Save the shard! Vote for the Zero Tolerance Bill!

[fingers]

I do see the good intention in this poll, yet, I have two problems with it.

First, it would have been the same if you would have wrote theses choices:

- Yes, I am briliant, helpful and friendly.
- No, I am mentally challenged and I like to bring trouble everywhere I go.

Wich doesn't really give a chance to players that don't fully agree to your point of view to discuss this.

Second, i think we need to trust staff to take the right decisions according to the situation. If I am a policeman and I arrest a person for going at 100 miles per hour on the highway (where speed is limited at 55), I will certainly give him a big contravention ticket. But if I see that the driver is bringing her wife to the hospital because she is about to give birth, I will not write the ticket and I will bring them as fast as possible to the hospital.

Granted there are some situations where there can't be any element to justify the staff's forgivness (duping, scamming, afk ressource gathering, etc.), I think that the staff needs to have hands free to deal with the different issues.

So I voted "no", not because I don't like the consequences, but because I beleive in staffs wisdom to deal properly with the different situations.

Happy easter all!

[OldManAlewar]

Llexa, you scoff at people using 'fudge', yet you use "bologna" as a substitute for "bullsh*t"

Unless you seriously intend that my arguments are a salty tasting pole of meat, you yourself would have some explaining to do to kids.


Jezus frowns on your faulty arguments



if you HAVE to still teach your kids about the F word then one of the following three situations is at play

1) they are below the age of 6 and should stay the hell away from the internet and violent games anyway
2) you and your kids live in Salt lake City, or the Westborough Baptist Church grounds
3) your kids know damnwell what the 'F' word is from school or this place called 'real life' and are either smart enough, or well-raised enough to not use it in your presence, anyway.

i repeat again: If your kids are forever ruined by hearing a four-letter word, you should *NOT* be letting them on the internet. AT ALL.


that said, as a GuildMaster:

when a guildmember not only 'stole' from someone, but also tried to scam a second on the same day, a good screaming-to from Rayne was all that was needed to straighten him out forever.
Sure he was jailed, but thats just gravy, you macro it off, of log in and go to sleep.

its the talking-to (and the threat of a ban) that did the trick, and he was forevermore a productive and hepfull member of the shard.

zero-tolerance as you describe it would have fudged him over and on the long-term deprived my guild and the shard of a contributing member.

make no mistake, i empathise with your idea but NOT with the method: its as badly thought-through as american war-plans and economies.

sit down, chill out, try to see the other side, reflect that on your side... chill out,

[OldManAlewar]

and don't start on the "well the parent shouldnt let them play" it's bologna. its a family shard and thats what is expected, that its safe.

actually, i'd tell my kids to stay the hell away from those places.
kids-only / kids-safe palces generally attract one kind of people
"thar be peadophiles"

[fingers]

That Jesus "facepalm" is such a strong image in this topic! Lol! You made my day right there

[OldManAlewar]

That Jesus "facepalm" is such a strong image in this topic! Lol! You made my day right there

"pic related, it was my face when i saw this topic"

i really did go "oh jezus no, not this again"

[Sorgon]

Love ya Old man ! You sure pick up on the key wording. If we are taking another sidepath on language, I am a father. My 16 year old son has heard every bad word I know.....hehe He is a straight A Honor student. He is a Boy Scout (almost Eagle) and the president of the latin club. So no i do not believe for one second such words effect how kids are,act or whatever. That being said he tried to play here and the attitudes of certin nameless people made him not want to be here.....

[Llexa]

Llexa, you scoff at people using 'fudge', yet you use "bologna" as a substitute for "bullsh*t"

I have no problem saying bologna. And you dont know if it is or what it is substitution for. its simply bologna. and fudge was used as an example, b/c im not going to actually say the true word. i dont talk that way irl and im not going to talk that way here.

Unless you seriously intend that my arguments are a salty tasting pole of meat, you yourself would have some explaining to do to kids.

i dont have anything to explain to kids. i live my life as an example knowing full well that kids will possibly see me and hear me. and i dont believe hearing words with ruin their life, i just dont think its right for them to hear it. and this really isnt all about language but like Sorgon said its attitudes among other things. basically just crude and troublesome players.

if you HAVE to still teach your kids about the F word then one of the following three situations is at play

1) they are below the age of 6 and should stay the hell away from the internet and violent games anyway
2) you and your kids live in Salt lake City, or the Westborough Baptist Church grounds
3) your kids know damnwell what the 'F' word is from school or this place called 'real life' and are either smart enough, or well-raised enough to not use it in your presence, anyway.

