MAKE PUBLIC GUIDELINES FOR BAN WARNINGS

[owenshooter]

HOO-AH!!

SUGGESTION: MAKE PUBLIC THE STEPS/GUIDELINES FOR ISSUING WARNINGS/BANS AND MAKE MODERATORS ADHERE TO SAID STEPS/GUIDELINES

IMPROVEMENT: THIS WILL ELIMINATE CONFUSION AND APPEALS OF BANS THAT PLAYERS ARE NOT AWARE OF AND HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY WARNED FOR

HAVING RECENTLY RECEIVED A BAN FOR USING ALL CAPS IN GLOBAL CHAT. I WAS WHOLLY UNAWARE OF THE WARNING WITHIN GLOBAL CHAT BY A MOD, AS I WAS NO LONGER IN OR USING GLOBAL CHAT. NOW, AS THE MOST BANNED/TIMED OUT, ACTIVE MEMBER OF CC, I AM WELL VERSED IN HOW THESE THINGS OCCUR. GENERALLY YOU RECEIVE A PM FOR A FINAL WARNING BEFORE THE BAN HAMMER DROPS. THIS SAME MOD IS AWARE OF THIS PROCESS, AS THEY HAD ISSUED ME A WARNING AT THE END OF LAST MONTH, VIA PM. ONE, I MIGHT ADD, THAT I CAPITULATED TO, AS REQUESTED.

Sexually Graphic Innuendo chat in GC
by CHURCH LADY » Sun Aug 23, 2026 11:57 pm

I BELIEVE RECEIVING A PM GIVES AN ACTUAL PAPER TRAIL, VS. THE ALLEGED PAPER TRAIL OF A NOTE LEFT IN GLOBAL CHAT. HAD I RECEIVED A PROPER PM WARNING FROM THE MOD VS. THIS WARNING THAT I NEVER SAW A DAY PRIOR, THIS THREAD WOULD BE UNNECESSARY.

THIS WAS LEFT ON MY WALL AS EVIDENCE:
________________________________

You did have a warning yesterday.

owenshooter: IF I BLOW THEM UP ON MY DESKTOP (MAPS), I CAN NOT ACCESS THE CONTROLS OF THE GAME. IT IS DIFFICULT, BUT I WILL BE HEALED UP AND GOOD TO GO WITHIN A MONTH.

epic0002: Ela, Wladyslaw or PAF?

roprotem: That sounds like the doubple play combo for the Warsaw Warriors baseball team.

Elaterate: huh?

roprotem: tinker to evers to chance

roprotem: double play combo

Elaterate: I see now & replied

Quirk: Game 24745354

SassboT: OMG! solar! Tell me more!

CHURCH LADY: Owen please do not post in capitals. You do not have any legitimate reason for doing so. Thanks

__________________________________

THIS WARNING WAS NEVER SEEN. AND, I ACTUALLY STATED THE REASON AS TO WHY I WAS POSTING IN CAPS AND THIS ALLEGED WARNING WAS GIVEN. A PM WAS NEVER SENT. I WAS LEFT TO DANCE RIGHT INTO THIS BAN, LIKE THE TEMPORARY VISUALLY IMPAIRED MAN THAT I AM, DUE TO THE MOD NOT FOLLOWING WHAT I BELIEVE IS THE PROPER PROCEDURE FOR WARNINGS/BANS.



I BELIEVE THAT MAKING CLEAR THE PROCESS AND MAKING ALL MODS ADHERE TO SAID PROCESS, WOULD GREATLY BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY.

THE BLACK JESUS HAS SPOKEN.-JESUS

[roprotem]

if you can't do the time, don't do the crime

[owenshooter]

if you can't do the time, don't do the crime

YOU DO REALIZE YOU ARE ADDRESSING THE MOST BANNED, NON-PERMA BANNED, PLAYER ON THE SITE, CORRECT? I HAVE HAD YEAR LONG, 6 MONTH LONG, 3 AND 1 MONTH, COUNTLESS 1 WEEK AND MULTI DAY BANS. IT IS NEVER AN ISSUE WITH DOING THE TIME. IT IS THE THE JR. MINTS THAT CREATE ARBITRARY RULES OR FLAUNT A LACK OF RULES, TO DO WHAT IS OBVIOUSLY NOT IN GOOD FAITH.

EVEN BETTER, HIS CLAIM OF A WARNING IN GLOBAL CHAT BRINGS INTO QUESTION ANOTHER CC FLAW, TIME STAMPS. CAN YOU TELL ME WHEN I POSTED THAT, WHAT TIME THAT WARNING WAS ISSUED AND WHEN/IF I SAW IT, BEFORE POSTING AGAIN (CHAT DOES REFRESH). I JUST WANT EVERYONE TO BE ON THE SAME PAGE WITH WHAT IS AN OFFICIAL WARNING AND THE ACTUAL PROCESS MODS HAVE TO FOLLOW. PM'S WERE WHAT I BELIEVED TO BE THE GOLD STANDARD. JUST LOOKING FOR SOME CLARIFICATION

THE BLACK JESUS HAS SPOKEN...-JESUS NOIR

[Apatheist]

There should be an impartial process for mods to follow when banning people. I don't see why this shouldn't be simple and available. Not all the possible reasons for a ban, but how the information is delivered - eg chat or pm, how many warnings, reason for the ban, length of ban, consequences of further bans etc.
Of course, I suspect that if the actual ban guidelines are published in detail, that will be the trigger for certain individuals to try to get away with stuff that's not mentioned explicitly - which, apart from being rather sad, will waste the mods' time when they have much better things to do.
Timestamps, while obviously helpful, would take up space in the chat window, so that would need some thinking about.
The alternative, of course, is to behave nicely and not do anything that will risk a ban, but it doesn't take away from the original suggestion.

