Bans vs PrCs/rewards

[dwarves say neigh]

This is probably going to be controversial, but I propose that being banned for rule-breaking potentially have an effect on whether a player is allowed to continue to use certain rewards.

For example, if a player earns a month-long ban (according to the rulings), as far as I can tell they can return and continue playing a PrC which required the trust of the CC team. Players who have earned significant bans due to repeat or serious offenses should, in my opinion, have a standard blockage of rewards against them. This is more fair than treating everything as a case-by-case basis. Such players should be required to make a compelling and formal case to the CC as to why they deserve to be trusted with the tools they were already trusted with. This should be on top of any cases made to remove indefinite bans.

I realize it's a bit of extra work (and may require simply asking said player to not use PrC abilities until "in favor" again) but otherwise it seems like a gross abuse of the PrC/application/CC system to have the CC, on behalf of the playerbase, place trust and special RP abilities into someone's hands, and have no consequences for showing that trust was misplaced.

This is especially true because many of the rules resulting in bans are specifically abuses against other players, which is a strong indication that said player should not be allowed to wield PrCs/etc unless they show themselves to be changed.

Thoughts?

[Dardonas]

This is probably going to be controversial, but I propose that being banned for rule-breaking potentially have an effect on whether a player is allowed to continue to use certain rewards.

For example, if a player earns a month-long ban (according to the rulings), as far as I can tell they can return and continue playing a PrC which required the trust of the CC team. Players who have earned significant bans due to repeat or serious offenses should, in my opinion, have a standard blockage of rewards against them. This is more fair than treating everything as a case-by-case basis. Such players should be required to make a compelling and formal case to the CC as to why they deserve to be trusted with the tools they were already trusted with. This should be on top of any cases made to remove indefinite bans.

I realize it's a bit of extra work (and may require simply asking said player to not use PrC abilities until "in favor" again) but otherwise it seems like a gross abuse of the PrC/application/CC system to have the CC, on behalf of the playerbase, place trust and special RP abilities into someone's hands, and have no consequences for showing that trust was misplaced.

This is especially true because many of the rules resulting in bans are specifically abuses against other players, which is a strong indication that said player should not be allowed to wield PrCs/etc unless they show themselves to be changed.

Thoughts?

I'm a firm believer that a punishment should be cut and dry and there shouldn't be shadowbans or prolonged punishments on characters or applying for PrCs, especially considering how most PrCs don't really have any bearing on rulebreaks.  It isn't a reward, it's progression through roleplay.

That said, I can say without a doubt the DM team and CC will bring up concerns when applying for subraces and PrCs if there has been issues in the past and can deny you for those reasons. 

[dwarves say neigh]

This is probably going to be controversial, but I propose that being banned for rule-breaking potentially have an effect on whether a player is allowed to continue to use certain rewards.

For example, if a player earns a month-long ban (according to the rulings), as far as I can tell they can return and continue playing a PrC which required the trust of the CC team. Players who have earned significant bans due to repeat or serious offenses should, in my opinion, have a standard blockage of rewards against them. This is more fair than treating everything as a case-by-case basis. Such players should be required to make a compelling and formal case to the CC as to why they deserve to be trusted with the tools they were already trusted with. This should be on top of any cases made to remove indefinite bans.

I realize it's a bit of extra work (and may require simply asking said player to not use PrC abilities until "in favor" again) but otherwise it seems like a gross abuse of the PrC/application/CC system to have the CC, on behalf of the playerbase, place trust and special RP abilities into someone's hands, and have no consequences for showing that trust was misplaced.

This is especially true because many of the rules resulting in bans are specifically abuses against other players, which is a strong indication that said player should not be allowed to wield PrCs/etc unless they show themselves to be changed.

Thoughts?

I'm a firm believer that a punishment should be cut and dry and there shouldn't be shadowbans or prolonged punishments on characters or applying for PrCs, especially considering how most PrCs don't really have any bearing on rulebreaks.  It isn't a reward, it's progression through roleplay.

That said, I can say without a doubt the DM team and CC will bring up concerns when applying for subraces and PrCs if there has been issues in the past and can deny you for those reasons.

To be clear, what I'm suggesting is the opposite of a shadowban. I'm suggesting that the rules clearly state something along the lines of "you lose your right to a PrC/app reward if you are banned for repeated offenses or for these x and y serious offenses". This is less shadowbanny than simply having concerns brought up should the player apply again.

The issue as I see it is that a player can be on good behavior prior to an application being accepted, and then knowingly break rules and accept bans while retaining their reward. They can continue using their "CC trust" reward to abuse other players. They already have the reward.

