Forums  /  The Site  /  Controversial suggestion(s)
  HiHi

Ok so this idea was suggested to me by @MrMonshMrMonsh but I thought it'd be a good idea to make a thread about it as it is something important with the end goal of making the site a better place for everyone.

Instead of getting banned from the website as a whole, what if you could separate getting banned on the forums from getting banned from submitting runs? To me it seems very unfair to get banned forever due to how easy it is. Simply having an unpopular opinion that the mods or the users in general dislike will get you banned, so what could be done instead is ban that person just from the forums while allowing them to still submit runs, and viceversa too; if there's a player that cheated in the past they should get banned from the leaderboards but still be allowed to talk on the forums.

This can apply to alts too; I think it's unfair for alt accounts to get banned for no particular reason other than simply being alt accounts. It is fair to ban alt accounts of people that got banned on their main accounts though, but for the other players it's simply unfair as long as they don't do any harm. Maybe what could be done is ban those alts from the leaderboards IF they submit a run on the same leaderboard as their main account, because alts typically don't have submitted runs anyway so them getting banned from submitting runs is pretty fair.

IvoryIvory, frenchfrench and 9 others like this. 
  BenInSwedenBenInSweden

You can:
- If site staff feels it necessary, forum posting privileges may be revoked.
From: https://www.speedrun.com/knowledgebase/site-rules

PearPear, HiHi and MrMonshMrMonsh like this. 
  shenefshenef

Quote

To me it seems very unfair to get banned forever due to how easy it is. Simply having an unpopular opinion that the mods or the users in general dislike will get you banned

I've been browsing the site forums for like 2 years now and can't remember any such cases. If it's so "easy" to get banned, then changing the way bans work probably won't solve any problem and it sounds more like a problem with the rules or with how the rules are enforced.
Regarding cheating, the site rules are pretty clear on this and since everyone agrees to those rules when signing up for the site it's, imo, clear that they cheated on purpose and knowing that this risks their whole account. And since there are ways to appeal a ban without having an account on the site, it's imo pointless to separate leaderboard bans from forum bans.

How would you police alts and which account should be able to submit runs? srcom can't really verify which account is an alt and who owns it.

 
  MrMonshMrMonsh
(edited: )

Originally posted by BenInSwedenYou can:
- If site staff feels it necessary, forum posting privileges may be revoked.
From: https://www.speedrun.com/knowledgebase/site-rules

That's a nice find! Is there any example where this was enforced without the user also losing submission privileges though? To my knowledge those types of situations have always end up resulting in a ban.

Originally posted by shenefIf it's so "easy" to get banned, then changing the way bans work probably won't solve any problem and it sounds more like a problem with the rules or with how the rules are enforced.

I really think it would, given that instead of giving out full bans to revoke forum posting privileges they could just give a forum ban instead, allowing the user to continue submitting runs without indulging in more drama or whatever got him silenced.

A runner can be a jackass and still be allowed to submit runs. In that scenario, we just wouldn't want to hear about him.

Originally posted by shenefHow would you police alts and which account should be able to submit runs? srcom can't really verify which account is an alt and who owns it.

The same way they are policed right now. This wouldn't change the way we find alts (which is finding slip ups from the users themselves), but rather how they're punished.

IvoryIvory, nupalinupali and 4 others like this. 
  HiHi
(edited: )

Quote

I've been browsing the site forums for like 2 years now and can't remember any such cases.

I've been browsing the site forums for almost 3 months and I already know a few cases, the most recent one being in this thread which I feel like was an undeserved ban even though the guy seemed to be trolling.

Quote

- If site staff feels it necessary, forum posting privileges may be revoked.

Good find, although I can't think of a single scenario where that was used over simply banning the user. They should use that more.

Quote

How would you police alts and which account should be able to submit runs? srcom can't really verify which account is an alt and who owns it.