i repeat again: If your kids are forever ruined by hearing a four-letter word, you should *NOT* be letting them on the internet. AT ALL.

it doesnt matter how you put it, its NEVER right for children to HAVE to hear any of those words. in the world they do, due to people's lack of self control (even my dad can admit that), but it's NEVER EVER ok to subject kids to that or a number of other things. preserving their innocence for as long as we can is our GIFT to them. eventually some of that innocence will be lost, but not b/c im going to contribute to robbing them of it. kids deserve to be kids, not lil miniature potty mouth adults running around.

that said, as a GuildMaster:

when a guildmember not only 'stole' from someone, but also tried to scam a second on the same day, a good screaming-to from Rayne was all that was needed to straighten him out forever.
Sure he was jailed, but thats just gravy, you macro it off, of log in and go to sleep.

if they choose to sleep through it or macro through it then that's their decision, but the staff taking a stand is the important part of the equation, setting boundaries and limits and consequences so they people will stop being troublesome. if they think jail is boring and wont stop them from doing it again, then the next time they do it they get a ban. the point is that there is always a consequence until the player stops acting out or they get themselves banned forever.

zero-tolerance as you describe it would have fudged him over and on the long-term deprived my guild and the shard of a contributing member.

well i guess he should have used self control and thought about what he was doing, it wouldnt be the system's fault he got banned or jailed long term, it would be HIS fault. you cant blame the system for people making wrong choices and having to deal with the consequence.

it's like oh, this kid stole 100k worth of jewelry from the jewelry store and went to jail for 2 years. man its just not right! he missed his daughters 3rd birthday. they should have just had a talk with him and that woulda done the trick then he could resume life as normal and not miss his daughters birthday. its all the systems fault!
Yeah right....

sit down, chill out, try to see the other side, reflect that on your side... chill out,

im completely chill i'm not mad at any specific people, im just stating my points. chill doesnt = sitting back and ignoring the obvious.

Btw, i will quote the statement that sums up zero tolerance. there is really nothing to argue with in this statement.

zero tolerance simply means that there WILL be consequences, not there MIGHT be.

love,
Llexa

p.s i just noticed Licos posted and thanks for that post. so much is skewed from what zero tolerance means and that helps a lot.

p.s.s. HAPPY EASTER!!

[OldManAlewar]

and once again you utterly miss the point of my example as a guildmaster.
Your strawman-bleeding-hearts arguments aside (which are laughable from a debate skill point of view, but i digress)

my whole POINT was that he became a contributing member BECAUSE tehre was no real consequence.
All he needed was an ALL CAPS CONVERSATION WITH RAYNE. (ie: a good screaming to)
the TALK did the trick.

Zero Tolerance, or 'always punishing' is an idiots choice in politics(see: bush family) , a sure way to raise a sociopath in education and childrearing, the fastest way of creating a stronger hardened criminal in policing, and in any other field will just create a breed of people who will game the rules, just for the heck of it.

and yeah, those motherlovers will try anything to dodge fudging wordfilters and such sheets.


note to the wise, i differ strongly with you and rayne on this viewpoint, but its nothing personal.

as for your bologna argument: you might not *intend* "[enter word here]" but thats what's EVERYONE is reading there BECAUSE you're using a weaselword there. (no offense, its actually called a weaselword)

They assume the worst word in their head that fits there.

[Kile Morgan]

Here are a couple of legal definitions of what Zero Tolerance is as well as example in case law of it.

This definition is from a law text and is also quoted in other places such as some wiki:
Zero tolerance - Zero tolerance is a term used to describe a non-discretionary enforcement policy for the criminal law or informal rules. Under a system of zero tolerance, persons in positions of authority – who might otherwise exercise their discretion in making subjective judgments regarding the severity of a given offense – are instead compelled to act in particular ways and, where relevant, to impose a pre-determined punishment regardless of individual culpability.

This definition is from a wiki:
A zero-tolerance policy is a policy of not having a tolerance for transgressions: any infraction of existing laws and regulations, regardless of mistakes, ignorance, or even extenuating circumstances, will be met with full punishment. The term may be used in general or with reference to a particular category of transgressions, e.g. a zero-tolerance policy towards alcohol use.

It is typically enacted by an organization (usually a school) against a particular action, or possession of something on organization-controlled property. Many schools have a zero-tolerance policy concerning drugs or weapons. For example, a student possessing or caught using drugs on school property governed by a zero-tolerance policy could immediately suffer the highest possible consequence for their actions. Many organizations avoid these policies because it binds those in authority to an action, regardless of circumstances. The policy must be written extremely explicitly or it may have negative consequences.

