Completed On rule 3g (1 Viewer)

How should we treat DDOS threats?


  • Total voters
    9
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

EvoWarrior5

Well-Known Member
Contributor
Joined
Aug 14, 2013
Messages
2,780
Hello,

Today I want to address a possible change in the current rule set, regarding rule 3g. Let me say right from the start that while I am making this thread after having been inspired by user cozen's ban appeal, this is in no way an appeal for him and should not be treated as such. Any discussion of cozen's ban should be kept outside this thread.

Current rule:

g) Threatening Panda Community staff or infrastructure
Threatening either Panda-Community staff or its infrastructure will result in an irreversible permanent ban. This includes denial of service threats or other 'real-life' threats (i.e. murder, rape).

Threats of DDoSing belong under the "denial of service threats" (I assume; the wording is quite odd). At least this part of the rule should in my opinion be changed. Let me first go into the matter of "irreversible permanent ban", though.

Ban vs mute

The main question to first ask is: when, if ever, is it justified to ban someone for communication-related offenses? There are two options here for what you can believe:

1. It is never okay to ban for communication-related offenses; that's what gag/mute/silence are for.
2. It is okay to ban for communication-related offenses in severe cases.
[3. It is always okay to ban for communication-related offenses] - (in brackets because who really believes that.)

To somewhat side-track from the main issue for the moment: I am a believer in option 2 myself. They are pretty rare, but in my opinion there definitely exist cases where you may want to ban someone for communication-related offenses. These including those cases where someone goes so overboard that even if they are silenced, their very presence on the server can easily cause discomfort to other people, and it is better to get rid of them entirely. (I would give an example but as I said this is sort of sidetracking so let's not delve into that right this moment. Although this is what the second part of the rule, about real-life threats, touches on.)

So with this in mind, we can ask: is a simple "I will DDoS the server" so harmful to people to hear that someone who says it cannot be allowed on the server anymore? While it may not be super fun to hear for some people, most of the time it is an extremely harmless threat. The community is strict against any form of advertisement when it comes to cheats, because even mentioning a cheat can let people on to what cheats are out there and 'promote' them to look into it. But in this scenario, just mentioning the word DDoS does nothing to promote the practice - and unless the player can give credible information suggesting that they are actually able to do it, a harmless threat overall.

That is not to say that it should just be allowed, I can imagine if there is a rule against it. But as I argued, I do not think that "threatening" to DDoS is really that offensive to anybody, at least not nearly to the extent that they have to be removed from the server. *Let alone* permanently. *Let alone* with no chance of appeal. In my opinion it should be treated as a minor, communication-related offense that can lead to a gag/mute.

Solution?

It would be good to provide an alternative rule, but I feel like it is too early for that right now. The rule as it is contains two different issues: DDoS- and similar threats, and real-life threats to other people. In first instance I believe that these two should be separated, and perhaps it would even be better to meld them together with other rules. To do this, you would not even really have to add anything; you could count both as "offensive language" and simply treat more severe real-life threats as worse offenses, possibly with ban as punishments, without really having to specify that as such in the rules and simply consider it common practice. So maybe it would be best to simply remove the rule entirely and treat them as part of the other rules. That is what I think I'm leaning towards right now, but the comments are open to suggestions.

Poll can be added later at the staff's discretion once some viable options are on the table.
 
I don't think it's quite as minor as you make it out to be. If someone seriously threatens this, they are escalating what ever the issue was before to a new level and I think those kinds of threats should be punished quite harshly. If you try to pull up scare tactics and threats in an argument with staff (that's when it usually comes up), there have to be noticeable consequences. Otherwise people will start mouthing off to staff over even the most minor things, which makes the job a pain to do.

I do agree however, that permanent bans, especially irrevocable permanent bans are way over the top, but I have no other opinion on how the punishment should look.

If it's a joke then who cares.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Zeprus
The community is strict against any form of advertisement when it comes to cheats, because even mentioning a cheat can let people on to what cheats are out there and 'promote' them to look into it.
I'm going to assume people actually get banned for this. Why should people even get banned for advertising cheats? Mentioning the word cheat could potentially already 'promote' cheats, right? They'll just google something like 'TF2 cheats' and there you go, the same result. A lot of things can lead to that, I feel like a gag should be enough with this.

In my opinion [threatening to DDoS] should be treated as a minor, communication-related offense that can lead to a gag/mute.
I agree. It's just someone stupid saying stupid shit. Besides, a ban won't stop someone from DDoSing the servers, what's the point? A gag should be fine, and of course followed up by a ban if they were to DDoS.

