Declined Remove "threatening to attack Skial staff" from the rule list

[Blade D_Hero]

In the rules, "threatening to attack Skial servers or staff" makes an appearance. Now the server I can understand, because threatening to attack Skial servers can lead to server downtime and a loss of money.

However, threatening to attack Skial staff is entirely unnecessary. First off, when people apply to be admin, they're expected to have a thick skin. Idle threats should not bother admins, and if they do that is certainly cause for alarm, because threatening to kill/attack/rape someone over an Internet game has been Internet shit talk for years and nobody should take it personally.

Secondly, this rule doesn't even apply to regular players. Why should admins get special privilege? If you're going to make the rule, apply it to everyone.

I agree if someone threatens to attack staff and provided SPECIFIC information (like actual name, address, location, etc) they should be punished, but that is already in the rules under "no distributing personal information."

In short, we should always be aiming to keep the rules as limited as possible and I (and many others) believe that this section of the rules is entirely unnecessary.

 

[Uncle F3AR]

+1

 

[ly_dee]

+ 1

 

[Luke]

+1

Secondly, this rule doesn't even apply to regular players. Why should admins get special privilege? If you're going to make the rule, apply it to everyone.

Though I would +2 to the idea of expanding the rule in general to "Extreme harrassment of any players", we shouldn't have anyone making death threats against anyone else on the server, even without credible evidence of information relating to the possiblity (such as address, etc). I've heard players threaten to kill another players entire family just because they got a friend of theirs banned through a report - but there's nothing I could do, because that doesn't break any rules.

Edit: Changed "all" to "any"

 

[Meowcenary]

+1

 

[Maddo]

Why would you want to remove 2 words from the rules, 2 words that work to your benefit?

Extreme harrassment of all players

Subjective

 

[Chance]

+1

 

[Cowboy Crow]

+1 Harassment charge

 

[Luke]

Subjective

Yes, however we're selected partially for our ability to reason and make decisions based on the evidence we have.
If we believe that someone has crossed a line in terms of their abuse towards another player - we should be able to do something.

 

[Meowrisa]

+1
Either make it a universal rule or remove it. It's too biased.
It also allows more leeway for admins to ban people they simply just dont like.

 

[Blade D_Hero]

Why would you want to remove 2 words from the rules, 2 words that work to your benefit?

Because I don't care if some random on 2Fort threatens to skullfuck me to death, and I certainly would never ban him for saying something like that. As I said, admins are expected to deal with stuff like that, and we shouldn't get special treatment compared to other players.

 

[KillerZebra]

In the past we had a rule that said "Real life threats". I am not sure when it changed to Staff but I like the old rule.

I had someone say they got my ip address, traced where I lived, and will have someone waiting for me the next time i leave the house.

Obviously it was an empty threat. But we should have something in place to deal with situations like this, which is obviously not trash talking.

 

[Blade D_Hero]

In the past we had a rule that said "Real life threats". I am not sure when it changed to Staff but I like the old rule.

I had someone say they got my ip address, traced where I lived, and will have someone waiting for me the next time i leave the house.

Obviously it was an empty threat. But we should have something in place to deal with situations like this, which is obviously not trash talking.

While I agree that if someone said they found your house and will be there next time you leave would be pretty extreme, if they never posted personal information how would we deal with that?

Saying that is essentially the same thing as saying "I know where you live and I'll kill you," which while menacing, isn't exactly substantial.

What I'm suggesting is UNLESS they say something exact, like "I know you're in Chicago and I'm coming to kill you," we shouldn't really do anything. Spreading that personal information is already against the rules, even if they may be bluffing about the address/location.

 

[Fairnessplease]

Yes, +1!

 

[BBQ Prophet]

I agree that threats and other intimidation (the legal name of the crime) should be disallowed for everyone because it's honestly just a shitty thing to allow at all.
I however don't think that an individual should have to say "I'm coming to [street address] to kill you" as opposed to "I'm coming to your house to kill you" to receive a punishment. The intent is intimidation nonetheless and sharing information such as street address would violate our Rules about privacy anyway. "I'm going to kill you" is vague enough to not be handled as an actual threat.

Threatening to attack Skial servers, staff or players

would be a much more sound way to write the rule (and it's only one extra word for those of you so obsessed with the length of the Rules that the troublemakers don't read anyway)

If you're going to make the rule, apply it to everyone.

 

[White Moose]

I think they should amend it to include all players. Quite frankly as a player I wouldn't want to play on servers where people can say "I'm gonna fucking kill you, and your family." that doesn't create a safe community no matter where it is said. I think I speak for most , where no one likes their life or their loved ones lives in d̶a̶n̶g̶e̶r̶ threatened, even if it just on the internet. Im pretty darn sure no one like it when people want to kill them. As for my vote I'll give it some more thought.

 

[Bottiger]

I don't remember the specific case that led to this addition to the rules.

But I believe it was when someone was threatening to ddos an admin, maybe to get unbanned, my memory is fuzzy.

I don't think this rule needs to be removed.

 

[RMSniper]

I don't remember the specific case that led to this addition to the rules.

But I believe it was when someone was threatening to ddos an admin, maybe to get unbanned, my memory is fuzzy.

I don't think this rule needs to be removed.

Then what about an addition to add all players? That was discussed as well.

 

[Bottiger]

Too much of a hassle to enforce it for everyone.

I don't really think admins want the hassle of having to decide what constitutes as an "attack" that warrants a ban for every single person. Our admins have thick skin but many players do not.

There was a time when we had pages full of reports that went unresolved and this would certainly not help.

 

[Blade D_Hero]

Too much of a hassle to enforce it for everyone.

I don't really think admins want the hassle of having to decide what constitutes as an "attack" that warrants a ban for every single person. Our admins have thick skin but many players do not.

There was a time when we had pages full of reports that went unresolved and this would certainly not help.

Personally, I don't think players should be treated differently than other admins. If an admin does something against the rules, he deserves a ban just like every other player.

If someone threatens an admin, we shouldn't permanently ban the offender because of an idle threat that wouldn't even cause a one day silence if they said it to a regular player. It's absolutely one-sided, and I'm pretty sure almost every single admin doesn't care if someone makes a baseless threat against them.