Appeals & Reports Revamp

[Oaks]

Suggestions:

• Change Player Input on Ban Appeals (Detailed Below)
• Change Player Input on Report a Player (Detailed Below)
• Make Staff Reports either Private Via Owners PMs & In a Private Staff Section between Owners/Whatever comes under Owners
  or
  Between the Staff Member Accused, His/Her "Handled" (Essentially their higher up unless it's Owners then I assume they can handle it properly) & the player involved.
• Ban Appeals should be scheduled into Admin Names;
  e.g. If you're banned by Zim, he has a section titled "Zim" and the Ban Appeal is posted there (Details below)

How this will work;

So this will be a long one so bear/bare (idk) with me;

Change Player Input on Ban Appeals:
Okay, I'm going to insult ALOT of you here but I seriously don't think anyone but the Player who was involved in the Ban & the Admin handling should be typing on a Ban Appeal. 
In a community this large & several battalions/career paths you're bound to have favourites in the community & you're going to "clique" up and anyone who tells me otherwise is full of shit.
With friend groups & cliques etc etc so prevalent in a Community there's bound to be conflict. I've seen it in multiple threads & I'm not scared to call some of you out for it to highlight the problem I'm getting.

I'll use "Timmy got banned how?" As an example;
(I'd like to highlight here Drayyen if you read this, this isn't a CALLOUT, it's merely an example of why this system is flawed)


So, my issue here is "Your rank shouldn't matter on the Forums";
I'm not saying Drayyen is lying here, but as the clique/favoritism and such can run rampant in a Community of this size. Issues can come to light & cause a lapse in judgement from the handling Admin;

In the end, it was discovered that this was Accidental which is understandable, but the Admin/Staff Member themselves can figure that out without reading "I'm this person in the Community, I trust him" as if their judgement is any better than a random CT/NCO/SPC/PVT. It doesn't matter & doesn't add anything helpful towards the Ban Appeal;


Restructuring Ban Appeals;

Ban Appeals should be structured, use your Forum Mods & their powers to keep it moving;

Ban Appeals should be structured to have their own Forums/Categories (Using PHPBB and other Forum Software this is easy as fuck)
 

• Ban Appeals (Category)
• Founders
• Management
• Head Admins
• Game Admins (Everything after New & before Head)
• New Admins
  Each section should have a name of the Admin as a Category or Topic (Again PHP/Forum Software Easy)
  For example
  
  Founders;
• Zim
• Jackson
• Joah
  
  Management;
• Square
• Carter
• Forseen
• Vince
  
  Head Admins
• Faded
• Andrews
• Keo
  
  You get the idea;
  
  So inside that category would be the Forum itself and the Format:
  
  
  Now you're thinking "Well what if we don't know who banned me?"
  Well thats easy, you'd post in the "Ban Appeals" forum and the Forum Moderators would find out via whatever tools they possess, logs access etc etc & they'd edit the Title to "Oaks Ban Appeal - [Zim]"
  And that shows that I was banned by Zim, and they can move it to Zims section.
  
   

 

TL;DR:

• Only the Handling Admin/Player who was banned should comment on the Ban Appeal. Community Members shouldn't be commenting.

Quote

RP Name/Steam Name:
Steam ID:
Date of Ban:
Length of Ban:
Banned By:
Why should we unban you/shorten the ban period?:
Evidence to support your claims:

 

 

• If the Appeal is still "Stays Banned" and you disagree with the Admins decision. Take it up the chain. ( I say Management/Head Admins have final verdict on the issue).
• Forums restructured into "Admin Names" making it look cleaner, giving Forum Moderators a little work to do (Can be used as Promotional Effort)
• Disable reactions from Ban Appeals etc, just looks childish and unprofessional.

 

 

Next!

Change Player Input on Report a Player

• Lessen community input on Report a Player (Explained Below)
• Proposed Format Change to Include Above.
  
  
   

This won't be as long, but it follows the same suit as above changes.

First things first is Report a Player shouldn't have half the community vote on who gets banned or add an input UNLESS they were directly involved & mentioned in the Report (See Format Change)
This eliminates any cliques ganging up on a Player they dislike (Don't bullshit me, I've seen it happen), or specific members adding in any input that doesn't add to the discussion at hand;

Examples (NOT CALLING YOU OUT, JUST USING YOU AS AN EXAMPLE)

Useless posts towards the Reported Player, granted this is a mingey person who uses the Server for Youtube Videos & should be gone anyway BUT, the issue is that the person who reported said person should comment & any witnesses (see format change) can post their side/evidence of the issue.

The player who was reported should be given a set time by the "Handling Admin" (See Format Change) to reply. And if they don't in the given time, then a punishment can be handed out. Now you're thinking "What's stopping them from continuing during the time given?"
Well that's easy, the Admin who's handling them ingame can quickly tab, see if there's any active reports & administer a punishment then & there. If it's a ban, then the post can be closed & set as "Handled/Accepted"

 

TL;DR;

• Only the Player Reporting, Player Reported & Handling Admin should be posting on an Appeal (unless listed as a witness in the format change)
• Anyone else should be given a forum warning, post deleted etc by a Forum Moderator.

