SITE RULES FOR FLAGGING/BANNING

[ProfBambam55]

i think this kind of dialogue is important in a sense...perhaps a bit of mediation is needed as i don't think personal insults will help find a resolution...there were a set of rules presented and valid arguments made as to why some of the rules were questionable...i can see the validity of both sides' arguments but am really confused as to what should be implemented as a rule and what should not...there's seems to be questions of "how legit should we go?" and "what if the rules were suddenly to change in the future?"...unfortunately, and i hate to say it, i think sly and the moderation staff should carefully analyze what is being said and take their time in coming up with a set of rules that they intend to stick by anticipating how possible future changes might affect the sensitive topic of removing implausible time stamps from the leaderboards in particular and try to come up with what they think will best represent the community here...it's quite possible the rules they've come up with already will stick...if that's the case perhaps now would be a good time to reinforce that this is in fact the way it's going to be and end this debate here...i really don't want to see anyone leave over some rules that will likely only affect a minority of people but at the same time think it's good of rellite to bring up the idea of having a terms of agreement...is it possible that all of this has come too late as some people, and possibly even paying users, may not have agreed or decided to become members?...

 

i also think this thread is a bit confusing and that it should be clarified that this is for the "site rules for flagging/banning" and that a separate thread exists for "suggestions for the dispute system"...i'm only mentioning it because i made the mistake earlier without realizing i was posting off topic and thought others might be in the same boat...

here's the link for the suggestions...:

 

 

[BlindMango]

4 minutes ago, Dav9834 said:

This is not the psnprofiles I once knew

 

I feel people keep saying this though nothing is really all that different, the community here has always been great and a little dysfunctional at the same time, it's always been the charm of it!  It's always been like one big classic family with all the different people you have to deal with and talk to. Personally I don't see any sort of dark cloud that all of the sudden loomed over the forums because there's a new section of the forums tucked behind the website feedback thread that's completely optional to visit. If people keep repeating this is a "toxic" place, then you'll believe your own statements to be true after a certain point even though in fact it may not be true! Now that I have mod abilities I see how freaking hard it is on an hourly basis for the mods to balance keeping this a nice place and at the same time not making it a safe space where you can't say anything! You guys may not like a new feature or think aspects of a new feature may not look good, but that doesn't mean the forums as a whole are directly affected because of that, what ultimately drives the positive of the community is the community itself, spinning in circles shouting "It's all burning to the ground!" isn't healthy  

 

Also flagging dispute threads aren't new, there was about one a day posted in the feedback forums with not near as much moderation/strict guidelines for posting then. It looks like users are now warned before creating the dispute that it's public within the forum. Making a dispute public is an extremely efficient way to deal with a dispute, and if you're innocent there typically isn't much of an issue with it. The problem is likely games that probably should be whitelisted rather than flagged (Black Ops II, GTA IV), if you think that should be a thing, keep telling Sly you really think it should be. That being said there can be improvements that can be made such as not showing them in new posts (If that's not already done) and maybe deleting the disputes after they're resolved (Though there's a helpfulness in keeping them up as well).

 

Anyway I can confirm this thread has been being moderated with unproductive posts deleted. Obviously we don't want to delete every little old thing because it would then probably be counterproductive censorship. If it seems time to lock the thread let us know, but I personally believe it's a good idea to have everyone talk it out, that's where good ideas come from. Don't worry guys, it's a forum, it's a place where you talk and the more you toss in your thoughts on a feature, the better that feature can be made.

 

Look how long it took DLC rarity to get a good compromise, probably thousands of posts over the course of years, it's fine guys we're all gonna be good  If someone makes an idiotic comment, just report it and it'll get looked at as quickly as possible, but it's the internet too so you can't shield yourself from sometimes annoying comments you'll stumble upon right after they're made, especially with such a big community. It's cool guys, Sly prefers keeping the threads open and reading what you have to say, if it's in this section of the forums he reads it all so keep the recommendations coming and keep yourselves from plunging into a flame war when possible

 

Sorry for the long post, but hopefully it helps  It's all good! Haha

[Parker]

34 minutes ago, Dav9834 said:

Where are the mods in here! 

