Strike Reformation

As we can see by the title, I am here today, on this fine Christmas day to be precise, to post a very important topic that should be discussed. After looking back at many situations and scenarios, many of us can come to the conclusion that the strike system is very out-dated, and not only that, but some of the strikes that were given out to players in the past were flat out bs. Today, I am here for one of my many well thought out ideas to the benefit of the CTF community. Before we hop on in, I am not here to call out the committee, as not only is it filled with new and promoted figures, but these events happened awhile ago and mindsets change.

Before we get into it.
​

Now before you say "wtf r u on gam", bare with me here for a few moments. Lets look back at a few strikes. *Insert flashback dreams and clouds*.

Exhibit A, Skarm. You could say many things fell down on Skarm suddenly and rapidly. Rules were changed because of him in a moments notice, elf got nerfed because he and like 2 other people figured out how to play it and beat the living hell out of others with it (joking about the elf part). After the move from McPvP occurred, his slate was set clean. With that in mind, we should consider that his past strikes never occurred, as it's only fair to have that mindset. One of his strikes we can look at is the use of Toggle-Sprint, which wasn't allowed at the time, but in all honesty it doesn't really give an advantage over players, and it really just seemed like an excuse by certain figures to strike down a player they probably disliked. Not only was he kicked from the match he was playing in, but he was striked right after. He was not informed that the rule was not allowed, as he also played on many other servers that did allow the mod. It would only seem like common sense that the mod would be allowed. Why was he given a strike, when other people in the past were just given warnings for the same instances? Why was he not unstriked afterwards, when the mod was officially allowed on brawl at a later time? Not only that, but lets look into the detective work that led into yet another one of his strikes; There was a member in BK at the time, he went by Ethan. He was a completely different figure, would talk in calls, go over strategy with us, etc. He was a completely different BK member than Skarm/Shinx, and would use that account as his own. Also, he was a very good friend with Shinx, and if I recall they knew each other in real life. At the time, Shinx was also on the team (BK). The committee put on their Sherlock Holmes hats, which resulted in yet another Shinx strike for "alting". It seems at this point the committee at the time had it out for him, and I actually believe they were. TTT was even caught smack talking BK, a team even to this day that they dislike. I have nothing against the people in/involved with TTT, but at the time the bias seemed rather obvious with Bob in the team and possibly leading the show when it came to Skarm's strikes. Besides his strikes, rules were changed in less than a day in behalf of Skarm. About to play in a unofficial match, which was allowed for striked players in the past, the rule was instantly changed, and he was not allowed to play in the match. I could understand if this rule was well developed and announced in advance, but in such a sudden notice? Seems very unfair for the committee to target out this player.


Spacer/Marker

Spacer/Marker

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taken from Bob's thread explaining player/team strikes https://www.brawl.com/threads/56691/

Now, this isn't the main reason I'm posting the thread, just shedding some light on the fact that Shinx has been hit hard with some pretty bogus things. Although I am not showing the full facts behind the Ethan story, if @b0squet would like to explain it himself that would be pretty nice, as it was risky of me to bring up the story without the full information. On a side note, this still reveals one strike that just doesn't add up, and that is why Shinx was striked, but not unstriked for toggle sneak, even when made an allowed mod. The committee should come together and discuss this.

Also, I would like to bring up the fact that Ducksfan and Northunited, a very long time ago, were striked for disrespecting a moderator during an unofficial when the rule by the referees, two of them to be exact, when the rule set by the committee was that strikes needed to be agreed upon and discussed by the whole committee, something I think hasn't been happening.

The Main Topic
​

Now, to move into the main topic. The strike system at the moment is very out-dated. It claims to be here to discipline and reform players for breaking rules, but instead it serves as a method for teams with good relations to target out players that they dislike at the time, or for individuals to target out a certain player (see the intro). Lets look at strike-stacking, shall we?

Strike stacking is the method of stacking 2 strikes at a time, ultimately nuking and smiting down a player in the way of this method. Usually players targeted by the stacking have 1 strike, have people out for them, and more. When this happens, all methods of reformation are pushed aside. How can a player be disciplined and reform when he is instantly banned from teams, going from one strike to three in a matter of a day. How is this fair? Strike stacking needs to be removed, and exchanged for a more disciplinary way instead.

Currently the strike system works as follows:

• First Strike - Banned from official matches for 30 days. Can participate in unofficial matches/practices.
• Second Strike - Banned from ALL matches for 30 days. Applies to official, unofficial, practices, and any other type of match.
• Final Strike - Banned from CTF Teams entirely. No matches of any sort, nor any affiliation via member or merc is allowed with any team, under any circumstance. This also extends to any alternate accounts owned by the player. Can also be considered as a ban from the match servers.

