08-08-2019, 12:10 PM
(This post was last modified: 08-08-2019, 12:22 PM by The Dark Warrior. Edited 4 times in total.)
(08-07-2019, 04:59 PM)DJ Yoshiman Wrote: Okay, so that suggestion is probably a good idea that ties into this particular situation.
A take-away for this situation would be similar to when I was managing a store and we had a very problematic individual. Eventually I had other staff come to me saying "I don't understand why she's still working here and hasn't been reprimanded at all." For privacy reasons, so it can't be used for fuel for staff to harass another one, I told the staff that they are unaware of everything that had been done already, and I cannot disclose it, just like I won't disclose anything regarding them to other staff.
As some one who hasn't been around to know and understand the situation, I can just come out of this saying "good god, a year ban, who the hell deserves that after one bad act?" But if the individual had a bad habit of infraction after another, we don't get to know or see that, and if we did, it would suddenly make sense that they've received the ban. You'd have to look at everything as a whole (and obviously as a consistent, constant string of bad behaviour).
As for the viewing of warnings and punishments, that could lead to harassment and/or members bringing up those actions to bring even more heat into a potentially horrible argument. It's a tough choice to make, and dependent on whether the staff want a proactive style or a reactive style.
You have a point where people in staff positions need to look at what the offending users have done as a whole before they consider their actions and tbh, Stir does have some things that if brought up do deserve to be examined based on the context of those situations in which he definitely do deserve punishments. But the rest...sorry to say but I disagree on several parts of the analogy. First off, there is a massive difference between employment at a store and volunteering in a community that is open to all who come here to make fangames. Privacy reasons are to be held for the employee's stay in the company since there are laws in place that govern the ways businesses have to handle and protect their employees. This is not the case with a lot of Internet forums which the people on staff do it on an unpaid basis and which is no different than doing volunteer work in your community.
Secondly, I have seen publicly viewable warn and ban logs work out in other communities such as SMWC (example here) because they keep a policy of transparency on what those users did do to deserve those warns and bans, which reduces the severity of the disruption of the community some of those people used to be involved in in the case of bans.
Additionally, if people are harassing others or bringing them up in heated disputes, I am certain those people would do harass and argue already even if there isn't a publicly viewable warn/ban logs in other communities simply because they can and those are the people the staff needs to warn and ban from their communities that they are a part of if they have to break rules governing civility. But to have an open transparency policy stands to benefit any community that use it.
…
I am also going to have to say this and I will go on record with this. Even tho I agree with you all that the ban is a bit harsh for a minor offense, I noticed a glaring hypocrisy on the people who do stick up for Stir more zealously than I from my observations over a year. If this was anyone else who isn't a part of your friendgroups and whom you don't like, I am certain that a lot of you would be less willing to stick up for that person no matter the situation because in your minds that person deserved everything that happened to them, and that may be true, but I hope to god you have the self-awareness to consider this and whom you prop up and whom you demonize.