@Parker @Stevieboy @Sly Ripper

So many of these comments are not helping this thread or the division between those of us that like the dispute /flagging system and those of us that think it's flawed and toxic being public. 

This isn't bringing us together, this is just creating drama and separation. 

 

This site needs more mods regardless of whether you feel they're completely trust worthy or not. 

 

This is not the psnprofiles I once knew

 

I'm watching the thread. I've already deleted multiple posts along with other actions. This topic, as you can already tell, will divide a lot of people and as such there will be some heated discussion. As long as the discussion stays on topic and members are respectful towards one another, I have no problem with heated discussion. If you feel there are more posts that break the rules that I've missed, feel free to report them and I'll give them another look. 

 

 

Parker

[NathanielJohn]

How about a new rule for the dispute threads: every user (other than the disputer) can post a maximum of two posts per thread.

 

The reason for this suggestion is that the threads right now just keep going back and forth with the same people saying the same things over and over again in increasingly hostile ways (there's one happening literally as I type this). People should present their evidence of why the person is innocent or guilty and then move on and leave it for the mods to make their decisions based on that.

[AJ_Radio]

1 hour ago, Dav9834 said:

Where are the mods in here! 

@Parker @Stevieboy @Sly Ripper

So many of these comments are not helping this thread or the division between those of us that like the dispute /flagging system and those of us that think it's flawed and toxic being public. 

This isn't bringing us together, this is just creating drama and separation. 

 

This site needs more mods regardless of whether you feel they're completely trust worthy or not. 

 

This is not the psnprofiles I once knew

 

I hate to say this but you can't expect this website to stay the same forever. 

 

You can go back to posts from 2011, most of those people are gone. Granted I didn't visit this website until early 2014, but people coming and going is what's to be expected. I just hope we will see new people willing to take part in the community. Rather than be like the OP here who was never really involved in the first place. Which is fine, but when you come on and say "I signed up to earn trophies, not to socialize" that upsets me a little. 

 

But that's just how some people are and you can't change that. I didn't start getting active with this community until fairly recently. For doing so I am very grateful to be a part of it. 

 

I believe the rules should of been clearly stated better and easily accessed from the front page.

 

I personally don't bother with old PS3 games with wonky multiplayer. Black Ops II and Fuel both seem to raise a lot of eyebrows. It makes me wonder if these people who maintain the servers should keep them up and going for longer. 

 

Sadly it looks like the PS3 is becoming more and more of a haven for hackers. Getting a trophy you did not earn because you were playing multiplayer with a hacker is just depressing. Some of these trophy hunters then find themselves removed from the leaderboards when that really wasn't their fault. 

 

We need to draw a line somewhere. Those of us posting in this thread are all up in arms about it because someone else disagrees on what this person thinks is better. 

 

Hopefully this can all be straightened out. I don't want to see this community split apart because of how PSNProfiles dictates flagged game disputes and how the system operates.

Edited May 20, 2017 by Spaz

[acasser]

51 minutes ago, NathanielJohn said:

How about a new rule for the dispute threads: every user (other than the disputer) can post a maximum of two posts per thread.

 

The reason for this suggestion is that the threads right now just keep going back and forth with the same people saying the same things over and over again in increasingly hostile ways (there's one happening literally as I type this). People should present their evidence of why the person is innocent or guilty and then move on and leave it for the mods to make their decisions based on that.

 

That sounds awfully arbitrary.  Why two?  Why not one?  Why not five, or seven, or nineteen?

 

And what about people who answer questions as to why they flagged someone (or would have) and have to clarify points time and time again?  Should they be SOL because of this limit?

[NathanielJohn]

2 minutes ago, acasser said:

 

That sounds awfully arbitrary.  Why two?  Why not one?  Why not five, or seven, or nineteen?

 

And what about people who answer questions as to why they flagged someone (or would have) and have to clarify points time and time again?  Should they be SOL because of this limit?

 

Two exactly so that people can clarify a point they made in their first post. If you can't make your point in two posts, you need to spend longer thinking about how to write your posts. My understanding is that the dispute threads aren't meant to be lengthy back-and-forths, but rather presentations of evidence for the moderators to then make use of. Two posts would force people to actually stay on topic (i.e., present their evidence), rather than having the same back-and-forth about what the rules *should* be for the 100th time.

