[Discussion] Punishment for DoS Shielders

[Lockdownn]

That makes no sense though. If you're shielding a rule-breaker, you're essentially breaking the rules by not allowing the mods to do their jobs.

@Violet, If I may ask, please elaborate as to why rule-breakers are being given a free pass for shielding a known troublemaker, and this goes with ALL cases dealing with DOS shielding, since DOS shielding does not seem to be punishment worthy.

[Scomagia]

That makes no sense though. If you're shielding a rule-breaker, you're essentially breaking the rules by not allowing the mods to do their jobs.

@Violet, If I may ask, please elaborate as to why rule-breakers are being given a free pass for shielding a known troublemaker, and this goes with ALL cases dealing with DOS shielding, since DOS shielding does not seem to be punishment worthy.

The ruling is likely coming down from Max.

[Lockdownn]

That makes no sense though. If you're shielding a rule-breaker, you're essentially breaking the rules by not allowing the mods to do their jobs.

@Violet, If I may ask, please elaborate as to why rule-breakers are being given a free pass for shielding a known troublemaker, and this goes with ALL cases dealing with DOS shielding, since DOS shielding does not seem to be punishment worthy.

The ruling is likely coming down from Max.

Well, his fault.

[Phydios]

There is no rule against "shielding" a DoS player and there's not going to be.

Would you mind explaining why? I don't get why helping a DOS player duck punishment is a permanently protected behavior. Or am I misinterpreting this?

[[violet]]

Bottom-line, players aren't moderators. We don't require you to police your friends and tell us everything you hear under penalty of deletion.

Someone who assists in rule-breaking, or acts as a proxy for a banned player, will of course find themselves dealing with the mods, and possibly banned as well. Also, we definitely appreciate the help and tips we get from players sometimes in identifying rule-breaking, since this helps us keep the site running well for everyone. But there's no umbrella "shielding" rule, where "shielding" covers things like possibly knowing someone was banned but staying quiet.

[Phydios]

Bottom-line, players aren't moderators. We don't require you to police your friends and tell us everything you hear under penalty of deletion.

Someone who assists in rule-breaking, or acts as a proxy for a banned player, will of course find themselves dealing with the mods, and possibly banned as well. Also, we definitely appreciate the help and tips we get from players sometimes in identifying rule-breaking, since this helps us keep the site running well for everyone. But there's no umbrella "shielding" rule, where "shielding" covers things like possibly knowing someone was banned but staying quiet.

That makes much more sense. Thanks.

[Sam Hyde]

How does one even shield a dos? All you could really do is just not tell anyone that a certain player is dos. You have no control over whether or not they blow their cover.

[Reploid Productions]

How does one even shield a dos? All you could really do is just not tell anyone that a certain player is dos. You have no control over whether or not they blow their cover.

To use an actual example, there was one case a year or so back where a user was creating nations that he then gave to his DOSed friend, trying to help said DOS try to evade detection. Needless to say, it didn't work, and combined with the risks inherent with nation-sharing in the first place, he got told in no uncertain terms to stop that unless he really wanted to get himself tangled up in his buddy's DOS order.

[Gregoryisgodistan]

Bottom-line, players aren't moderators. We don't require you to police your friends and tell us everything you hear under penalty of deletion.

Someone who assists in rule-breaking, or acts as a proxy for a banned player, will of course find themselves dealing with the mods, and possibly banned as well. Also, we definitely appreciate the help and tips we get from players sometimes in identifying rule-breaking, since this helps us keep the site running well for everyone. But there's no umbrella "shielding" rule, where "shielding" covers things like possibly knowing someone was banned but staying quiet.

Anyone who engages in rule-breaking is breaking the rules whether they are helping a DOS player or not, and will be punished.

[Fartsniffage]

Bottom-line, players aren't moderators. We don't require you to police your friends and tell us everything you hear under penalty of deletion.

Someone who assists in rule-breaking, or acts as a proxy for a banned player, will of course find themselves dealing with the mods, and possibly banned as well. Also, we definitely appreciate the help and tips we get from players sometimes in identifying rule-breaking, since this helps us keep the site running well for everyone. But there's no umbrella "shielding" rule, where "shielding" covers things like possibly knowing someone was banned but staying quiet.

Anyone who engages in rule-breaking is breaking the rules whether they are helping a DOS player or not, and will be punished.

Punishing players for not reporting a DOS would lead down a very dark road. Let's say you open a thread on a page where someone has been judged to have been flaming but you didn't report it, should you be warned for that? You were aware of someone breaking the rules but did nothing about it.

[Reploid Productions]

Anyone who engages in rule-breaking is breaking the rules whether they are helping a DOS player or not, and will be punished.

Punishing players for not reporting a DOS would lead down a very dark road. Let's say you open a thread on a page where someone has been judged to have been flaming but you didn't report it, should you be warned for that? You were aware of someone breaking the rules but did nothing about it.

Yeah, I don't believe we'll ever go a direction that involved punishing people for what is essentially inaction. It'd be impractical to enforce, largely pointless to enforce, and would not accomplish anything worthwhile. For one thing, I rather doubt it would help get people TO report anything, it'd just scare people away from participating at all.