In my opinion there isn't even a need to police alts as long as they don't do any harm such as impersonating other people or if it's an alt of a banned account, in that case it would be easy to tell that it's an alt and it should get banned depending on the gravity of the situation (e.g the SuperAL guy). If anything, making alts increases the user count that the site has, which contributes to the growth of the site and to the increase in size of the company, and furthermore, allowing alts would save the team more time so that they can focus on other important things.

 
  BenInSwedenBenInSweden

Originally posted by MrMonshThat's a nice find! Is there any example where this was enforced without the user also losing submission privileges though? To my knowledge those types of situations have always end up resulting in a ban.

I can't remember the specific example that drew my attention to it as it was a good few years back, and maybe my memory is wrong about it, but I remember there was someone who couldn't post on the forums, but could still submit runs.

MrMonshMrMonsh likes this. 
  O.D.W.O.D.W.
(edited: )

@HiHi Regarding the troll in the pronoun thread, I think it's since it was a rulebreaking fresh account that had signed up hours ago, they decided to just full ban the jerk. If it was a much older account with actual runs on it, I'd assume that there would be a different approach to it.

It's also possible it was an alt someone made to stir up trouble. I'd like to think that's not the case, but it's possible.

Of course, I've got to admit my bias in the fact that I didn't like the guy and thus am unbothered the banhammer fell like it did.

IvoryIvory, QuivicoQuivico and 3 others like this. 
  HiHi
(edited: )

I don't know, he had some weird arguments but I still feel like he shouldn't have gotten banned because all he tried to do was defend himself after making a dumb post, without attacking or insulting anyone. If anything I find the guy who made the pronoun thread in the first place more worthy of a ban than that guy but that's just my opinion.

I'm just disappointed that he got banned, not upset at it.

nupalinupali likes this. 
  PinkaPinka

Someone needs to advocate for the obvious troll accounts.

 
  HiHi

Originally posted by Hi there isn't even a need to police alts as long as they don't do any harm

 
  LivLiv
(edited: )

It's not easy to get banned at all. Plenty of people on here have had very aggressively opposing opinions directly opposing Site Staff in the past whether it's over a feature or policy, none of them got banned because of a difference of opinion.

If this is because of that one dumbass sock account that got banned and was clearly created to troll, they're not worth the effort.

 
  HiHi
(edited: )

Originally posted by Liv Plenty of people on here have had very aggressively opposing opinions directly opposing Site Staff in the past whether it's over a feature or policy, none of them got banned because of a difference of opinion.

There's also been plenty of people on here that I've seen with my own eyes get banned for having opinions that most people disliked, including Site Staff. That guy is just 1 example but if I searched more I can probably find you at least 1 or 2 others if not more.

Also, I would like hearing some criticism about my ideas, not about my experiences with people getting banned forever in the past. Everyone can form an opinion based on what they've seen and I personally find it trivial to get banned, it's totally fine if you disagree with me but I'd much rather you focus on the ideas that me (and @MrMonshMrMonsh ) brought up. Thanks.

 
  O.D.W.O.D.W.
(edited: )

Well, okay.

@BenInSwedenBenInSweden already covered that posting bans are a thing, so I'm not sure what to add to that. Temp bans usually get used more often in my experience, and while it's perhaps annoying to have submitting runs be inconvenienced for a time, I think it's intentional as a punishment. If you're being that much of an ass, then enjoy time-out for a while and maybe not do it next time. I feel inclined to say that I doubt ELO, as a company, wants "problematic" runners on the site in general for sake of image, so they'd be more inclined to use harder punishments.®

As for the alting, I think joke alts are hilarious and that it sucks they get perma-ed. But I also understand that it's for a reason, as ELO probably doesn't want the forums getting cluttered what with excess accounts and people submitting with aliases everywhere. More false users don't really result in money or growth of the site, only active ones do.