...you could count both [DDoS- and similar threats, and real-life threats to other people] as "offensive language" and simply treat more severe real-life threats as worse offenses, possibly with ban as punishments, without really having to specify that as such in the rules and simply consider it common practice.
Not every admin deals with offenses the same way. One might gag someone for a week, whilst the other gags the same person for a bit longer. Inconsistency is bad, it's much better if the admins punish the same way. So you saying that such threats should be regarded as worse offenses, could be misunderstood easily. Perhaps it's just too vague...
I feel like the rules shouldn't be vague. They need to be simple to understand to avoid any confusion and discussion later on. As much as possible should be specified in the rules, I don't see a downside to it. That way appealing a ban and punishing accordingly should be easier, right?
 
I feel like it is difficult to determine if someone is “joking” or actually threatening an admin or server with a Ddos. Considering how illegal it is to purposefully ddos servers it shouldn’t be used in “jest” in my opinion. Yet I believe that it should be a permanent punishment of either a mute or gag whichever.
 
I feel like it is difficult to determine if someone is “joking” or actually threatening an admin or server with a Ddos. Considering how illegal it is to purposefully ddos servers it shouldn’t be used in “jest” in my opinion. Yet I believe that it should be a permanent punishment of either a mute or gag whichever.
Saying something shouldn't be used in jest is one thing, treating every joke as a serious threat is another. I think it's usually clear from the context whether something is a joke or not.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Magglet
I don't think it's quite as minor as you make it out to be. If someone seriously threatens this, they are escalating what ever the issue was before to a new level and I think those kinds of threats should be punished quite harshly. If you try to pull up scare tactics and threats in an argument with staff (that's when it usually comes up), there have to be noticeable consequences. Otherwise people will start mouthing off to staff over even the most minor things, which makes the job a pain to do.

I do agree however, that permanent bans, especially irrevocable permanent bans are way over the top, but I have no other opinion on how the punishment should look.

If it's a joke then who cares.

It's already a rule to listen to admins. Players also have many different ways of avoiding the issue and insult the admin/community. Why DDoS threats should be separated from the rest is unclear to me. All the things players can say that we don't want are already included in the rules. You could specify DDoS threats under one of them, but they shouldn't be treated any different.


I'm going to assume people actually get banned for this.

I don't think they do, it's a gag I believe. I only said "strict", not the type of punishment, to compare the two issues with each other and the grounds on which they are punishable.


Besides, a ban won't stop someone from DDoSing the servers, what's the point? A gag should be fine, and of course followed up by a ban if they were to DDoS.

Yep, forgot to say that part so thanks for including it.

Not every admin deals with offenses the same way. One might gag someone for a week, whilst the other gags the same person for a bit longer. Inconsistency is bad, it's much better if the admins punish the same way.

Yes, and I believe that I did give indications on punishment lengths way back when I wrote the admin guide. It is no longer my job or within my ability to ensure staff consistency, though, so that is for others to figure out how it relates to this specific rule.

So you saying that such threats should be regarded as worse offenses, could be misunderstood easily.

I don't understand this part, what do you mean?

Perhaps it's just too vague...
I feel like the rules shouldn't be vague. They need to be simple to understand to avoid any confusion and discussion later on. As much as possible should be specified in the rules, I don't see a downside to it. That way appealing a ban and punishing accordingly should be easier, right?

Perhaps there could be a thread with the rules that is actually readable, and then one thread with the rules where you list a lot of the nuances and go into detail much more. That latter one wouldn't be something players would read, but it would be a reference guide for admins and to refer a player to specific rules if they are questioning whether their punishment was deserved. That's quite the gargantuan task, though, so it'd be a question of who would be up for writing that. And if the staff would be willing and able to follow it consistently.

But I don't know if it's really even needed; if an admin punishes for too long then that's also what appeals are for. Giving players some responsibility in those matters isn't a bad thing. If other admins disagree with an admin who punished for a stupid amount of time they can hardly get away with just saying "that's how I handle it, deal with it". Of course not having a head admin does make it tough to enforce uniform punishments across the team.

Oh well, all that is outside the scope of this thread, really.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ekin
I personally think that if a person says "im DDoSing this server" or something after getting angry (whether at an admin or another player), it should be taken more into account than someone just randomly saying it. I get it, a jokes a joke. Players often tend to get angry at admins when the admins mute/gag a player for just joking. I do think that an irreversible permanent ban is a bit over the top, even in the case that the player is angry and threatens the server. I think the choice should be left up to the admin(s) present when threatening comes up. If it's in the 'angry situation', the admin(s) can ban for as long they please. However the ban should not be irreversible. In some cases, not naming any, a player is banned forever by just joking about a DDoS threat against us. That is too much, and we should take into consideration the joking aspect behind it. If it's been a whole year, give them a second chance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cozen
If you are stupid enough to make jokes about ddosing as a joke threat when an admin sees a player is already angry is just stupid. U are asking to be banned. Let’s be honest we don’t need to classify if we just add a section in the admin section about what the punishment should be that would be fine.
 