The sticky point is what "actively" aiding and abetting a DOS actually means. The definition I proposed to the team I think keeps it fairly straightforward, though it does point out a couple of spots that could stand to be clarified in the OSRS. I tried to keep it simple, already in line with the rules as written, and focused on things that require actual action/assistance to a DOS, not merely talking to/neglecting to report one; but I imagine some more feedback can't hurt anything. It's not a comprehensive list, but I'm hoping it's thorough enough to sufficiently convey where the line should be:

-Creating nations to give to a DOS player (already partially covered by our warnings against sharing nations)
-Acting as a mouthpiece for a DOS player (already covered by posting-past-ban, but could be clarified in the OSRS)
-Communicating to a DOS suggestions/advice on how to evade detection. (already covered by the "Seeking Help with Illegal Activities" part of the OSRS, but could probably stand to be clarified to include "Don't tell people how to break the site rules.")
-Colluding with a DOS to affect things in-game, such as R/D, scripts, and so on. (Sorta covered already by the scripting rules, could possibly stand to be clarified though.)

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Punishing players for not reporting a DOS would lead down a very dark road. Let's say you open a thread on a page where someone has been judged to have been flaming but you didn't report it, should you be warned for that? You were aware of someone breaking the rules but did nothing about it.

Yeah, I don't believe we'll ever go a direction that involved punishing people for what is essentially inaction. It'd be impractical to enforce, largely pointless to enforce, and would not accomplish anything worthwhile. For one thing, I rather doubt it would help get people TO report anything, it'd just scare people away from participating at all.

The sticky point is what "actively" aiding and abetting a DOS actually means. The definition I proposed to the team I think keeps it fairly straightforward, though it does point out a couple of spots that could stand to be clarified in the OSRS. I tried to keep it simple, already in line with the rules as written, and focused on things that require actual action/assistance to a DOS, not merely talking to/neglecting to report one; but I imagine some more feedback can't hurt anything. It's not a comprehensive list, but I'm hoping it's thorough enough to sufficiently convey where the line should be:

-Creating nations to give to a DOS player (already partially covered by our warnings against sharing nations)
-Acting as a mouthpiece for a DOS player (already covered by posting-past-ban, but could be clarified in the OSRS)
-Communicating to a DOS suggestions/advice on how to evade detection. (already covered by the "Seeking Help with Illegal Activities" part of the OSRS, but could probably stand to be clarified to include "Don't tell people how to break the site rules.")
-Colluding with a DOS to affect things in-game, such as R/D, scripts, and so on. (Sorta covered already by the scripting rules, could possibly stand to be clarified though.)

I'm not really sure I like a rule against serving as a mouthpiece to a DOS, as that could mean that a DOS player has no way of contacting their friends offsite.

[Reploid Productions]

Yeah, I don't believe we'll ever go a direction that involved punishing people for what is essentially inaction. It'd be impractical to enforce, largely pointless to enforce, and would not accomplish anything worthwhile. For one thing, I rather doubt it would help get people TO report anything, it'd just scare people away from participating at all.

The sticky point is what "actively" aiding and abetting a DOS actually means. The definition I proposed to the team I think keeps it fairly straightforward, though it does point out a couple of spots that could stand to be clarified in the OSRS. I tried to keep it simple, already in line with the rules as written, and focused on things that require actual action/assistance to a DOS, not merely talking to/neglecting to report one; but I imagine some more feedback can't hurt anything. It's not a comprehensive list, but I'm hoping it's thorough enough to sufficiently convey where the line should be:

-Creating nations to give to a DOS player (already partially covered by our warnings against sharing nations)
-Acting as a mouthpiece for a DOS player (already covered by posting-past-ban, but could be clarified in the OSRS)
-Communicating to a DOS suggestions/advice on how to evade detection. (already covered by the "Seeking Help with Illegal Activities" part of the OSRS, but could probably stand to be clarified to include "Don't tell people how to break the site rules.")
-Colluding with a DOS to affect things in-game, such as R/D, scripts, and so on. (Sorta covered already by the scripting rules, could possibly stand to be clarified though.)

I'm not really sure I like a rule against serving as a mouthpiece to a DOS, as that could mean that a DOS player has no way of contacting their friends offsite.

Serving as a mouthpiece is basically "posting for the banned person," something we already smack for as basically the banned person posting-past-ban-by-proxy. We had one DOS last year who was basically using his friends to continue to participate on-site, with them posting his posts for him. There's a difference between that, and say, "Hey, guys, message me if you want so-and-so's email/Skype/Steam name/whatever to talk to him offsite."

[Greater vakolicci haven]

I'm not really sure I like a rule against serving as a mouthpiece to a DOS, as that could mean that a DOS player has no way of contacting their friends offsite.

Serving as a mouthpiece is basically "posting for the banned person," something we already smack for as basically the banned person posting-past-ban-by-proxy. We had one DOS last year who was basically using his friends to continue to participate on-site, with them posting his posts for him. There's a difference between that, and say, "Hey, guys, message me if you want so-and-so's email/Skype/Steam name/whatever to talk to him offsite."

