The problem is I think some people won't look at the complaints with this and in reality some complaints will be more complex than guilty or innocent. This means people will make incorrect assumptions through these complaints. That's my concern here.

 

You really missed my point.

 

I think the "Warned, Banned, Dismissed" might work better. It would reduce the idea of counting complaints, and start counting warnings / bannings. Reading 3 pages of complaint to figure out that the charges were dismissed is harder than looking at a title that a Staff member has changed to the verdict. No "incorrect assumptions" there. No "it wasn't as bad as you think". If they we warned, they were warned. If they were banned, they were found guilty enough to get a "time out" until they could write a good enough appeal to return.

Now, if someone wants to say "I was unfairly accused, even though the Staff determined I was guilty and temp banned me for 3 days"... sorry, they were guilty. If you want me to review the entire court case (complaint, evidence gathering), then I'll just stick to counting complaints ;)

Right now, if someone has 5 complaints against them for the same thing, they go on my /ignore list. If the verdict was added, and they have 5 "Dismissed" complaints, then I might start looking at who wrote those complaints... but I wont automatically be dismissing them as someone I have no interest in interacting with.

We've all written essays. The first paragraph tells you what the essay is about / what you are trying to prove. I'm here to play, not do homework ;)

 

+1.

It helps for easier searching. It's not going to change my opinion of offenders, I still check their violation.

"It will create dis-trust".
Good. If the offender grief's towns, scam's players, why should we trust them?

"Because people change"
Yes, but their change shouldn't excuse their offence. If you break rules, it should be clearly logged for future reference.

It gives offenders another reason to not break the rules.

 

I also like these titles much better - clear and concise.
gstone, it sounds as if you and I have the same ignore list :p

 

+1
I think it is a great idea that will safe a lot of time when checking peoples' record. Moreover I don't really think it will create "avoidable negative assumptions to be made about users" as it will create the same negative assumptions but is less time.

 

I'm a bit mixed on the idea.
I see how it could be a useful utility.

But I'm also concerned about how certain situations play out and whether this could lead to assumptions being made incorrectly.
Even with the [Warned], [Banned], or [Dismissed], complaints aren't always as clear cut as that. What about when complaints are filed for scamming, and the players work out a new deadline? I don't see the tags being super useful unless we also included the offense: People can be awful in one area and great in another. What if you were searching for a players history to make a deal and saw a bunch of complaints that resulted in warnings and bans, but none for scamming?

Why not just look through a players appeal history? You'll only find the cases where a ban was placed.

 

Would you trust an SG hacker with a feature buy? No problems with accepting a Scammer as a resident in your town?

Sorry, but no. Breach of trust in one area does NOT mean that they should be viewed as Angels in a different one. If someone gets perma-banned for something, they are untrustworthy for ANYthing.

That being said, it would take being banned for the 2nd time for the same offense (RO) for me to add them to my "they are trash" list.

 

Wow, a little harsh @gstoner3 - don't you think? :p What if it was their little brother the first time, their cousin the second time? Perhaps a 3 times and your out would be a little more fair, unless it is the pet cat that made it happen and then you would have to give them at least one more chance :D

 

I can dig it
+1

 

I can appreciate (and welcome) the idea that my personal opinion is NOT the opinion of the entire server. It my opinion, not a rule / law.

To restate something that seems to be suffering from misinterpretation, I don't throw anyone who has been banned ONCE on "the trash pile". TWICE gets a long look from me to read about all the circumstances. If someone did the same thing MULTIPLE times, they ARE dead to me. Lessons can be learned, but I am not going to spend my free "play" time teaching someone how to act appropriately multiple times. Not my job, not my responsibility, not my problem. They're gone from my personal pile of sand in the playground. That doesn't mean they can't play in the REST of the playground, but they're not playing with ME.

And yes, that IS final. However, this only applies for me, not the entire ECC community.

@stoler202: ok, you were banned once for a chat / forums offence. You appealed successfully and have since played for 6+ months without repeating that behavior, I'm assuming? If yes, then you learned from your mistake, improved your play style, and contribute to ECC as a whole, from what I can see. Congrats, you are NOT someone I was referring to when I said "trash pile". Now, if you had been banned again 2 weeks later, appealed, then banned again a month later... no, I would NOT be associating with you in the future because you would have proven that you are not capable of learning ;) As an example, most of my "/ignore" list does not play on ECC at the moment.

I believe we both agree on the suggestion, but not on the application we would use the suggestion (if implemented) for.

And for anyone thinking I'm being too harsh *grin* I'm not on Staff, so my "forgiveness" is not something needed to play on ECC ;)

 

This should be done I don't have all day to read someones ban complaints/appeals before a deal. By the way the "people change" argument is a load of BS... you don't see many thiefs working in Fort Knox on the slim chance that they are changed.