[TazDevilz1986]

30 minutes ago, Spaz said:

 

I hate to say this but you can't expect this website to stay the same forever. 

 

You can go back to posts from 2011, most of those people are gone. Granted I didn't visit this website until early 2014, but people coming and going is what's to be expected. I just hope we will see new people willing to take part in the community. Rather than be like the OP here who was never really involved in the first place. Which is fine, but when you come on and say "I signed up to earn trophies, not to socialize" that upsets me a little. 

 

But that's just how some people are and you can't change that. I didn't start getting active with this community until fairly recently. For doing so I am very grateful to be a part of it. 

 

I believe the rules should of been clearly stated better and easily accessed from the front page.

 

I personally don't bother with old PS3 games with wonky multiplayer. Black Ops II and Fuel both seem to raise a lot of eyebrows. It makes me wonder if these people who maintain the servers should keep them up and going for longer. 

 

Sadly it looks like the PS3 is becoming more and more of a haven for hackers. Getting a trophy you did not earn because you were playing multiplayer with a hacker is just depressing. Some of these trophy hunters then find themselves removed from the leaderboards when that really wasn't their fault. 

 

We need to draw a line somewhere. Those of us posting in this thread are all up in arms about it because someone else disagrees on what this person thinks is better. 

 

Hopefully this can all be straightened out. I don't want to see this community split apart because of how PSNProfiles dictates flagged game disputes and how the system operates.

I agree with most of your opinions. But when someone earns trophies that are out of order without showing proof, than the flag is the right thing. You can easily google the exploids or glitches for that game such as Far Cry Classic on PS3 you can delete the patch and do the last checkpoint on the hardest difficulty and get your hard playtrough trophy that way.

 

Same thing with Wolfenstein The New Order and many other games. And if some guy complaints that he had a glitch and don't showing any proof than theres no reason to let him on the leaderboard. The PS3 system is still a great system, and everyone should still play on it no matter if other people hacking trophies on that system. Don't skip the PS3 because it's hackable.

[DaivRules]

5 minutes ago, acasser said:

 

That sounds awfully arbitrary.  Why two?  Why not one?  Why not five, or seven, or nineteen?

 

And what about people who answer questions as to why they flagged someone (or would have) and have to clarify points time and time again?  Should they be SOL because of this limit?

 

Posts are editable. As has been said before, it should be explained obviously enough in the report why the player can be flagged, if it's takes three+ posts to explain why someone should be flagged, you're doing it wrong.

 

One post to explain, one to clairify. 

 

Heres my proposition to help alleviate some of the frustration some members here feel:

When a dispute thread is newly generated, lock it. In order for it to be opened, the "flag team" (even though Grimy is the only one to comment and lock every single dispute) should read the dispute post and decide either:

A. Deny the dispute, ending the thread. Judging from many of their (his) final comments before locking every dispute, Grimy wasn't looking for input from anyone and had made his mind up after he read the opening post. 

B. Post the actual report contents in the second post in the thread (since absolutely no disputers do this and commenters can't see why they were reported), then open the thread up to input.

[Hemiak]

2 hours ago, kuuhaku said:

What about the people who were added by others and were flagged before becoming members?

If they aren't members then why would it matter anyway? Someone added them without their volition, then they got removed. It's a wash.

 

If they ever join later they get to see the message and maybe have 24 hours to hide games before any outstanding flags become permanent. Dunno, but like others have said, I just dislike that it's all hidden unless you really go looking for it.

Edited May 20, 2017 by Hemiak

[starcrunch061]

28 minutes ago, NathanielJohn said:

 

Two exactly so that people can clarify a point they made in their first post. If you can't make your point in two posts, you need to spend longer thinking about how to write your posts. My understanding is that the dispute threads aren't meant to be lengthy back-and-forths, but rather presentations of evidence for the moderators to then make use of. Two posts would force people to actually stay on topic (i.e., present their evidence), rather than having the same back-and-forth about what the rules *should* be for the 100th time.