Even though I'm all for punishing people who are actually threatening with vague DDoS threats, in my opinion there should be some changes. Your typical rage kid (i.e myself occasionally :) ) goes ranting and yells he's going to DDoS the server. I would like to hand out just a temporary ban (perhaps a couple of weeks) as the chances of him actually going through with it, is slim to none. However if it's someone who actually sounds dead serious, or has been threatening on several occasions, I'd like to permanently ban him.
But that also begs the question, where should we draw the line.

I agree the person should get punished nonetheless, but the severity of it should be determined on how the person has behaved in the past, and so on.

One could argue that it should be permanently no matter the severity because of how serious it is, and that it's actually an illegal thing, but isn't threatening other players that too? For instance someone saying they'd "rape someone's mom" (happens more often than you'd think), shouldn't we permanently ban them too in that case?
 
If you are stupid enough to make jokes about ddosing as a joke threat when an admin sees a player is already angry is just stupid. U are asking to be banned. Let’s be honest we don’t need to classify if we just add a section in the admin section about what the punishment should be that would be fine.

Even though I'm all for punishing people who are actually threatening with vague DDoS threats, in my opinion there should be some changes. Your typical rage kid (i.e myself occasionally :) ) goes ranting and yells he's going to DDoS the server. I would like to hand out just a temporary ban (perhaps a couple of weeks) as the chances of him actually going through with it, is slim to none. However if it's someone who actually sounds dead serious, or has been threatening on several occasions, I'd like to permanently ban him.

But why a ban? I went through the trouble of outlining the ban vs mute issue and neither of you are responding to that. I know it's illegal but come on now, how many people are actually bothered by it? I've often been the one here who is seen as setting the bar too low for what counts as offensive, and I really don't understand why players would be so upset to see a person in the server say that they'll do something which they obviously won't. Banning, muting, what difference is it going to make to whether the person would actually do it or not? And most importantly, what difference does it make for the other players? If someone makes rape threats, that is discomforting to people. But this? So far I've heard "it's just stupid to do it" and "it's illegal", but neither of those are very convincing to me to hand out bans. It's a communication-related offense that shouldn't cause people discomfort to be in the person's presence. As I said, in my opinion the only case you should hand out bans for communication-related offenses is if gagging simply won't do enough to alleviate the issue. In general, communication-related offenses should be dealt with through gags and mutes.
 
But why a ban? I went through the trouble of outlining the ban vs mute issue and neither of you are responding to that. I know it's illegal but come on now, how many people are actually bothered by it? I've often been the one here who is seen as setting the bar too low for what counts as offensive, and I really don't understand why players would be so upset to see a person in the server say that they'll do something which they obviously won't. Banning, muting, what difference is it going to make to whether the person would actually do it or not? And most importantly, what difference does it make for the other players? If someone makes rape threats, that is discomforting to people. But this? So far I've heard "it's just stupid to do it" and "it's illegal", but neither of those are very convincing to me to hand out bans. It's a communication-related offense that shouldn't cause people discomfort to be in the person's presence.

Conveniently left out the last part of my message.
What my point was, where should we draw the line between what's a ban-able offense? Even when it comes to severe topics such as DDoS and real-life threats?
If "It's illegal" isn't a valid enough point for you, then I honestly don't know what kind of reasoning you expect. People has received jail sentences for DDoS threats (although rare, but it happens). It's a gaming forum for fucks sake, we have our own rules and we (should) respect the rules of real life as well.

Everything we have here is based on an internet connection between everyone of us, between Kevin's bigass PC, CloudFlare and a lot more. If that connection is disrupted or flooded in any way, it will, although only temporarily, down it. Not getting DDoSed is crucial to everyone here, so if someone threatens that, then they should fuck right off, permanently or not. Once again, it depends on the severity, but a ban nonetheless.

Just like with advertising for cheats, a ban should be sufficient punishment (also permanently or not) as a mute just seems like a slap on the wrist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PNN
Conveniently left out the last part of my message.

I just thought it was irrelevant. That's not convenient, that's just leaving out what I don't see worthy of responding to, since you brought up a different issue that should be treated on its own terms.

