Dealing with bad / unfair / disrespectfull behaviour!

I got my mind made up about such issues after the long discussion in the other topic.
First of all we must accept the following things which should be self-evidently:

- Bad / unfair / disrespectfull behaviour may be encountered at any time in interhuman communication
- Every person has individual feelings about such behaviour and is either more or less affected by it

What do we want to achieve?
Of course, a place where such behaviour is not tolerated!

@ Retri:
I read your suggestion and it s really a good one. But it s a little bit too complicated for my taste.
I tried to make it a bit more simple and more transparent, so that everybody is able to understand it.

RULE BOOK ADD-ON SUGGESTION:

---

Bad / unfair / disrespectfull behaviour:
- If a member feels treated unfairly or encountered bad and disrespectfull behaviour in whatever kind (chat, PM, ingame kaillera, forum...) it s his right to open a topic about it!

Ban or not, who decides:
- One manager / moderator from each currently active association ( CLICK HERE ) is allowed to vote for or against a ban!
- Votes will be anonymous in a PM to Lobo or Playaveli. One of them will post the outcome! This will prevent the voters from being exposed!
- If more than half of the votes (eg. 4 of 7 or 3 of 5, depending on active assosiations) confirm a ban it becomes effective!
- If there is a 50/50 voting the vote of the manager from the same nationality as the accused player will not count!

Ban time:
- If a ban becomes effective it will last one month!
- In a case of repetition the second ban will last three months!

Ban effectivity:
- The ban affects all kinds of competitions on the platform ss.de as well as the forum!
- In a case of repetition the second ban will include the main channel #sensible!

---

Any objections about it?
What do you think?

You didn t close the topic, so i guess it s open for opinions.

- If there is a 50/50 voting the vote of the manager from the same nationality as the accused player will not count!

I almost totally agree except from the qutoed point. I think it assumes that a manager from the same country as accused player might not be 100% neutral. I think and hope that managers are chosen wisely and correctly enough to trust them. Instead of removing such manager s vote in case of a draw , I would double it. It s because often they might heve a better picture of a situation (more info in national forum, misinterpratation in foreign language, etc).

@ mt653:
What is your opinion about it?

I like this suggestion, but I agree with Retri to start with a lower time of ban. 2 weeks would be perfect for the start .

@dzem: be sure that the choosen manager is neutral, even to his fellow countryman. Otherwise he wouldn t deserve this position.

To avoid 50/50 situations there should be an odd number of managers who have to vote.

@dzem: be sure that the choosen manager is neutral, even to his fellow countryman. Otherwise he wouldn t deserve this position.

That s exactly what I meant:)

And your idea of odd number of managers seems better for me than removing the vote, but might be more difficult (what if there is an odd number of managers and a new manager is to be promoted? and if one manager is unavailable for let s say few weeks?). To sum up just want to say that it s still only a detail in a very good new way of dealing with situations , so whatever you choose it s fine.

Thanks for the feedback.
Check my update:

---

...

Ban or not, who decides:
- One manager / moderator from each currently active association (CLICK HERE) is allowed to vote for or against a ban!
- Votes will be anonymous in a PM to Lobo or Playaveli. One of them will post the outcome! This will prevent the voters from being exposed!
- If more than half of the votes (eg. 4 of 7 or 3 of 5, depending on active assosiations) confirm a ban it becomes effective!
- If there is a 50/50 voting the vote from ASL manager (= ss.de admin) will be removed to get an odd number!
- Voting will only be made public by a specific request from anybody involved in the issue! Otherwise it stays anonymous!

Ban time:
- If a ban becomes effective it will last two weeks!
- In a case of repetition the second ban will last three months! It may be reduced to one month (again, by voting if asked for), if there is a well written apology about the issue!

...

---

What do you think?

I agree with Retrieving that the voting process should be public if we want to give an impression of transparency.

- Voting will only be made public by a specific request from anybody involved in the issue! Otherwise it stays anonymous!

I think that in the majority of cases someone would ask for motivations and we would have to make the individual votes public. However this might provide a minimum degree of protection for the voters.

About ban time: three months seem a bit too much for reiteration.

Motivations for a positive or negative vote will never be asked for, or in other words:
No voter will have to tell his motivations! That s not their business to give reasons, it s their privacy why they voted in this or that way!
If anything, pure votes ( Ban or Not ban ) will be published.
And I don t think it will be asked for in the majority of cases.

Ban time in case of repetitions will stay 3 months (incl. the exception in my update).
-- Fool me once, shame on you! Fool me twice, shame on me...