Raid Logging / Leaving To Avoid Raid (LTAR)

[IAreGunner 255]

1 hour ago, HtmlRoot said:

Thats why staff members have discretion to separate the good from the bad, the pretty and the ugly. If that were the case, the staff member would let the person go unpunished and if they were seen ingame again, they would be given advice on how to better handle the situation instead of leaving the game, or just not basing and playing the game differently.

 

Yet again; Discretion.

 

Which are dealt with by HR and Overwatch or whatever the ban appeals department is. There are systems in place to put bad staff in their place.

 

There's always alternatives like paying for dupes or asking a friend to make one for them that are more experienced. Also building isn't hard, I picked up on it quite fast. Its easily teachable and learnable.

 

In adding this rule it would be made clear how to properly issue punishments with this new rule. Also, it would expand the leave timer for LTAR's to something to like 5 minutes instead of the 2 minute timer. Thats more then enough time to get a breather before logging out.

 

 

Adding onto what I said, we could make LTAR vary in punishment degree from 1 to 3 days based on severity of the situation, the person who logged off with level and playtime as a factor and so on. It might complicate the punishment aspect, but its the only way we could properly be more lenient on some people when its needed.

Staff members are ban happy, I don’t want it to come down to “mod discretion” 

 

it should be a rule for higher level or shouldn’t a rule at all. 
 

we shouldn’t ban lesser level players because they wanna leave the game after getting there shit rocked by some dude outside there with a rpg, 

Edited April 10 by IAreGunner

[ChrisRid 900]

Neutral

 

I think Shank and Gunner summarise my position on this actually, and they've made some decent points in my opinion.

 

Just a couple of things I saw others mention which I thought would be worth touching-base on:

• If you click 'Disconnect' then you disconnect immediately. But if you were to just unplug your PC, your player and entities hang-around for a few mins from my experiences.
• I would argue that LTAP (Leaving to avoid punishment) doesn't apply in this scenario. It's certainly FailRP without a doubt, but the FailRP was leaving in-itself. You would have to rejoin, be brought to a sit, then leave a second time knowing that you'd been reported, for it to be LTAP in my eyes.
• Even No Intent to Roleplay (NITRP) isn't a good fit for this given that it's for when multiple different rules are broken, as opposed to one just one instance - you could otherwise argue breaking the vast majority of single rules is NITRP, so it's best to keep it separate

I think there's a couple of options that would work best:

1. Make a new rule specifically for 'Intentionally disconnecting during an RP scenario' which would also apply to mugs, being arrested, and a whole host of other things too. I'd add that this should not be overly harsh (must be proportional) and should not be up to staff discretion, as over time ban lengths exponentially increase when left unchecked (I think the average first-time racism ban is now like 5 consecutive life sentences when it actually started at a discretionary 2 week ban with typically a verbal warning first). Perhaps a system of incremental increases, by number the of previous bans, as a better solution?
2. Shank's idea of delaying the de-spawn of entities for 5-10 mins after you disconnect would be a good solution, by eliminating the root-issue without the need for another rule and associated moderation

[HtmlRoot 58]

2 hours ago, IAreGunner said:

it should be a rule for higher level or shouldn’t a rule at all. 
 

Make it a rule for those level 30 and up.

36 minutes ago, ChrisRid said:

week ban with typically a verbal warning first). Perhaps a system of incremental increases, by number the of previous bans, as a better solution?

Sure, have it be 3 warnings, a 1 day ban, then a 3 day ban for LTAR, Repeated LTAR, and Repeated LTR x2 (Mass LTAR)

Edited April 10 by HtmlRoot

[smileeface 445]

ez +1 lol 

[Schyzo 64]

17 hours ago, ChrisRid said:

Perhaps a system of incremental increases, by number the of previous bans, as a better solution?

I like this idea somewhat, but how would it apply to someone who for example has had bans dating back over +5 years ago? Would they be punished increasingly regardless of the length time of other bans or is there a set time frame in which certain bans are validated to increase the punishment? If there's a good answer for this then I think it'd help prevent people from leaving during a raid.

[HtmlRoot 58]

1 hour ago, Schyzo said:

I like this idea somewhat, but how would it apply to someone who for example has had bans dating back over +5 years ago? Would they be punished increasingly regardless of the length time of other bans or is there a set time frame in which certain bans are validated to increase the punishment? If there's a good answer for this then I think it'd help prevent people from leaving during a raid.

If they were LTAR bans, it would be impossible to have age-old LTAR bans till the rule has been in affect for awhile, however the way that would be dealt with is only looking at LTAR bans from the past 3 months, doing quarterly appropriations to violators of said rule.