What my point was, where should we draw the line between what's a ban-able offense? Even when it comes to severe topics such as DDoS and real-life threats?

Wherever you draw it, to me, DDoSing is somewhere below it.

If "It's illegal" isn't a valid enough point for you, then I honestly don't know what kind of reasoning you expect. People has received jail sentences for DDoS threats (although rare, but it happens). It's a gaming forum for fucks sake, we have our own rules and we (should) respect the rules of real life as well.

Everything we have here is based on an internet connection between everyone of us, between Kevin's bigass PC, CloudFlare and a lot more. If that connection is disrupted or flooded in any way, it will, although only temporarily, down it. Not getting DDoSed is crucial to everyone here, so if someone threatens that, then they should fuck right off, permanently or not. Once again, it depends on the severity, but a ban nonetheless.

Just like with advertising for cheats, a ban should be sufficient punishment (also permanently or not) as a mute just seems like a slap on the wrist.

I feel like you're going overboard with the comparison with real-life, but no matter. I'm not saying it shouldn't be forbidden. Just that it's not something that players should be so bothered by that the person who does it can't play on the servers anymore. Maybe our views on the length of the punishment differ (I believe that it shouldn't be any longer than normal punishments, you think it should be longer) and that is fine, but let's at least agree that the punishment should fit the crime.

The reasoning I expect is whether or not an offense is 1) game-related so that communication blocks do not suffice (irrelevant here) or 2) that the communication-related offense is bad enough that players still feel discomfort from having the player on the server even when they're comm blocked. In my view this isn't the case.
 
Players also have many different ways of avoiding the issue and insult the admin/community.
Why DDoS threats should be separated from the rest is unclear to me.
I wasn't referring to DDoS threats in particular. Threats in general go far beyond just "offensive language" or "insulting". Listen to staff is indeed a rule, but threatening staff or infrastructure goes beyond simply "not listening" as well. Everyone can "not listen" in the heat of the moment, but threatening others is way beyond that and thus prompts a more lengthy punishment. Of what sort I don't personally mind.
I really don't understand why players would be so upset to see a person in the server say that they'll do something which they obviously won't.
If you're going to come into my space and threaten it you can sod off, whether my other guests are offended by your threats or not. And at that point I really don't care whether you are going to go through with your threat.

Also serious threats will typically come up in conversations that have a player disagreeing with something a staff member did or said. Players try to use these threats to bend rules and coerce staff. I think that says a lot about how they think of our rules and how they apply to them and any punishment that falls short of prompting an appeal with an apology if the player wants to continue playing on our servers has missed its mark.

I'm not concerned with the legality of such threats tbh.
 
I wasn't referring to DDoS threats in particular. Threats in general go far beyond just "offensive language" or "insulting". Listen to staff is indeed a rule, but threatening staff or infrastructure goes beyond simply "not listening" as well. Everyone can "not listen" in the heat of the moment, but threatening others is way beyond that and thus prompts a more lengthy punishment. Of what sort I don't personally mind.

If you're going to come into my space and threaten it you can sod off, whether my other guests are offended by your threats or not. And at that point I really don't care whether you are going to go through with your threat.

Also serious threats will typically come up in conversations that have a player disagreeing with something a staff member did or said. Players try to use these threats to bend rules and coerce staff. I think that says a lot about how they think of our rules and how they apply to them and any punishment that falls short of prompting an appeal with an apology if the player wants to continue playing on our servers has missed its mark.

I'm not concerned with the legality of such threats tbh.

No issue with your arguments here. I just don't like the extremely severe way the community is punishing it right now.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: TBotV63
I've added a poll. Another TLDR.

I pretty much told what I thought to Evo about the whole situation before creating this poll...
DDOS threats should be taken seriously, joke or not. However I don't mind it being subject to appeal if it's just a little kid thinking he's a tough hacker mad lad!

One time we had this guy threaten to DDOS the server, it was either Blackout or Panda probably both at one point. Anyways usually they don't do much damage to the point they take down the server but it does cause lag. Lag is rather annoying lmao and overall the action is illegal. Why should that person then have the chance to come back?
I've had threats at myself when I was new to steam. I leaked my IP (pressed reject to a steam call, OPPS) and got ddos'd for a long time. It's not nice and not funny. Since then, wear VPN protection kids :kappa: or don't do dumb shit like me!
 
According to the poll, I've ended up removing the 'irreversible' part.
So it gives those jokers a chance. Can't come to any harm allowing appeals from this.

Completed and closed.
 
  • Like
  • Winner
Reactions: Cozen and ZeroPC
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread