|
Post by M.S.-ARC on Feb 5, 2009 21:49:54 GMT -5
I don't think MIA should be a policing force but at the same time it kind of is because we do require that people follow the basic safety rules and if they don't they get booted out of MIA.
I think the whole point to this is to get a good way for event hosters to share information about problematic people or potential problematic people. It's going to save the event hoster from problems eventually like if there is a guy who has the habit of taking his goggles off. It's good to know ahead of time to keep an eye on the guy or prohibit him from playing so that the host doesn't have to deal with the guy going home blind.
Ultimately it's up to the host to look at the information that other hosts post and they can decide for themselves if they want to allow someone to go to their event or not.
|
|
|
Post by Thor on Feb 5, 2009 21:51:07 GMT -5
Well, if you made it so you had to be a mod AND had a password, then made it a locked thread, you would also have to have mod status to change it. Just a thought...
|
|
|
Post by bigc on Feb 7, 2009 14:31:17 GMT -5
Well, the limiting factor is not just proboards. Each event holder will have different standards and tolerances and as stated before might just hate someone enough to ban them due to personality alone.
As a Global Mod I can honestly say I don't trust the judgement of some event holders and other I completely trust.
I think the best solution has already been stated: An event host section that allows the hosts to post people who have been banned as well as the what/what/why stuff.
In all the events that I have been to I can only think of a couple of times where I have hear/seen someone get kicked out, does it really happen that often?
|
|
|
Post by Knief on Feb 7, 2009 22:53:09 GMT -5
I don't have time to weigh in on the main topic at hand, but I will say this BigC. I've hosted a lot of games in my day, ranging from small 12 man rec games to what was, at the time, the biggest game ever held (and failed) in Michigan with 150 people. I've only ever thrown one person out, and that was for removing his goggles in a hot zone, and bitching when another ref and I asked him to put them back on. I've sat people for an hour, or a round, or whatever. I've yelled at people, called them out, or made fun of their masculinity. But only once have I hosted an event and seen an act worthy of being removed from the premises.
Of course, that doesn't account for the acts that I haven't seen, or the acts that I've seen on other peoples' fields and didn't have the power to do anything about, aside from tell the host, who didn't see and thus couldn't do much about it.
|
|
|
Post by Gestapo on Feb 7, 2009 23:33:16 GMT -5
I did tell one guy he couldn't come back to our games, for ridiculous amounts of overkill, after being warned over and over and over and over again. 400 FPS M249......
|
|
|
Post by redknight on Feb 9, 2009 1:18:43 GMT -5
I don't think MIA should be a policing force but at the same time it kind of is because we do require that people follow the basic safety rules and if they don't they get booted out of MIA. I think the whole point to this is to get a good way for event hosters to share information about problematic people or potential problematic people. It's going to save the event hoster from problems eventually like if there is a guy who has the habit of taking his goggles off. It's good to know ahead of time to keep an eye on the guy or prohibit him from playing so that the host doesn't have to deal with the guy going home blind. Ultimately it's up to the host to look at the information that other hosts post and they can decide for themselves if they want to allow someone to go to their event or not. So what about having a listing to review players? Not necessarily banning them, but to have all the hosts and refs list good and bad experiences so everyone can get an idea of who to allow or not allow based on our own judgement. For instance, Hellfish have a list that I have seen on their posting for farmington CQB, other people hosting may not ban for the same offenses, but it would be good to have some idea what these people have been doing to get banned by Hellfish.
|
|
|
Post by Knief on Feb 9, 2009 9:24:25 GMT -5
None of those people are permanently banned from our games. As we say in all of our Farmington CQC event posts, we don't allow people to attend if they've backed out on us at the last minute. We have a limited number of spaces available, so we don't want to give them to people who won't show up reliably when others would otherwise be able to make it. None of those people did anything at the event to warrant a ban, and they will all be allowed to sign up for (and hopefully show up for) our No Limits games when that park reopens for the spring.
|
|
|
Post by Barrett on Feb 9, 2009 17:03:56 GMT -5
...So there could just be a list of players banned from a certain field for the season?
2008-09 Farmingtom CQB Games player name~reason player name~reason player name~reason
2009 No Limits Rec Games player name~reason player name~reason
You get the idea.
|
|
|
Post by leatherneck on Feb 9, 2009 18:06:32 GMT -5
I think it's a good idea but i also think it could be abused.
|
|
|
Post by Crazyman™ on Feb 9, 2009 18:46:55 GMT -5
I personally think hosts should just boot the dumb fucks from the games as they happen, stop dicking around and back up your rules...
No real reason to have a list of people for all of michigan, with the exception of OP-Doc as everyone who's respectable wouldn't allow him on their field anyway after what he did.
