Banned recruits should be stripped of =(e)= status.

[Jacko]

If a recruit has been banned multiple times for basic global policy rules such as disrespect or server disruption they should be demoted of recruit status. In some cases I see recruits that are unbanned continue misrepresenting our community while keeping the =(e)= tag.

I don't think that every ban on a recruit should warrant a demotion because some cases are legitimate accidents. But in cases where a recruit breaks a basic global policy or blatantly and carelessly breaks a server rule multiple times they shouldn't be allowed to continue representing our community with the tag.

In pG we had a system where if an admin banned or CT banned a recruit, they had to make a Contact Leadership linking the ban so that Quality Assurance or an AT can review the ban and decide whether further action should be taken against the recruit.

 

[sopheyy]

big fat thumbs up

 

[Divine]

Yes, especially if they've been banned multiple times.

 

[Ayto]

In pG we had a system where if an admin banned or CT banned a recruit, they had to make a Contact Leadership linking the ban so that Quality Assurance or an AT can review the ban and decide whether further action should be taken against the recruit.

I remember this, also remember filing these reports.

Although this would put a whole new set of the workload onto leadership it would definitely get rid of all the bad apples that remain recruits.

 

[WaSe]

What the heck is a recruit???

=(e)= tag.

Oh...

And I do think that tags are stripped away from members (Busting ur balls, btw) major mistakes. I believe they are stripped manually. I don't think this system really needs to change that much... I think people could always make a dropbox (contact leadership) and ask for it to be removed.

Personally, not sure about this yet

 

[Simon]

I can see this for serious issues, and generally does happen. We do rely on you guys to help us with this - letting us know about problematic people that are not representing eGO in a positive light in the server. Currently we don't see this happen much.

That being said, I have pushed this to leadership discussion to gather some thoughts there about it. I've heard this from a few people more than once now.

 

[AndrewW]

I can't remember what the verdict was on this suggestion for MS but back in pG, QA would always talk to the recruit and make sure they knew the severity of being banned, we would add them on steam talk it out and make sure they didn't do it again. I think this would be a good extra layer to add before just completely removing a member from the community.

 

[Cascsiany]

I would think the use of racial slurs or repeated bans for harassment or breaking other server rules would warrant a look by that divisions leadership as to a members status.

 

[BeastTheNinja]

What the heck is a recruit???





Oh...

And I do think that tags are stripped away from members (Busting ur balls, btw) major mistakes. I believe they are stripped manually. I don't think this system really needs to change that much... I think people could always make a dropbox (contact leadership) and ask for it to be removed.

Personally, not sure about this yet

that tag im carring dad



but yeah you are totally right

 

[Jacko]

I can't remember what the verdict was on this suggestion for MS but back in pG, QA would always talk to the recruit and make sure they knew the severity of being banned, we would add them on steam talk it out and make sure they didn't do it again. I think this would be a good extra layer to add before just completely removing a member from the community.

This right here. I feel like if its a first time offense and its not extremely severe having a higher community member talk to the recruit (aside from the ban contest) to have them acknowledge the severity of the situation and understand that any future cases may lead to them losing recruit status.

People mainly make a contact leadership about a disruptive member of the community if its severe enough to prompt them to make it. But that's not always the case and sometimes disruptive members seep through the cracks and tip-toe around the rules.

 

[PigB]

I just recieved my first ban, and I dont think stripping the =(e)= tag should be a first ban punishment.

 

[Jacko]

I just recieved my first ban, and I dont think stripping the =(e)= tag should be a first ban punishment.

I dont think so either in first offenses as long as its not really severe (like hard R). But maybe have like a 2 or 3 strikes you're out system and give the demoted recruit a time as to when he can reapply.

Of course each ban would be subject for review and might not trigger the "strike"

 

[CtrlAltDelicious]

All the points illustrated within this thread are faultless, in other words accurate. As a recruit/member of the eGO community, it is their responsibility to ensure that they are setting an example to ALL players on our servers and upholding our high standards. However, I feel we should extend the same level of courtesy that we give to our non eGO members to our recruits as this will allow for them to possibly alter/fix/realize their flaws or mistakes on our servers. With that being said, if a member/recruit is otherwise misbehaving and violating our rules/policies on a regular basis, an elevated approach should be had. Our reputation and efforts put forth into the community should not be placed on the line for repeat offenders.

 

[dys]

However, I feel we should extend the same level of courtesy that we give to our non eGO members to our recruits as this will allow for them to possibly alter/fix/realize their flaws or mistakes on our servers.

So then it could be a temporary removal until they prove they are either mature enough to not break the rules on numerous occasions OR remove their =(e)= tag but not disallow them to rejoin the community. However, with the second option in order to re-join the community via having the tag, I feel there should be a proper interview of sorts with the player in question, whether it be via text or voice, it could be a way to tell if they are sincere about their response or if they just want to "flex" on those that don't have it.

 

[Fwuzzy]

I agree with this 100%

 

[sopheyy]

I can see this for serious issues, and generally does happen. We do rely on you guys to help us with this - letting us know about problematic people that are not representing eGO in a positive light in the server. Currently we don't see this happen much.

That being said, I have pushed this to leadership discussion to gather some thoughts there about it. I've heard this from a few people more than once now.

I get where you're coming from - but I personally didn't think that it was possible to report a member for misbehaving, when it isn't ban worthy. Maybe leadership should also do a better job of advertising it, or giving a heads-up in admin training - just to spread the word.

 

[Taco]

Why don't we just ban everyone so nobody loses tags?

 

[Mcg]

Why don't we just ban everyone so nobody loses tags?

I see that you've been talking with Idol

 

[Surge_Wave]

It really depends on the ban. However, when I submit people for a ban, there normally a "hard" ban request, not something trivial. Thus, I think they should have the =e= taken out, but still be an active forum member.
The other thing is if we do take out the =e=, then have it taken out for an x amount of time, and have it automatically reinstated after the x amount of time.
Cheers,
~Capt

 

[Simon]

I get where you're coming from - but I personally didn't think that it was possible to report a member for misbehaving, when it isn't ban worthy. Maybe leadership should also do a better job of advertising it, or giving a heads-up in admin training - just to spread the word.

I’m with you on that. Even just problematic behaviour would be nice to be aware of. I agree - we don’t make it clear enough that member reports in the Dropbox can be for e’s who are constant toeing the line and need to be spoken to as well, or we feel don’t rep us well.

We’re discussing how we want to handle this now.