Make a maximum length for ban appeals

[WineAllWine]

The original post of a ban appeal doesn't need to be very long. It certainly doesn't need to be in the thousands of words.

[sinfulbliss]

Admins regularly respond with just as much if not more, even for short ban appeals. If you wanna make a length requirement apply it to y’all’s responses too.

[PengisBungholius]

The original post of a ban appeal doesn't need to be very long. It certainly doesn't need to be in the thousands of words.

Since this has been kicked off by
viewtopic.php?p=693747#p693747
would you suggest that players logdump in a reply to their appeal's first post?

[Kendrickorium]

The original post of a ban appeal doesn't need to be very long. It certainly doesn't need to be in the thousands of words.

bro it was literally all logs

if you dont want to read logs dont read logs

or do it, for free

[WineAllWine]

Admins regularly respond with just as much if not more, even for short ban appeals. If you wanna make a length requirement apply it to y’all’s responses too.

I would agree

Since this has been kicked off by
viewtopic.php?p=693747#p693747
would you suggest that players logdump in a reply to their appeal's first post?

I don't think logdumping is healthy until the appealer has elucidated what logs need to be dumped.

I don't really think we need a strict limit on post length but maybe some guidance?

[PengisBungholius]

Admins regularly respond with just as much if not more, even for short ban appeals. If you wanna make a length requirement apply it to y’all’s responses too.

I would agree

Since this has been kicked off by
viewtopic.php?p=693747#p693747
would you suggest that players logdump in a reply to their appeal's first post?

I don't think logdumping is healthy until the appealer has elucidated what logs need to be dumped.

I don't really think we need a strict limit on post length but maybe some guidance?

Logdumping adds a lot of weight behind words, though. Plenty of appeals have died cause logs prove they were lying
imo having it be clearer how you should post logs would be nice, I doubt most people know it's by doing [ code ] (stuff here) [ /code ]

[WineAllWine]

Logdumping adds a lot of weight behind words, though. Plenty of appeals have died cause logs prove they were lying
imo having it be clearer how you should post logs would be nice, I doubt most people know it's by doing [ code ] (stuff here) [ /code ]

But only if those facts are in dispute. If everyone knew you made a bomb, sold it to the botanist at the vacant commisary and then the bartender set it off with a remote signaller....That's all useless, you dont need to prove anything.
This isn't a serious policy thread, more like a plea.

[WineAllWine]

all the logs are not useful. They're proving things that no one is arguing against. One should only use logs if things are in dispute.

[PengisBungholius]

all the logs are not useful. They're proving things that no one is arguing against. One should only use logs if things are in dispute.

relevant part of the ban appeal rules:

Rules regarding the use of public logs:
The content of log lines quoted must not be modified in any way.
This does not apply to adding context (as long as its clear that its added and not part of the original log)
Likewise, you are allowed to add formatting or emphasis as long as it does not appear deceptive
Any omissions of in between lines must be clearly marked in-line to the logs along with a brief description giving a rough amount of the lines removed, what they contained, and why they were removed
-snip-(500 lines of the clown slipping the hos in the other room removed for being irrelevant)
You must link to the log file you got the logs from to make it easier to validate the context
Air on the side of good faith, Its better to include too many context lines then not enough lines context lines
Expect onlookers to assume bad faith. If you omit details that are later deemed to be important people will assume you did it intentionally. This means doing due diligence when reviewing the logs for related or relevant bits.

[WineAllWine]

all the logs are not useful. They're proving things that no one is arguing against. One should only use logs if things are in dispute.

relevant part of the ban appeal rules:

Rules regarding the use of public logs:
The content of log lines quoted must not be modified in any way.
This does not apply to adding context (as long as its clear that its added and not part of the original log)
Likewise, you are allowed to add formatting or emphasis as long as it does not appear deceptive
Any omissions of in between lines must be clearly marked in-line to the logs along with a brief description giving a rough amount of the lines removed, what they contained, and why they were removed
-snip-(500 lines of the clown slipping the hos in the other room removed for being irrelevant)
You must link to the log file you got the logs from to make it easier to validate the context
Air on the side of good faith, Its better to include too many context lines then not enough lines context lines
Expect onlookers to assume bad faith. If you omit details that are later deemed to be important people will assume you did it intentionally. This means doing due diligence when reviewing the logs for related or relevant bits.

Just don't post the logs until they're disputed?

[PengisBungholius]

Just don't post the logs until they're disputed?

Yeah, sorry, I meant to show that the ban appeal section on logposting is lacking in both a nicer way to condense logposting and guidelines for when you should logpost

[WineAllWine]

Just don't post the logs until they're disputed?

Yeah, sorry, I meant to show that the ban appeal section on logposting is lacking in both a nicer way to condense logposting and guidelines for when you should logpost

Ah, yes, it should be improved. I think thats what I want out of this policy thread so thanks!