 

From what I see, in the VAST majority of dispute threads, the evidence is presented just like you say. The real problem is the silly hypotheticals that get thrown around by people, many of whom freely admit that they've never played the game.

 

I actually support daiv's idea. Mod(s) should look at the duspute beforehand to determine if it's worth discussion (in much the same way as judges determine if a case should see a jury). After preliminary analysis, if doubt remains, open the thread to moderated discussion.

[A12]

Why is this thread open?

The "Rules" are posted. You have to meet criteria to flag someone.

What is the problem here?

Edited May 20, 2017 by Stevieboy
Unnecessary comment

[DaivRules]

11 hours ago, A12 said:

Why is this thread open?

The "Rules" are posted. You have to meet criteria to flag someone.

What is the problem here?

 

Parker, just a few posts earlier than yours, posted the exact reason it's still open. Not reading a thread, then just hopping in at the 7th page to ask why it's open is akin to spam and not really helpful to the conversation that *has* been going on. 

Edited May 20, 2017 by Stevieboy
Clean up for previous edit.

[sephiroth4424]

10 hours ago, starcrunch061 said:

 

I actually support daiv's idea. Mod(s) should look at the duspute beforehand to determine if it's worth discussion (in much the same way as judges determine if a case should see a jury). After preliminary analysis, if doubt remains, open the thread to moderated discussion.

I disagree with this.For the same reason i disagree with disputes being private.In many cases there were found more games with illegitimate timestamps and not only the game(s) the dispute thread was created for

[iAlphaSoldier]

16 hours ago, Rach said:

 

I feel this site should offer more leniency over old games that have been flagged (say Fifa 09, FUEL - when save files were shared around like candy)

 

On the other sites I have looked at, if you are flagged on old games, you get removed from that particular game leader board but still remain on the overall site leaderboard (unless you go over those two flagged game)  You don't even have to hide your trophies.  That would make much more sense here too and would save people being picked apart over an 8 year old game.

 

I also agree the system as it is needs to change but not like this. 

 

Here is a 3 strike rule un place meaning you can be flagged for old games like Fuel and FIFA and still remain on the overall leaderboards if you hide them. 

 

I don't like that just because a game's time stamp is old it should give you a free pass. Timestamps can be hacked and manipulated to look as old as the hacker wants to. Let's say everything that happened before 2014 wouldn't get removed because it was too old. That would mean every game released until then could be hacked and would just not count on the game leaderboards but on the overall ones. 

Edited May 20, 2017 by iAlphaSoldier

[MMDE]

15 hours ago, kuuhaku said:

Game saves were once included in trophy guides. The guides literally told you to download it.

 

What sites were these? And why should we care?

16 hours ago, dmland12 said:

In any case, if I were ever flagged, I'd prefer to argue it in public... as I feel I'd have a better chance getting things done correctly.  So there's one at least.  

 

Agreed!

 

I would consider a small team to be more likely to make mistakes, and that going both ways.

28 minutes ago, iAlphaSoldier said:

I don't like that just because a game's time stamp is old it should give you a free pass. Timestamps can be hacked and manipulated to look as old as the hacker wants to. Let's say everything that happened before 2014 wouldn't get removed because it was too old. That would mean every game released until then could be hacked and would just not count on the game leaderboards but on the overall ones. 

 

This is correct!

43 minutes ago, sephiroth4424 said:

I disagree with this.For the same reason i disagree with disputes being private.In many cases there were found more games with illegitimate timestamps and not only the game(s) the dispute thread was created for

 

Yup! Happens almost more often than not. And then you get a cheater completely off the leaderboards.

[MMDE]

5 hours ago, A12 said:

Why is this thread open?

The "Rules" are posted. You have to meet criteria to flag someone.

What is the problem here, other than people not being literate?

 

I think they want to change how the dispute system works. Like if it's open to public, to premium members, small private team etc.

 

And just so everyone knows, there's already a small private team who approves the reports. The disputes are those that has passed through and is being disputed by the person reported.

Edited May 20, 2017 by MMDE

[DaivRules]

1 hour ago, sephiroth4424 said:

I disagree with this.For the same reason i disagree with disputes being private.In many cases there were found more games with illegitimate timestamps and not only the game(s) the dispute thread was created for

 

Why would you disagree with the dispute being visible, just like it is right now, just locked for commenting by others until it's determined input is wanted by the flagging team. You'd still be able to see the account doing the disputing and the game they're disputing so you could check the rest of their games, people just wouldn't be able to take pot shots at the disputer. 