As of 2004 many publicized cases have sparked slight controversy with regards to (at least what some perceive as) irrationality of the policies. These cases include students being suspended or expelled for transgressions such as carrying Advil (a legal, non-prescription drug) in backpacks, keeping pocketknives (small utility knife) in cars, and carrying sharp tools outside of a "woodshop" classroom (where they are often required materials). In some jurisdictions, zero-tolerance policies have come into conflict with freedom of religion rules already in place allowing students to carry, for example, kirpans.

In other words it means anyone doing anything deemed unexceptionable faces the same punishment. No mater the person or the situation. If the considered action is insulting other players then a person calling another a jerk is treated the same as one calling another a profanity. If the punishment is a ban then both suffer the ban. This is what I was taught in criminal law. This is what has always been used whenever it is enacted.

[Licos]

Zero Tolerance, or 'always punishing' is an idiots choice in politics(see: bush family) , a sure way to raise a sociopath in education and childrearing, the fastest way of creating a stronger hardened criminal in policing, and in any other field will just create a breed of people who will game the rules, just for the heck of it.

to raise a sociopath in education and childrearing.

...will just create a breed of people who wall game the rules, just for the heck of it....

...That’s fine if they want to "game the rules", the only thing is that they will be able to game the rules for a while...until the door hits them in the bum on the way out. Now, from what I am reading here is that consistency is for idiots. Having a system where there are rules and a sequence of reprimands is for idiots. That having a zero tolerance (or better described as a violation will always end up with the next step of reprimand aka warning, 1 hour time-out, etc...) is for idiots. Do you know what happens if you raise a kid with inconsistent reprimands from parents and society, all together inconsistent parenting, inconsistent being there for them, inconsistent support, inconsistent home life, inconsistent teaching. You get a child that has no idea what to trust and where his boundaries are. These kinds of children often turn out to be oppositionally defiant or worse, conduct disorder. I'm no parent, but I have read through countless developmental books, parenting/teaching books, and research studies by people who have been in the field of development for 25+ years. It's what I am studying and it pertains to my field of work, so I know what I am talking about (or what the researchers are talking about if you want to be specific). Trust me, inconsistent reprimanding (or lack there of) is more dangerous than having people know that there is a set rule and it will always be this way. It's assuring, it's something to depend on. There's no ambiguity or wonder about it, it will always be there. If you want proof, search on the dangers of intermittent punishment in the classroom and see what happens to problem behaviors of children.

[Llexa]

and once again you utterly miss the point of my example as a guildmaster.
Your strawman-bleeding-hearts arguments aside (which are laughable from a debate skill point of view, but i digress)

my whole POINT was that he became a contributing member BECAUSE tehre was no real consequence.
All he needed was an ALL CAPS CONVERSATION WITH RAYNE. (ie: a good screaming to)
the TALK did the trick.

Zero Tolerance, or 'always punishing' is an idiots choice in politics(see: bush family) , a sure way to raise a sociopath in education and childrearing, the fastest way of creating a stronger hardened criminal in policing, and in any other field will just create a breed of people who will game the rules, just for the heck of it.

and yeah, those motherlovers will try anything to dodge fudging wordfilters and such sheets.


note to the wise, i differ strongly with you and rayne on this viewpoint, but its nothing personal.

as for your bologna argument: you might not *intend* "[enter word here]" but thats what's EVERYONE is reading there BECAUSE you're using a weaselword there. (no offense, its actually called a weaselword)

They assume the worst word in their head that fits there.

i could basically just quote myself again and keep doing so after everything you say. if you dont like consequence and responsibility then i feel very sorry for you. if you think 100% consequence make people serial killers, that just discredits everything you say from here on out b/c its ridiculous. 'always punishing' is for those who DONT ABIDE BY RULES. if you dont want to have to be held accountable then i can see why you'd be against it. its a lot easier to just say whatever you want, do whatever you want and not take responsibility for it. well for some people it's easier i guess, i think its harder.

i will give a great example. there is a prison that is a zero tolerance prison. the prisoners arent locked up in cells they are out in tents, free to roam around but they stay in place b/c they follow the rules. due to zero tolerance they have virtually no problems with these guys and dont have to lock them up in cells in isolation bc/ they know that they lose for messing up, so they behave for the most part. if zero tolerance works for a prison then it sure will work when the community is not 100% criminal. btw these arent low level criminals their murderers and the like. cant remember the name of the prison but was in a documentary. i think its like arizona or something.
also since when did any staff say they agreed with me? i havent heard from half of them. neptune said it well that staff should be authoritarian style, do whatever want b/c they are the boss. they can do it however they choose but i know this system works and its something to take into consideration. but its their call b/c their the ones in charge.

love,
Llexa

[Harabakc]

If you're talking about the Maricopa County Jail in Arizona, it has fences, you can't walk out. People are housed in tents because of the weather and they also work in gardens to raise their own fruits and vegetables for food. It's on the news fairly regularly, in fact Charles Barkley was just there not long ago for a few days for his DUI.