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

If an appeal only takes 3 sentences, then it will only take 3 sentences.

If it's some gargantuan affair that requires a dissertation of 20 pages of log-diving and logicposting then it will take a lot of words.

Wholly opposed to original proposal. The bit about possibly improved guidelines is fine, though.

[chocolate_bickie]

-1

Max length for the appeals isn't the solution to this problem.

Everyone needs to format better, dividing their appeals into paragraphs.

Instead everyone rambles and dosen't put logs in drop downs.

[conrad]

I think setting a forced limit on appeals isn't the right way to go. However, if your appeal was written like you're a baboon with a typewriter trying to reach a word count, I also don't think the admin has to be in any sort of hurry to reply.

Everyone needs to format better, dividing their appeals into paragraphs.

Instead everyone rambles and dosen't put logs in drop downs.

Perfectly well put, here.

[Atlanta-Ned]

Since this has been kicked off by
viewtopic.php?p=693747#p693747
would you suggest that players logdump in a reply to their appeal's first post?

no one neds this many lines to appeal. anyone posting that much isn't doing so in good faith.

[iamgoofball]

this is just more admins trying to find excuses to deny people their rightful appeal

[kieth4]

this is just more admins trying to find excuses to deny people their rightful appeal

A policy like this would probably also be extended to admins and it would kill timber. Murder him. He'd be retired by tomorrow if he can't 50000 word post he can't live

[iamgoofball]

it's a stupid policy proposal, we're adults, we can use long paragraphs to explain things, we don't need to dumb shit down to tweet-length quips for unmedicated ADHD-suffering fortnite children who shouldn't be here anyways because of rule 9 who click off of videos if they aren't 15 seconds long and shot in portrait

[NecromancerAnne]

No.

There are circumstances that would lead towards a ban appeal/note appeal requiring a larger argument and greater degree of log diving to demonstrate either there has been a miscommunication, misunderstanding or mishandling of either logs or interpretation of events/sequence of events. This really, ideally, should be done as succinctly as possible, but sometimes this requires a long breakdown that can be several paragraphs long.

You can choose to overlook large scale log dumps if you wish, and I think appealers should be cherrypicking the relevant pieces rather than dropping all relevant logs. Cutting the fat, so to speak. But I want it to be clear, any admin and any appealer should be able and ready to back up their decisions and reasoning both with strong arguments and relevant evidence to their point.

We need to be fair and give appealers their time to leverage their entitlement to arguing their case. And fairness requires being able to sufficiently reason their stance on the situation. Same as us. Some situations need to hit the thousand word count to make an argument in its totality, especially when explaining things in the form of a timeline of events with proper reasoning for each junction of a situation.

I don't want arbitrary restrictions placed on me and how I conduct my appeals. I don't want the same put on anyone appealing, because I care enough about fairness to not begrudge someone the opportunity to put in effort in making their case. Bludgeoning someone with a wall of text of nothing doesn't matter if the material itself is faulty, after all. You should be able to reason past that.

[Turbonerd]

I don't think this is the right solution. Admins can just skim through the appeal, and if there're signs of bad faith or the player has the wrong mindset (rules lawyering, unapologetic, not caring about other people or fun, etc), it can simply get rejected without a thorough investigation.

[Nabski]

For every hour the player is banned they can write 1 word + 2x the original note/ban length.
This makes my 1 hour ban from elyina that just said "fuck off" effectively unappealable. I know what I did but no-one else does.

[PengisBungholius]

Since this has been kicked off by
viewtopic.php?p=693747#p693747
would you suggest that players logdump in a reply to their appeal's first post?

no one neds this many lines to appeal. anyone posting that much isn't doing so in good faith.

admins can and have closed appeals after the first post, especially note appeals ("the note appeal guidelines are..." "the note is factual..." etc.), I assume you're saying this because you can see a lot of these appeals being talked about, otherwise this reads as callous. Players that are appealing already feel slighted, they want to be heard, why shouldn't they try and set their best foot forward?

[TheLoLSwat]

the reason appeals are so long is because you never know which admins are gonna instadeny in their first reply. You have to just assume you will get trolled and get everything off your chest first, and then wait for the first response before you can get into the real nitty gritty

[Not-Dorsidarf]

We should channel the spirit of John Oxford to seek his wisdom about the issue.

the jox ghost says
"there should be a maximum length to ban appeals and a minimum length to responses. if you respond with fewer words than the appealer at any time during the appeal you lose ban permissions for the duration of the player's ban"

[Archie700]

Since this has been kicked off by
viewtopic.php?p=693747#p693747
would you suggest that players logdump in a reply to their appeal's first post?

no one neds this many lines to appeal. anyone posting that much isn't doing so in good faith.

The appeal was later accepted, by the way.

[kieth4]

No interest but if you make an essay post and cannot tldr it to something more readable you are liable to have a bad time when trying to deal with people. (For both players and admins)