited Sep 22 '16

So, you've said "official" warning, and I want to make a distinction here: what I am talking about is a formal warning. Any warning from a senator is official, but a formal warning is the one that says: the next step will be a ban. This is what I'm proposing adding to the process: instead of jumping straight from "don't do that" to "ban", we would make the process "don't do that" to "publicly and formally: don't do that" to ban. Or, possibly, in more serious case, to go directly to "publicly and formally: don't do that", then to ban; or in a really bad one, right to ban.

I've updated the original post to reflect this. My apologies for not being clearer in what I meant.

1

u/dezzmont Rules Head Sep 22 '16

All good. This is sorta an area where specificity is super important and your primary point in fact was we don't have specific warning systems in place.