So, would I get banned if, for example a friend got made DOS'ed and I posted his Skype name on the forums?

[Reploid Productions]

Serving as a mouthpiece is basically "posting for the banned person," something we already smack for as basically the banned person posting-past-ban-by-proxy. We had one DOS last year who was basically using his friends to continue to participate on-site, with them posting his posts for him. There's a difference between that, and say, "Hey, guys, message me if you want so-and-so's email/Skype/Steam name/whatever to talk to him offsite."

So, would I get banned if, for example a friend got made DOS'ed and I posted his Skype name on the forums?

No, I'm saying that there's a difference between doing that, and posting for the DOS. Telling people on-site how to reach those who are offsite is entirely different from basically posting on-site for somebody who's been banned.

EDIT TO ADD: It can be a bit dodgy on the "don't share personal info" sort of thing, though. It's better to share contact info like that through more private channels like TGs.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

So, would I get banned if, for example a friend got made DOS'ed and I posted his Skype name on the forums?

No, I'm saying that there's a difference between doing that, and posting for the DOS. Telling people on-site how to reach those who are offsite is entirely different from basically posting on-site for somebody who's been banned.

EDIT TO ADD: It can be a bit dodgy on the "don't share personal info" sort of thing, though. It's better to share contact info like that through more private channels like TGs.

Ah, tOK...thanks.

I thought sharing personal info was OK? Didn't we have a thread at one time for the purpose?

[Reploid Productions]

No, I'm saying that there's a difference between doing that, and posting for the DOS. Telling people on-site how to reach those who are offsite is entirely different from basically posting on-site for somebody who's been banned.

EDIT TO ADD: It can be a bit dodgy on the "don't share personal info" sort of thing, though. It's better to share contact info like that through more private channels like TGs.

Ah, tOK...thanks.

I thought sharing personal info was OK? Didn't we have a thread at one time for the purpose?

It's one thing for a person to share their own contact info; it's another entirely to share somebody else's info, especially when we have no verifiable way to know whether that person gave permission for it.

[Ethel mermania]

Punishing players for not reporting a DOS would lead down a very dark road. Let's say you open a thread on a page where someone has been judged to have been flaming but you didn't report it, should you be warned for that? You were aware of someone breaking the rules but did nothing about it.

Yeah, I don't believe we'll ever go a direction that involved punishing people for what is essentially inaction. It'd be impractical to enforce, largely pointless to enforce, and would not accomplish anything worthwhile. For one thing, I rather doubt it would help get people TO report anything, it'd just scare people away from participating at all.

The sticky point is what "actively" aiding and abetting a DOS actually means. The definition I proposed to the team I think keeps it fairly straightforward, though it does point out a couple of spots that could stand to be clarified in the OSRS. I tried to keep it simple, already in line with the rules as written, and focused on things that require actual action/assistance to a DOS, not merely talking to/neglecting to report one; but I imagine some more feedback can't hurt anything. It's not a comprehensive list, but I'm hoping it's thorough enough to sufficiently convey where the line should be:

-Creating nations to give to a DOS player (already partially covered by our warnings against sharing nations)
-Acting as a mouthpiece for a DOS player (already covered by posting-past-ban, but could be clarified in the OSRS)
-Communicating to a DOS suggestions/advice on how to evade detection. (already covered by the "Seeking Help with Illegal Activities" part of the OSRS, but could probably stand to be clarified to include "Don't tell people how to break the site rules.")
-Colluding with a DOS to affect things in-game, such as R/D, scripts, and so on. (Sorta covered already by the scripting rules, could possibly stand to be clarified though.)

Seems reasonable.

[Minoa]

Acting as a mouthpiece for a DOS player (already covered by posting-past-ban, but could be clarified in the OSRS)

The term "Posting-past-ban" confuses me occasionally, because for some it might seem to refer to posting even after the ban had expired. I was thinking "posting while banned" and "knowingly posting on behalf of a banned player".

I think the keyword in establishing whether a player was shielding a banned player is definitely "knowingly".

[Lockdownn]

Acting as a mouthpiece for a DOS player (already covered by posting-past-ban, but could be clarified in the OSRS)

The term "Posting-past-ban" confuses me occasionally, because for some it might seem to refer to posting even after the ban had expired. I was thinking "posting while banned" and "knowingly posting on behalf of a banned player".

I think the keyword in establishing whether a player was shielding a banned player is definitely "knowingly".

Posting around your ban, or getting past your forum ban.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Acting as a mouthpiece for a DOS player (already covered by posting-past-ban, but could be clarified in the OSRS)

The term "Posting-past-ban" confuses me occasionally, because for some it might seem to refer to posting even after the ban had expired. I was thinking "posting while banned" and "knowingly posting on behalf of a banned player".

I think the keyword in establishing whether a player was shielding a banned player is definitely "knowingly".

It is unnecisarily ambiguous, I agree.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Ah, tOK...thanks.

I thought sharing personal info was OK? Didn't we have a thread at one time for the purpose?

It's one thing for a person to share their own contact info; it's another entirely to share somebody else's info, especially when we have no verifiable way to know whether that person gave permission for it.

Fair enough.