 

PROPOSED FORMAT CHANGE TO INCORPORATE THE ABOVE:
Current Format:

Quote

 

RP Name:

Steam ID:

Suspected Player's Name:

Suspected Player's Steam ID (If applicable):

Rule Suspected Player Broke:

Explain to us what happened:

Evidence (If applicable):

 

 

Your Name: 

Reported Players Name: 
Witnesses: 

Reported Players SteamID: 

Rule Broken: 

Explanation of what happened:

Evidence:


Changes:

• Reporting Players SteamID:
  Not needed, the reporting player shouldn't be receiving a punishment, that can be in a separate report/admins discretion.
• Witnesses Added:
  Any player present during the situation & can give an accurate account of what happened (Evidence can be linked also)
• Evidence changed to a "MUST":
  Anyone can rock up on a report, spin some words about this person and sit back and reap the rewards. This isn't fair and shouldn't be allowed at all. Evidence, be it screenshots, recordings or voice recordings should be provided or the report to be closed entirely for "Lack of evidence"
  
  If you don't have evidence, then that's tough shit. Make sure you have it for next time.
• Yes, players may get away with some stuff but that's what Staff Logs are for, you can use mlogs2 for everything & I'll be surprised if Staff aren't using it already. It logs "EVERYTHING" and will help graciously in these reports. (I have a legal copy, I don't mind adding CWRP to the system for free, I'm not using 2/3 slots as it is.)

 

Lessen Community Input on Staff Abuse/Privatize the Ordeal:

Whilst I typed this out I realised that community input is prevalent in Synergy & I'm not disputing the issue at all. However the above & this proposed change below I don't believe community wide should be utilised as it only causes problems, drama etc (Take Joahs Dispute currently);
 

• Remove Community Input on Staff Abuse Entirely
• Privatize the Ordeal via PMs & keep it between Management/Heads/Founders
   

 

Okay, again not alot of you are going to like this & frankly I'm expecting mass -1's in response which IMO provides no input except "NO I DONT LIKE THIS"
But, I feel that when it comes to Staff Abuse, as a Community you don't want your dirty laundry up in the air. Yes, you're going to have some utter morons who ruin the Staff Image and whilst that info' should be public to the Community to be aware of whats going on. Having the Community Vote/Add Input on a Staff Abuse report should be removed entirely & kept between;

• Reporting Player
• Reported Admin
• Staff Handler (Management/Founders/Heads) If any of the three listed are caught abusing then it should be taken up with Founders & Founders Only. If a Founder is caught abusing then I can only trust the other Founders handle it accordingly & the community accept the decision at hand. (End of the day, you guys didn't make the server, put in the time/effort etc to get it running. However you should have a small input & that can be done via privatization (See Below)

 

 

That's one way of handling & sticks to the Player Report rules listed above;

• Only the directly affected should comment & should be listed.
• Founders/Heads/Management are the "Handlers" and ultimately have the final decision
  (This can be done via Private Staff Forums between the group & be debated until a decision  has been made)
• Evidence is a MUST: Logs can be checked but ultimately you need to provide evidence of the issue at hand;
  
  
   

 

The other way I'd say is "Privatize"

Quite a few won't like this, but a format should be drawn up for Staff Abuse & PM'd to Management, who in turn can pass it to the correct Handlers for example;

• Founders
  Deal with Head/Management Staff Abuse Reports.
   
• Management
  Deal with Head Admin Reports/Debate with Founders.
   
• Head Admins
  Deal with all Admin Reports underneath them, from New Admins+
   

That way there is always a "Chain of Command";
 

[Freck]

Adopt me. I want to be like you.

[Hero]

+1 I like him as a person

 

[Riddler]

Yep, nobody takes reports seriously now. Doing them behind closed doors will make things easier and keep everything civil rather than have the thread turned into a meme and then it derail to the point where the report is pretty much redundant.

[Tristan]

Damn

+1

[Chambers]

Let me just say that there are some parts we could implement and parts I would not implement in a million years, I will talk to Square as Directors handle all ban appeals/reports (unless the report is on a Director+) 

//Pending//

[Oaks]

3 hours ago, Carter said:

I would not implement in a million years,

I used the system that a community much larger than Synergy uses & it seems to run fluently there;

Unsure what would constitute "million years" but I'm happy the rest seems to be okay.

[Arroyo]

4 hours ago, Carter said:

Let me just say that there are some parts we could implement and parts I would not implement in a million years, I will talk to Square as Directors handle all ban appeals/reports (unless the report is on a Director+) 

//Pending//

@Carter you forgot to lock it 

[Chambers]

@Arroyo Still open for feedback

[traditional]

6 hours ago, Oaks. said:

• Head Admins
• Faded
• Andrews
• Keo

Mr.. Faded is not HA >:C

[Faded]

On 10/8/2018 at 4:40 PM, traditional said:

Mr.. Faded is not HA >:C

Listen here Trad. ;'(

[Alec]

A suggestion that isn't retarded, this is new

[Chambers]

So we have cut down a lot of the crap in the reports/appeals sections.

Please take a look at the new rules.

If people leave dumb ass reasons for +1/-1s we just ignore them but they still have the right to express that.

We are not making a section for each HA as they can't even do the ban appeals that is the Directors/Founders discretion.

Reports with basically zero evidence other than witnesses (that can't keep stories straight) and "anonymous" testimonies are usually just thrown out.
Concrete evidence is needed for anything to actually be done.

Take a look at the new rules for each section.

/Accepted (We changed the rules but most of this we won't be implementing)//