And trying to put words in other people's mouths when they're talking about debate tactics is completely missing the point.

[Llexa]

nope its not that one i dont think. its one where they just live in tents, and yeah there is a fence but theyre not locked down. the exit is clear. but they are a zero tolerance prison and they talk about not having to lock them up (literally in cells and stuff) b/c of their way of ruling, its awesome. the punishments are swift and intense so they have little problems.

love,
Llexa

[OldManAlewar]

Jezus tapdancing Christ llexa, you really aren't even bothering to read are you ?

i'm saying admins should give each situation the reaction it deserves as they best see fit at the moment, and not a 'zero tolerance' reaction where as we just read.

Under a system of zero tolerance, persons in positions of authority – who might otherwise exercise their discretion in making subjective judgments regarding the severity of a given offense – are instead compelled to act in particular ways and, where relevant, to impose a pre-determined punishment regardless of individual culpability.

@ licos : this sort-of goes for you too, i never said there should be NO reaction, but that we should trust our admins in these cases.
As for education and child-rearing: i promise you if you consistently beat the living snot out of your kid for just any minor transgression, you're raising an axe-murderer.




i'm now out of this conversation, if this short/succinct post doesn't get my point across, nothing in the nine hells will.

P.S. Llexa, no offense, and nothing personal, but what you just said about that prison was outright silly. its a prison

addendum:

if you dont want to have to be held accountable then i can see why you'd be against it.

This is called a 'strawman argument' and where i come from this is frowned upon from a very early age, please learn otherwise, its insulting to your debate partner, and reflects poorly on both your debate skills and upbringing.

i'm opposing this on general principle, not because i want to benefit from lax laws or anything, and for the record: I haven't been jailed or banned so far, so there wouldn't *be* any benefit for either.

in short: your remark is poorly thought-through, and quite frankly offending to my integrity and my intelligence, or anyone else who just happens to not agree with you.

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

[Llexa]

Its actually not silly at all. I already said its a prison and said that if zero tolerance works for a population of 100% criminals it will def work for a population of a lot less criminals. its not about if the style is used in jail or anywhere else, its about the structure. so theres no point in trying to redirect my post back the fact that i talked about the zero tolerance structure being used there. its pretty obvious in my post why i was giving the example. also it doesnt matter if it IS prison and the people are locked up you still deal with attitudes and criminal behaviour and lack of obedience. thats when zero tolerance comes in, so its hardly an issue.

also, wow, no one said it's right to, what was it again, "beat the living snot out of your kid" and that it would make fine people. we DID say that you give your children rules and and consequences for behavior so that they have direction. no one ever talked about beating your kids.

as far as my statement "if you dont want to have to be held accountable then i can see why you'd be against it", well, its a valid statement. zero tolerance is about consistency. that also means that if you dont act up then you will consistently be in the safe zone lol. if you dont want consistency (by which we'd all be under) then by deduction you prefer inconsistency, always different and never clear. by that deduction you prefer lots of grey area. so if johny cusses his brains out in chat and gets jailed its an injustice b/c he was on morphine at the time. no way, he's responsible for what happens on his account at all times and consequences aren't canceled out. and if lucy cusses out a player b/c she was p/o'd that her breed didnt go through, well thats ok too. she was justifiably angry after all. yeah right. if robby's dad tells him he better go wash the car so he sets a macro for afk mining, then well, thats ok too b/c he was just obeying his dad. absolutely not. shoulda hidden and stopped actions til he got back.

not only that but, sheesh, in game almost everything is premidated thats said and done b/c we have to actually type out a sentence and we actually have to set up an afk macro. everything should have consistent consequences.

as far as not knowing the rules... you arent going to drop your engine in your car without first checking with friends or the manual to see what the risks are and how its supposed to be done. same in the game, everyone should check the rules before hand to see what they can and cant do. if you dont care what happens to the car either way then you wont bother checking the manual. and by that deduction the consequence isnt an issue.

love,
Llexa