As for cheaters, safety violators and thieves, boot them the fuck out and maybe they won't be morons the next time. Thieves on the other hand, should be banned permanently. I fucking hate thieves, though.
|
|
|
Post by theactionman on Feb 10, 2009 13:56:37 GMT -5
Well what are we waiting for? Lets get an official list up. If a mod would sticky it, that would be great. All event hosts should have fair warning over who's coming to their games.
|
|
|
Post by redknight on Feb 14, 2009 16:13:20 GMT -5
I'm all for this, as long as it targets unsafe sportsmanship. I believe any bans should only be made by the field owner or organizer; and only after corrective action has been taken. That said, those people who should have access to modify the list should be selected indivuals rather then entire teams or open for general comments. And any bans should be only listed for the season (or year), then removed. The main problem I see is that entire teams are going to gossp (the way people in 'cliques' do) about this sort of thing anyway and inflate any issues into something huge. Another point to consider is that the folks actually own the fields are the ones who should be determining who goes out on the field, due to the liability they are assuking by hosting. Lets face it, no matter who signs a waiver, no matter who pays for the field, the owner is going to eat the lawsuit at the end of any mess. In my opinion, for safety violations, field owners should be the only ones who make the decision on who gets banned. I think safety violators should receive a temporary ban as suggested by Pilot, unless they cause a serious injury, then they should be gone forever. On the point of personality issues or poor sportsmanship, I think that the event host should, of course, be able to publish a review of whom they have had conflict with, not so much for an absolute ban, but to give other people hosting/planning events a little "heads-up" on what to expect, or to watchout for. In any of these cases, I think a closed forum is a failing simply because it will lead to more distrust and gossiping. If you have to ban someone or give them a penalty, it is only fair to allow them to confront their accuser and answer to the 'charges' made against them. Anything else will lead to "witch-hunts" and people eventually getting banned for unsubstantiated hear-say. So, my vote is YES for the forum and or lists, but, NO for making them closed to the public.
|
|
|
Post by Thor on Feb 14, 2009 22:30:54 GMT -5
I'm all for this, as long as it targets unsafe sportsmanship. I believe any bans should only be made by the field owner or organizer; and only after corrective action has been taken. That said, those people who should have access to modify the list should be selected indivuals rather then entire teams or open for general comments. And any bans should be only listed for the season (or year), then removed. The main problem I see is that entire teams are going to gossp (the way people in 'cliques' do) about this sort of thing anyway and inflate any issues into something huge. Another point to consider is that the folks actually own the fields are the ones who should be determining who goes out on the field, due to the liability they are assuking by hosting. Lets face it, no matter who signs a waiver, no matter who pays for the field, the owner is going to eat the lawsuit at the end of any mess. In my opinion, for safety violations, field owners should be the only ones who make the decision on who gets banned. I think safety violators should receive a temporary ban as suggested by Pilot, unless they cause a serious injury, then they should be gone forever. On the point of personality issues or poor sportsmanship, I think that the event host should, of course, be able to publish a review of whom they have had conflict with, not so much for an absolute ban, but to give other people hosting/planning events a little "heads-up" on what to expect, or to watchout for. In any of these cases, I think a closed forum is a failing simply because it will lead to more distrust and gossiping. If you have to ban someone or give them a penalty, it is only fair to allow them to confront their accuser and answer to the 'charges' made against them. Anything else will lead to "witch-hunts" and people eventually getting banned for unsubstantiated hear-say. So, my vote is YES for the forum and or lists, but, NO for making them closed to the public. The problem with it being open to everyone and their brother to view and comment on, is that it will turn into a giant flaming and bitch fest FAST. That would be like saying that we should all be able to read the Moderators section and be able to answer any threads about us. It doesn't work that way. If you've done something serious enough to warrant being talked about, chances are, it's not just based on personal dislike or hearsay. For example, if I'm hosting an event and I for whatever reason don't like, let's say... BigC (I really do like him, he heats my balls), I may not want him at an event for whatever reason, but if he hasn't actually done anything I'd be stupid to stir up a shit storm by trying to ban him from my or anyone elses event. Now, say someone else, Crazyman let's say, comes to one of my events and commits mopery. I'm probably not going to want him to come back, and would like to be able to share that with other event holders/field owners without creating a large public stir. Simply put, there's reasons why some things are kept private among those immediately concerned.
|
|
|
Post by cqbr on Feb 14, 2009 23:44:29 GMT -5
About only letting the field owners ultimately decide.....
I don't believe that is going to work in all cases since in some places the field owner just collects the money from the team/person hosting the game after the event is over. Usually they don't care about misconduct since they are only concerned about the $$$. You need to let the hosts decide since they are the only people that will have contact with the player that may or may not be banned.
Obviously if the person commits a VERY serious infraction or crime the field owner is going to want a say in the matter, but unless it escalates to something unlawful, the field owner isn't really going to be involved much.
|
|
|
Post by redknight on Feb 15, 2009 4:22:25 GMT -5
cqbr, My point is that the field owner is the one who ultimately assumes the legal risk so for safety issues only I think they should have a list for reference, and any owner that disregards it, well, thats his problem. Looking at it from your side, on the other hand, if the owner gets pissed enough, its still private property...he can tell the offender to kick rocks regardless of what the event coordinator wants.
|
|