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:
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.
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.