Ban requests

[Slomosapien]

Can it be made policy that mods cannot process their own ban requests? I've seen a bunch in the past few months that could be debatable, but they are immediately processed without the standard requirements and no other opinions.
Having a second set of eyes evaluate the situation would limit the potential for it being personal.

[wTc[JediMaster]]

@Slomosapien
Acording to @jabba41 things like this dont happen anymore/at all.

in any case I agree BRQs should not be passted by oneself

[nitromon]

Oops. I just posted a similar suggestion.

It is unethical for mods to process their own requests or even actively banning people in games they are involved in. There's a conflict of interest and it creates an environment of unaccountability.

And I'm saying this with the utmost respect for the mods. I don't take their job lightly at all. But if I am a mod, I know I cannot trust myself in my own games not to be biased. I am human.

[Quetra]

Requiring another mod to judge cases where we banned for a game we were in wastes time. We already post the ban requests in the forum so the option is there if users complain of abuse for another mod to review it. If such abuse occurred it would therefore be easy to find. For this reason I highly doubt any mod would intentionally abuse. As for bias, well part of being a moderator is about being an impartial judge and keeping a clear head, so there shouldn't be an issue, and if there is there is plenty of ways to alert management (such as the complaints forum). There is already plenty of accountability.

Another reason this suggestion is unfeasible is because once a violation has been spotted in game by a moderator, they are able to ban immediately and prevent the user from continuing to ruin games. Waiting for another mod to ban would allow them to play on and ruin more games. This would add delay to a process which already has plenty of accountability since we post the ban request after the ban anyways for anyone to review.

For these reasons I don't support.

[KiwiLeKiller]

As soon as someone is part of ENT Staff, he should remain neutral and unbiased, so if he feel like someone broke the rules and that he deserve to be banned, he can surely process the request he made himself. ENT has standards for ban length according to the broken rules, etc. Those standards are usually followed by ENT Staff, unless the violator has a long ban history. If a member of ENT Staff thinks he might be biased, he may ask other mods for a proper length. Also, some moderators look up on some "newer" staff members to ensure that they are not abusing their powers and that they do things correctly, which I think is great.

Finally, if you think you were unfairly banned, you can post an appeal, as for a 2nd opinion and post a complain.

[Slomosapien]

As soon as someone is part of ENT Staff, he should remain neutral and unbiased, so if he feel like someone broke the rules and that he deserve to be banned, he can surely process the request he made himself. ENT has standards for ban length according to the broken rules, etc.

I posted this because I had just seen a ban made where the mod issued a ban for a game he/she was in that was double the length of another recent ban for the same offence by the same mod. The player who received the longer ban did not have a history of other/recent bans. There was no difference other than the mod being directly involved.

Also, getting responses on appeals can take longer than the duration of the ban.

[CheW]

To avoid having long responses on appeals, avoid getting banned.

[Slomosapien]

To avoid having long responses on appeals, avoid getting banned.

Can't tell if you're trolling or not, but that's emphasizing my point.

[FalenGa]

ENT's resources are limited. Having a mod review a game on which, for example, i've been in, while i already know all the violations, would be waste of those resources.

Ban durations are not standard. They are depended on the impact to the game, the history, and in some cases, the mod's descretion. Which is why we cannot compare two different cases, even when they are for the same violation. Adding to this, there is a minimum and a maximum duration for which we are guided to ban. In a few words, while one votekick abuses might receive just a warning, another can get banned for 3-5 days.

Abuse is not taken lightly in ENT, and i believe this is crystal clear to everyone. If you believe a ban is abusive, you should gather all evidence, follow the procedures and present it to us in the appeals/complaints section.

As for the appeals, that's another solid point on why wasting those resources would be a bad idea.

[aRt)Y]

Abuse is not taken lightly in ENT, and i believe this is crystal clear to everyone. If you believe a ban is abusive, you should gather all evidence, follow the procedures and present it to us in the appeals/complaints section.

This sums it up.

I like to think of ENT having a solid system to fight corruption and abusive behavior compared to other communities. Users simply have to make use of it.