[owenshooter]

There should be an impartial process for mods to follow when banning people. I don't see why this shouldn't be simple and available. Not all the possible reasons for a ban, but how the information is delivered - eg chat or pm, how many warnings, reason for the ban, length of ban, consequences of further bans etc.

THAT IS ALL I THINK IS NEEDED. GUIDELINES ON HOW THESE ARE DELIVERED.
THE BLACK JESUS THANKS YOU FOR YOUR ABILITY TO SEE THE ISSUE FOR WHAT IT IS



THE BLACK JESUS HAS SPOKEN..-BJ

[riskllama]

I kinda miss getting banned....

harden up, owen - no one likes a whiner.

[Apatheist]

It's not about being "hard", it's about being transparent.
Obviously point 1 is that everyone should behave themselves and not do anything ban-worthy in the first place. Don't push the limits just to prove that you can beat the system; it's not as impressive as you might like to think. Being banned is shameful, not a badge of honour, and mods have much better things to do.
That said, if there's a process that the mods should follow when warning someone prior to issuing a ban, I see no reason why that should not be published and, equally importantly, followed. Everyone then knows where they stand and has no cause for complaint.
I appreciate that it feels a bit like HR, and most of us want to get away from that, but as you are offering a service for money, which you're subsequently restricting, then you need to be clear about how that happens.

[TeeGee]

Hmmm

CC used to have a hardline ban policy in place. I changed that and implemented the softer approach we take now.
That did require us to drop the public guidelines we had in place. You see, CC is all about precedents. If we put up a hardline policy we must follow it.
If we revert to the old policy, every ban owenshooter gets will be a minimum of 6 months, no chance for us to reduce. My changes allowed us to drop back to 1-3 day bans as we see fit.
Currently our guideline and my personal preference is not to ban, or give the minimum ban possible if necessary. Treat every offence on its merits and only apply longer bans to repeat offenders or those who come in deliberately to hurt and/or abuse.

[epic0002]

CAN WE NOT JUST ADMIT THE CAPS BAN WAS A POWER TRIP??? ITS NOT THAT HARD..WE ALL UNDERSTAND POWER TRIPS!..no discussion needed.

Trying to disguise it or discuss it as a violation of some unspoken or “unpublished” rule is RETARDED… and leads to endless chatter about it because it cannot be reasoned…reasonably.

JUST HAVE KEEFIE GET ON HERE AND SAY “ POWER TRIPPED YOU IDIOT, OWEN, BAM!” And be done with it.

[Apatheist]

Hmmm

CC used to have a hardline ban policy in place. I changed that and implemented the softer approach we take now.
That did require us to drop the public guidelines we had in place. You see, CC is all about precedents. If we put up a hardline policy we must follow it.
If we revert to the old policy, every ban owenshooter gets will be a minimum of 6 months, no chance for us to reduce. My changes allowed us to drop back to 1-3 day bans as we see fit.
Currently our guideline and my personal preference is not to ban, or give the minimum ban possible if necessary. Treat every offence on its merits and only apply longer bans to repeat offenders or those who come in deliberately to hurt and/or abuse.

This wasn't just about what people are banned for, or for how long; it's the mechanism by which they are informed that they are in danger of a ban if they repeat the offence.
The claim was that the process for informing someone that they were about to be banned wasn't either transparent or followed, therefore invalidating the ban.
If you publish something that says warnings will be issued by private message, then they should be. If you think it's sufficient to warn in global chat, if that is where the offence took place, that's fine; but I think you have to consider what is a fair and suitable process. One can perhaps understand that if there's a lot of global chat going on, it can easily be missed (especially if one logs off, or there is a time zone difference), even to the point where scrolling back won't see it due to the buffer size, so perhaps it should be something that will definitely notify the miscreant before they commit the offence again; a number popping up next to the inbox would seem to be more reliable.

[owenshooter]

so, i don't mind being BANNED, i just don't like NOT being informed. again i am in time out for a heavily redacted/edited live chat post, that everyone in chat seems to agree was in no way offensive. a PM explaining the ban, the length of ban, etc, would be nice. I have a saved box full of warnings from Andy, Twill, King A, and i cherish them.



If the Church Lady/Church Mouse is going to sling out bans, she should start being made to follow some sort of guideline. there were multiple others that said equally "offensive" things and were spared. this is beginning to feel targeted and arbitrary. the request for guidelines/notices is not unreasonable



The black jesus has spoken...-Jesus noir

[happy2seeyou]

For the record, I was there and his post was tamer than half of what I type. Send the man a PM. He's been banned so many times he deserves a loyalty card.