I have a question for you guys. Since the 3 strikes policy has been implemented, how many warnings and how many strikes do you think have been given out? Also, how many do you think should have been given out?

EDIT: Clarifying that second query

The facts are that I've been called abusive to staff when I'm perfectly calm, non-disgruntled, thinking the other person is arguing in as friendy of a situation as me, and next thing I know I'm being threatened to being kicked off a MUX. My karma, you might say, is very bad.  The reason why i asked for a necessity on evidence for such matters if I've gotten staff to dislike me over my use of the game system, over the use of my RP, over the ability I have to manipulate stories to have fun for myself, how I ruin their plots, how I show-boated in their plot, how I argue the rules, how I don't know when to stop (when they never asked me to stop, and kept arguing with me), and many more reasons.

I do not fear such a policy, cause its just a game.  If I get kicked off, who cares?  I can go play elsewhere.  Seeing as I rather like SR4 and want to play it instead of GM it some time, I'd really like to keep in good terms with the New Seattle staff and playerbase.  I know me though, and I know most people.  I will piss someone off at some point to the point of threatening to off me from the MUX.  If its just 'abuse' of the staffer, well that staffer has a lot of say on how a log is taken, how they 'felt' to the situation has to be taken into evidence.  When, in reality, it shouldn't.  The wording should be taken into account.  For instance, in harassment charges in the real world, the person has to make a reasonable effort to inform you that what you are doing is harassment and that you need to stop.  Unless, their life would be put in danger for presenting such resistance.  Since this is a MUX we can remove that, cause our lives are never in danger from another person here.

So, if I were to harass a staffer they'd have to give proof not only to the events they thought of as harassment but at least 2 times having told me to stop doing something to them.  Something like that, an evidence based call would be fine by me.  Because, after the first time they asked me not to do something, I'd stop.  I'm just that kind of person.  If they don't though, and they want a strike against me, under the current system it is up to a committee of staffers to decide.  Well, I have no faith of any kind in committees.  In the real world they waste taxes to evoke nothing.  From education to politics, committees are for the most part worthless, and in the meantime they exhaust resources.  On a MUX I see little difference except there is no money at stake.

I always thought getting rid of bad players looked like this:

"Hey, you, you're an idiot.  You are now off my game."
Idiot has been sitebanned.
Idiot relogs under a new name, and plays for as long as they can until discovered...

If people were better at being people, we'd all just be able to handle troublemakers.  You just ignore them, don't RP with them, don't give them plots.  They'll head away all on their own.  You siteban the ones that cheat or break serious policies.  You need no committees and you need no silliness with 3 strikes.  Or how many infractions make up a strike, and how many warnings make up an infraction, and whether or not Staffer A agrees with Staffer B... because it works itself out.

I dunno, maybe I'm too much of an anarchist socialist to be any good to the Safe Community folks.

NES: I think you're right, an objective standard for abuse should exist on some level.  It's completely worthless to define "abuse" of staff subjectively, since then oversensitive staffers can use their feelings to get strikes on people who don't really deserve them.  And dishonest staffers can just say they have feelings that they don't have.

Regardless, if you're worried about pissing people off, here's a radical idea: try not being yourself!   I mean, you can roleplay just fine, try roleplaying someone who really doesn't like to get into big arguments, and you'll sail in right under everyone's radar 

Heh. Yeah. The moment my life turned around for better was the day that I realized just being myself REALLY doesn't work.

Once again, we don't arbitrarily give out strikes based entirely on feelings or on the opinion of one staffer.  Every warning and strike has had logs and copies of the questionable behavior.  And we do tell the player in question to either stop or where the behavior is leading. 

I think it's a lot better situation than a player randomly carrying on the way they normally do and not realizing it is causing trouble and getting kicked off because they pissed one staffer off.

I don't have a problem with the three strikes policy as implemented. So long as there IS proper documentation of the time's when warnings were given out such as in the case of abuse (Which seems to be the big thing here) as abuse can be so arbitrarily decided.

Staff needs to be able to tell a person 'Please Stop' or just 'Stop' a course of action without it being a warning or a +strike. By the same token there have been abusive Staff in the past and players need to be able to tell a Staffer to 'Please Stop' as well otherwise we get the 'Us vs Them' mentality which is so very bad for so many games and any game really (Barring like, First Person Shooters, and Paintball I guess).

There definately needs to be a warning stage, and there needs to be clarification of what that warning is. I can see myself like NES thinking I'm going to be +strike'd just for being opinionated and outspoken. If I get a Warning, I want to be able to ask 'What am I being warned for precisely' without it immediately being ramped to another +warning or even a +strike.

It's funny, nobody's wanted to answer Waffle's question.

For Green Elf's concerns, that's exactly what we've been doing so far. Basically, we say to player Schmoe, "hey, time to chill, ok?" Then, "hey, if you don't stop doing [unmentionable], you'll be getting a warning." Then, [to staff], "Hey, player Schmoe keeps doing [unmentionable], should I warn him/her/it?" Then, if staff agrees, Schmoe gets a warning that is noted on the staff disciplinary board here on the forum. Any logs or other messages are included in the text of the post. Other staff can comment on the warning as well, and post any follow ups. Then we contact Schmoe and say, "Dude, you've got a warning."

There are cases, however, when it's clear to everyone that Schmoe is knowingly doing something he/she/it knows is going to cause trouble. Even in those cases, we go through the same process. This isn't a knee-jerk reaction. And when staffers don't agree, the player doesn't get a warning.

[edited for weird formatting issue]

As to Waffle's question, I cannot honestly say, I've not played on Seattle in a couple/few years, not since Melkir's famous April Fools Day rule change smacked a character with a warnng for having a private sex life and enjoying it. That is a whole different topic however.

How many do you think have been given on the boards here then? 

You're giving strikes on the -boards-? The whole idea of such a thing boggles my mind, if something is offensive, remove it.

We do, but when the same thing keeps happening after it's been asked to stop, something different should be done.  Although I think a strike has never been given for just posts, just like a strike will never (I believe) be given for just RP. 

The boards tend to be the place where we put all the documentation and crap, so I just tend to regard the board as an extension of the mush.  If a strike/warning is given on the mush, it gets recorded here. 

Being able to post is a priviledge and if someone abuses that priviledge, I am fairly certain that those with the proper admin levels of the board can take away someone's posting permissions. I myself saw the boards as discussion about the new game, and until the new game went into open beta (Since it is open registration) to really not have much to do with the currently running game. I don't play on Seattle myself at the moment. I used to, I want to play the new one very much so and hope it opens soon. I have seen you guys tell people to tone it down, even me, I got into a nasty flame war with Rhiev in the past I think it was, and when asked I removed all my posts and haven't done something of the same sort since.

So, I don't know, I guess I just expect (Perhaps foolishly) more maturity out of people than others. So to answer your question, I haven't seen any +strikes on the boards, but honestly, I've not seen any justification -for- one. I cannot make the same claim as to what has happened on the game however.

Flame wars are easy to get into with Rhiev or Ianna, don't worry about it Elf.

The only person I've seen come remotely close to a strike has been Absinthe, and I doubt she even crossed the line into that territory, though it's possible.

My concerns have been washed.  So long as the staff understand that they are the bearers of the burden of proof then I won't bother.  I'll likely still start logging a conversation if its about rules with a staffer.  It's a habit now really, so if I get killed/warned/hurt/etc in anyway I have documentation.  Not that it has ever helped on any MU* but still.  Not being me, though, is an impossibility.  Thanks for the suggestion anyways Tear.