[MMDE]

24 minutes ago, DaivRules said:

 

Why would you disagree with the dispute being visible, just like it is right now, just locked for commenting by others until it's determined input is wanted by the flagging team. You'd still be able to see the account doing the disputing and the game they're disputing so you could check the rest of their games, people just wouldn't be able to take pot shots at the disputer. 

 

Let me see if I get this right. You want comments to be hidden until they've been approved? This just makes for the process to be much slower, and likely the decision being made before all the discussion has happened...  But yeah, generally poor communication.

Edited May 20, 2017 by MMDE

[atlasxof-]

14 hours ago, DaivRules said:

 

 

Heres my proposition to help alleviate some of the frustration some members here feel:

When a dispute thread is newly generated, lock it. In order for it to be opened, the "flag team" (even though Grimy is the only one to comment and lock every single dispute) should read the dispute post and decide either:

A. Deny the dispute, ending the thread. Judging from many of their (his) final comments before locking every dispute, Grimy wasn't looking for input from anyone and had made his mind up after he read the opening post. 

B. Post the actual report contents in the second post in the thread (since absolutely no disputers do this and commenters can't see why they were reported), then open the thread up to input.

 

The effort on this wouldn't be worth tbf, even if this happens in an automatic way. I mean, once the thread is created it locks automatically.  

[sephiroth4424]

1 hour ago, DaivRules said:

 

Why would you disagree with the dispute being visible, just like it is right now, just locked for commenting by others until it's determined input is wanted by the flagging team. You'd still be able to see the account doing the disputing and the game they're disputing so you could check the rest of their games, people just wouldn't be able to take pot shots at the disputer. 

If the problem is the pot shots (i don't know what it means,i assume it's assalting) then we should ask the mods to be very strict in those threads.Like instead of removing posts (happened to me), they can ban people for a certain amount of time,with no warning.If they close those threads then communicating will be very slow as MMDE posted above me,more likely it would be done via pms.Also i would like to propose something.In most cases,the disputers who claimed their trophies glitched,auto-popped because of a hacker,ps3 died before syncing and such,the community found more games with issues.In a few cases though this didn't happen or didn't happen yet.If a disputer has a clean account with only one game with problems,maybe we should consider giving him a pass (or like a favor) depending what is the problem.Of cource this would take time depending the disputer's backlog

[atlasxof-]

11 minutes ago, sephiroth4424 said:

If the problem is the pot shots (i don't know what it means,i assume it's assalting) then we should ask the mods to be very strict in those threads.Like instead of removing posts (happened to me), they can ban people for a certain amount of time,with no warning.If they close those threads then communicating will be very slow as MMDE posted above me,more likely it would be done via pms.Also i would like to propose something.In most cases,the disputers who claimed their trophies glitched,auto-popped because of a hacker,ps3 died before syncing and such,the community found more games with issues.In a few cases though this didn't happen or didn't happen yet.If a disputer has a clean account with only one game with problems,maybe we should consider giving him a pass (or like a favor) depending what is the problem.Of cource this would take time depending the disputer's backlog

 

Nah, there's already a rule against this. Doesn't matter if it's a new account. 

[sephiroth4424]

2 minutes ago, Atlas said:

 

Nah, there's already a rule against this. Doesn't matter if it's a new account. 

A new account? I don't understand

[atlasxof-]

7 minutes ago, sephiroth4424 said:

A new account? I don't understand

 

I meant a new account who got recently flagged...

 

Not one who got recently made on PSN, just to clarify. 

Edited May 20, 2017 by Atlas

[sephiroth4424]

Just now, Atlas said:

 

I meant a new account who got recently flagged...

I didn't get what it has to do with my proposal.Maybe i'm not expressing myself correctly.To give an example.Let's say that i'm reported for FFVII because a trophy glitched and created an impossible timestamp.If the rest of my games have legit timestamps,instead of forcing me to hide FF,i could get a pass