Personally I feel that the first strike is on point and should stay the same, but afterwards the second strike seems to only repeat the first, offering little to no disciplinary action. The third strike in most cases has occurred in the same week due to strike stacking or a piling of information afterwards, hitting a player hard with almost no chance to reform. Lets take a look at @Vezenite , and in this instance Skarm can also be brought up. Standing with one strike, many disliked him for his ego and attitude. Upon a group of players and mods grouping up in a Skype Chat, a "STQ Pinata" was formed as not only players, but moderators spoke of their dislike for him and gathered up information of him. Ultimately, he was striked for unsportsmanlike conduct/Harassment if I recall, and a surprise strike came out of sexual harassment. Now, to keep safe the privacy of both parties here, I will not be going deep into the sexual harassment side of the strike. All I can say is that unlike most people, I listened for both sides of the story unlike a majority of the committee, and even a few moderators themselves agreed that he did not deserve a second strike in this strike pile. Also, why was only one side punished? The committee needs to look at both sides fairly and try to block out obvious bias. With this said, strike stacking also needs to stop, as it takes away the possibility of players reforming when they instantly receive a stacked strike hammer for being on someone's bad side. With the stories shown earlier, and with other examples, lets get into the most important part of the thread.

Reforming the System, and the players under it.
Here is what needs to be changed, removed, and why.
​

Problem. Strike stacking needs to be removed. It takes away the point of disciplinary action and the possibility of them reforming. The goal should be reform, not putting someone you dislike out of the picture. Strike stacks are usually a result of bias and uninformed groups.
Solution. Certain rule breaks should be targeted with punishments according to their punishments, and punishment history. For example, if a player commits an act of player harassment and all around lack of common sense, instead of striking the stacks, raise the punishment level, instead of raising the strikes. For example, if someone committed the acts I listed above and currently only have 1 strike from past actions, issue a second strike, which will automatically ban them from all matches on the match server for 30 days. The punishment should increase accordingly to the offense. For example, extreme harassment should result in a month mute as well, and due to the second offense involved besides the harassment, increase the duration of the time not allowed to have matches. Increase the punishments accordingly to the offense, instead of striking stacks. It allows for a player to have a chance to realize their mistakes.

Problem. Many players do reform/have not been unstriked after being striked unfairly. Bias, rule changes, and other can lead to this
Solution. Have the committee look back at this. A third party should be involved to try to strain away from bias if needed. They should check both sides of the story instead of going by one person the whole time. If two parties were involved with the strike (example of harassment), the punished figure and the victim should come to an agreement, like to block each other, make up, etc.

Problem. What happens if a striked player truly does reform?
Solution. The strike system should "reward" players for reforming or showing improvement. Strikes should be able to be appealed when given a certain date. So if I was striked for personally insulting a moderator or player and being insanely rude to them, and was to receive a strike, I should be given a time duration to improve and post an appeal. Pretend the committee gave me three months to improve. I would need to improve, and gain the support of a moderator to post a appeal to the committee with reasons and proof that my attitude has improved. If the committee agrees on it, the strike should be replaced with probation. Probation is basically just the moderators keeping an extra eye out on you for a certain duration. Basically, a player strikes should be taken away if they truly have improved. If the appeal is denied, they should be required to wait another segment of time until re appeal, under the approval of a moderator.

Problem. Bias is occurring.
Solution. Player should be aware when they are being looked into under the possibility of a strike. The players should be able to tell their side of the story, along with any additional information. The committee should look at both sides of the story, try to get the actual truth instead of getting trigger happy, and make their decision as a complete group. Although the committee is technically supposed to do this, sometimes it seems it doesn't.

Overall, the strike system desperately needs to be reviewed and reformed. It needs to discipline players, instead of removing them from the scene altogether. Just because we may dislike a certain individual, doesn't mean it is fair to remove them from the scene.

I will edit any grammatical errors, incorrect information, etc in a bit.
Tags:
@kevshadowslayer
@Nohox (I offered to work on this with you but you never messaged me, so here we go).
@b0squet
@wintergreen3
@Xelia_
@Miskey
@LordCh4os (We talked about this a lot and you gave me good ideas).
@TheZombieKat
@SoCool21 (Although not officially a CTF mod, you are heavily involved with the team scene and have probably seen me talking about this).
@Jul13n
Forgive me if I have forgotten to tag anyone/give credit.

​

 

Updated with the information on Ducksfan and NorthUnited.

 

Myself and others, including some moderators that I have discussed with, have agreed that the system is quite outdated. And the occasional mistake? There have been many mistakes. The system should be here to reform, not literally strike down people just because you may dislike them.

Also, involving shinx, now I can pretty much see the whole story from here/remember it. Ethan didn't have an account so shinx gave him that account. Eventually Shinx introduced ethan to us, we would play games with us, and he eventually joined. It would have been pointless for Shinx to even use the account ethanxu since he played on his own account in matches, both were in the same team, and we were aware that both were different figures/individuals. Unless shinx was caught actually using that account during the time that Ethan was on BK, it still seems unfair that he was striked for that.

And of course, there will always be bias, but the goal should be to minimize it as much as possible.

 

Ducks and North not having the full committee discuss. So +2
Shinx Toggle Sprint +1. Oh, and was the committee fully involved when he got striked?
STQ +1, not to mention that only one side was punished. Also, there was literally a whole chat WITH a moderator there compiling information just to get him striked, asking for people if they had any info. He also got stacked on.

You probably wouldn't want me to include the other Shinx strike in here aswell. I'm not exactly sure how the whole Defiance stuff went down so I won't be getting into that.
Overall all of these strikes easily could have been avoided/changed fairly/actually followed by the set rules if guidelines were followed and story looked into.

Even if it was 1 mistake that could have been avoided, it should be handled. This thread serves 2 purposes;To raise awareness, and to show how the system is outdated. Strike stacking people you dislike isn't really the answer to reform.