Transparency, as you have outlined, is likely the absolute worst suggestion I've ever had the misfortune of reading. Making a public list of user who are likely using illicit game modifications would serve no purpose other than stigmatizing innocent users. May I remind you that people are always assumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, regardless of the accused crime, and therefore this transparency would only stigmatize people who are unfortunate enough to be statistically irregular. Perhaps this proposal needs to be inverted to the top five users most likely to be playing fairly, although I've yet to determine the advantage our community would gain by doing so.

Personally, I would rather remain ignorant about people's possible affiliation with illicit game modifications as ignorance in this situation preserves unity and community solidarity. If we started broadcasting the possible users who are likely using illicit modifications, than they would likely be wrongfully labeled as cheaters and unsavory characters leading to ostracism. Investigations need to be conducted by the staff and should be exclusively contained amongst the staff.

A real life example of the problem can be observed amongst patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus. These patients are stigmatized due to the infectious and virulent nature of their pathogen, so people, naturally, avoid them due to the self-preservative nature of mankind, even though the HIV virus is not communicable through common social interaction. Additionally, because of this stigma people who are not infected and are either dear friends with infected individuals or just "seem" infected themselves are stigmatized along with the actual HIV patients. I am included amongst these HIV-negative but still stigmatized people due to friendships with those seropositive. People like me, those educated enough to see past the façade, are capable of understanding the detrimental effects that stigma and ostracism can have on a community. And therefore I am forever convicted to the fight against stigmas of any nature. It would truly be a sad day for ECC should a system that encourages stigma ever be implemented.

“One century's saint is the next century's heretic ... and one century's heretic is the next century's saint. It is as well to think long and calmly before affixing either name to any man.” ~Ellis Peters

dork1877

 

im not saying a public list updated like the old griefer thread
i mean in bans and appeals, a note that user Z was banned for using Mod Y
like they do in the grief section. Even if no grief report is made, staff still posts that a user was banned etc.
I'm not talking a database of convictions
i mean transparency that people (like me) can see that SOMETHING is being done

 

The person has to appeal and state his ban reason. Why would we make a thread just mentioning that someone was banned for something serious if the user himself will already state his ban reason when he appeals?

 

We don't see the ones where they appeal to andrew.

 

But the ones that appeal to andrew only appeal for x-ray and special cases decided by andrew (And the x-ray thing rarely happens any more), anyone else who appeals to andrew just gets redirected to the appeals section.

 

"we could easily set this up to be give a top 5 most likely to be hacking list'"

I was responding to that idea, dork.

I also don't understand why it would be necessary to announce the reason for a ban prior to the creation of a ban appeal... if the user is already banned they cannot pose a threat to the community.

 

They will if they appeal successfully. Which happens a lot... all too often in my opinion

 

Oh, I see what you mean now! I also agree with you.

Sometimes andrewkm announces after someone has been banned for an offence that is incredibly malicious and results in a ban without chance of appeal. In a case like this, and I mean in extreme circumstances, I could support an announcement for the sake of deterrence. I justify my position because the guilty party is already permanently banned so stigmatizing him is not a concern. However, to implement an announcement protocol on a more frequent basis would require that the consequences of doing so were harmless; the guilty party could not be at risk of experiencing the enormous stigma which would ensue. In other words, an announcement protocol would require that the guilty party was served a permanent ban for harm to be avoided. Therefore, announcement protocol must only happen in the extreme cases of permanent banishment from our server.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primum_non_nocere

Just as a personal suggestion from myself to the readers of this post:

The great philosopher Immanuel Kant, a pioneer into the realm of moral duties, believed that morality was determined by ones adherence to maxims, or universal truths that are applicable for all people, and that failure to adhere to these maxims is immoral. Beneficence was one of the maxims which Kant loved. The notion of beneficence states that one should always seek to live a harmless life, for doing so is always the moral thing to do. I deeply urge all of my readers to consider whether making criminal records public knowledge increases the amount of harm forced onto the criminal and whether this harm is greater than the harm the criminal forced upon his victims. Surely, if the amount of harm forced by the victim onto the criminal is greater than the amount of harm the criminal has forced onto his victim, then the victim would surely be the most cruel. My advice for everyone is to not report before weighing whether the effects of the report are worse than the effects of the crime.

 

Mendi, have I told you lately that I love you?