[Dardonas]

To be clear, what I'm suggesting is the opposite of a shadowban. I'm suggesting that the rules clearly state something along the lines of "you lose your right to a PrC/app reward if you are banned for repeated offenses or for these x and y serious offenses". This is less shadowbanny than simply having concerns brought up should the player apply again.

The issue as I see it is that a player can be on good behavior prior to an application being accepted, and then knowingly break rules and accept bans while retaining their reward. They can continue using their "CC trust" reward to abuse other players. They already have the reward.

Right.  And in the case of AMPC/MPC apps, or even subraces, DMs have in the passed pulled those and I imagine they could do so for regular subraces as well for not RPing those correctly.  However, I do not think messing with someone's build should be on the table however when it comes to punishments.  Perhaps the only case I could see is improper Dragon Disciple RP. 

If someone is roleplaying a pale master as a lovable grandpa with a bone arm with none of the maluses such as the corpselike appearance, it could be considered.  Or if people are incorrectly roleplaying how a shadowdancer works, lore wise. 

If a player is banned for, say, muling, it really doesn't have much of a bearing on whether they were a dragon disciple or a full wizard.  I don't look at PrCs as rewards.  They are classes unlocked through roleplay progression.  Punishments should fit the offense.  In many cases, being a PrC is actually weaker than being a full class, so it's certainly not a reward but an RP path.

[JustMonika]

PrC's and subraces are able to be revoked, should such action be appropriate and warrented.

[inkcorvid]

The Community Council does take past behaviour into account when reviewing applications for prestige classes that are particularly disruptive. If there are indications that a player might not treat the RP with the appropriate gravity, or if they tend to meme around, they might find it more difficult to convince the Council to approve an application for (for example) a Shifter or Dragon Disciple, which have features that can be immersion-breaking if misused. If you're applying for a prestige class (or subrace for that matter) with significant utility in PvP or likelihood to generate conflict (Dragon Disciple, Blackguard, Shadowdancer), past behaviour in conflict might be looked at. But the Community Council's mandate is emphatically not to "punish" players. An application not being approved isn't a punishment, it's an assessment, with recommendations for what you might need to get the application approved next time around.

A prestige class is also 100% not a reward; it doesn't make one special, it's not a prize for great RP, and it isn't about being "in favour" with anyone. The application process exists to ensure that a player comprehensively understands the class they're applying for, and has met the RP requirements (How did you learn to flit between the transitive plane of shadows and the material world? Did someone teach you? How has your character learned to understand the nature of Ki? From whom? What have you done to train for being a sewer hobo? Which existing Hallowed Witch revealed unto you the secrets of the Weave?). We want to feel assured that the player will roleplay the nature and features of the class appropriately, and won't use it to go against the spirit and themes of the server.

The DM team can (and do) pull PrCs if a player is misusing them, but only as a last resort. And it isn't within the remit of the Community Council to do so. The rules are designed to afford numerous chances for a player to reflect on their actions, and withdrawing prestige classes as a punishment for some unrelated thing isn't how the Team thinks about enforcement. If you're getting reprimanded for muling items ... whether or not you're a Pale Master is beside the point. If you keep doing it, you'll end up banned, and won't be able to play that Pale Master anyway.

[dwarves say neigh]

Thanks all for the responses.

I do see a few comments about how "something like muling shouldn't affect whether you can play a pale master". I do not think I was clear enough in my initial post maybe, so I want to clarify.

I suggest that the rules look something like this:

The following offenses will result in an automatic pause of PrC usage, AMPC/MPC status, and CC membership. To resume any of these statuses, the player must submit their case to the Community Council to make a case as to earning the abilities back again.

Rule Broken: Abuse of PvP rules/Griefing/General Neglect of Rules
- Third Offense

Rule Broken: Circumventing a pre-existing temporary ban
- First offense

Rule Broken: Harassment, Threatening, or verbally abusing another player or DM
- Third offense

Rule Broken: Exploit Abuse (Bioware/PotM)
- First offense

In my opinion, all of these except perhaps harassment very much are relevant to PrC status and the others. Someone who has been banned for breaking PvP rules should not, in my opinion, be able to automatically return to being a Dragon Disciple or Pale Master or Shadowdancer or whatever it is. The same is true for someone in the position of ampc.

I am relieved to hear that CC is willing to pull these powers (I agree, rewards is a poor use for them but the issue isn't that they are rewards: it's that they're powers, mechanically and IC) in some cases. I do feel this should be automatic rather than case-by-case.

[EO]

Such a stance would go against our core philosophy so won’t happen.