One other thing to consider is that disallowing alts is a ruling that tries to keep people as opaque as possible, (as well as the fact that speedrunning started with people using their actual name more than not.) The runs you do, everyone knows it's you, and every post on the forum made, everyone knows you made it. Stops it from getting confusing, and is a policy that tries to passively police against people who abuse it to be toxic in disguise.

The only way to restrict the latter is with annoyingly strict sign-up requirements. ...Which is why, the state of alt accounts is about as good as it can be right now, honestly. LinkThink

As for submitting runs with alts, I kinda don't understand the reasoning behind it.®® In most cases, you'd want to be able to say, 'hey, this is my record for this game,' right? If it's about cluttering up our profiles, I think the better solution here is that they allow us to set a priority to the runs displayed on our profiles. We've all got runs we're more proud of than our most recent runs, and games we run more than others. This of course triggers the discussion about how close SR.C should lean to being a social platform.

® I do believe that ELO will absolutely shill out if said person holds enough social clout. I don't want to start that argument though.
®® The one case I can kinda understand it for, is if you've run something you don't want to admit you've run. I'm shameless in this regard and I'll totally own it, but I get it if you don't want say, HuniePop, on your profile.
DatFace

IvoryIvory, QuivicoQuivico and 4 others like this. 
  MrMonshMrMonsh
(edited: )

Originally posted by LivIt's not easy to get banned at all. Plenty of people on here have had very aggressively opposing opinions directly opposing Site Staff in the past whether it's over a feature or policy, none of them got banned because of a difference of opinion.

I've seen a fair share of threads popping up every now and then on this sub-forum where a runner came to complain about some beef they have with a game's community/leaderboard moderator and then get into a discussion in the same thread with the mod in question, usually resulting in the runner's ban from the site.

Now, I'm not necessarily saying the runner isn't doing anything to warrant a ban (they most likely are), but I find that perhaps a so called "forum ban" or "mute" would be a better fit, at least in cases where it was just internal drama that didn't negate the runs themselves.

I'd be more on board with a full ban in a case where you're actually going out of your way to remove the banned runner's runs, in case that they're suddenly found to be invalid. However, if we're not doing so why would we prohibit the runner from further submitting? That'd sound like mixed signals to me.

Originally posted by LivIf this is because of that one dumbass sock account that got banned and was clearly created to troll, they're not worth the effort.

It's certainly not my ideal to make every ban from now on either a forum or submission ban; a full ban can be warranted for obvious troll accounts if the site deems so. However, if the ban is being served purely for a disenting opinion (which the site is entirely entitled to do), just banning them from the forums would be enough.

PS: Again, I'm unsure whether "forum-only bans" are thing already or not, so I thought it'd be a neat suggestion. If they are, we can just move on, as there's not much else to add here.

Merl_Merl_ and HiHi like this. 
  PinkaPinka

Quote

The one case I can kinda understand it for, is if you've run something you don't want to admit you've run. I'm shameless in this regard and I'll totally own it, but I get it if you don't want say, HuniePop, on your profile.

if people want to run one of the 5 combined eroge that somehow slipped their way onto the site, they deserve the ability to use an alt.

 
  SioNSioN

id keep hunie pop as a trophy on my profile but i would understand someone using an alt for games they dont want on their profile

O.D.W.O.D.W. likes this. 
  HiHi

HuniePop sounds like an epic game to have on your profile.

IvoryIvory, O.D.W.O.D.W. and SioNSioN like this. 
  Bob-chickenBob-chicken

If you dont want a game on your profile, then why run it at all? Or just dont submit it to speedrun.com

PearPear, IvoryIvory and 3 others like this. 
  O.D.W.O.D.W.

The Bob of chickens has a point. LinkThink

PearPear likes this. 
  PinkaPinka

Strangely enough, some people wanna enjoy the fun of speedrunning games without having their names associated with porn games due to common stigma against erotic content.

P weird imo but understandable I guess.

IvoryIvory, O.D.W.O.D.W. and WalgreyWalgrey like this.