Wizards Den Banning Policy

Definitions

• Indefinite: Refers to a ban with no defined end time. This type of ban generally requires a successful appeal for it to be removed. Indefinite bans which have no extra requirements are sometimes called appeal bans.
• Voucher: Confirmation from the admin team of another well known SS14 or SS13 server that you have played on that server for a significant amount of time without any recent major issues. A voucher is required when appealing a voucher ban.
• Voucher ban: A ban which requires a voucher to appeal. These bans can also typically only be appealed after at least 6 months from the date of the ban. They are often used as an alternative to a permanent ban that allows players to return if they can demonstrate an ability to follow a server’s rules.
• Warning: A warning is a clear communication from an admin that some behavior is not acceptable. Warnings should always be paired with an account note making note of the warning and behavior.
• Permanent ban: A ban which cannot be appealed. These bans are sometimes called perma bans.
• Game ban: A ban from the servers. A player who is game banned cannot connect to the servers during the ban. These bans are sometimes called server bans.
• Role ban: A ban from a specific role or roles.
• Ban evasion: Attempting to circumvent an active ban.

Special Banning Requirements

Permanent Bans

Permanent bans should typically only be placed as the result of an unsuccessful appeal of an indefinite ban or a voucher ban. Except for cases of ban evasion after an accepted voucher ban, a vote by the admin team is required to place a permanent ban. Placing a permanent ban may be an option in a vote for the appeal. It is recommended that any indefinite ban after a prior voucher ban within 6 months of the date of the current ban be upgraded to a permanent ban.

Voucher Bans

Voucher bans should typically only be placed as the result of an unsuccessful appeal of an indefinite ban. Except for cases of ban evasion, a vote by the appeals team or the admin team as a whole is required to place a voucher ban. Placing a voucher ban may be an option in a vote for the appeal. Unless the prior indefinite bans were solely for contacting the player, it is recommended that any indefinite ban after a prior indefinite ban within 6 months of the date of the current ban be upgraded to a voucher ban.

Banning Guidelines

Evading AHelp

A player is considered to have evaded an ahelp if:

• They disconnect almost immediately after breaking a rule or after being arrested/killed for breaking a rule.
• They disconnect during an ahelp where they should have reasonably believed the administrator was investigating an issue that they contributed to or were suspected of contributing to.
• Without responding, they continue to play after receiving at least 2 reasonably spaced ahelp messages asking them a question since their last response.
• They do not respond at least 5 minutes after receiving at least 2 reasonably spaced ahelp messages asking them a question since their last response.

If a player evades an ahelp:

• Their ban should be extended by at least 7 days.
• Their ban may be extended up to indefinite.
• If their ban is extended, it must include an instruction to appeal to explain the situation or continue the ahelp.

Ban reasons

In most cases, ban reasons should clearly communicate the reason for the ban to the banned player whenever they are not evading a ban. Admins should be able to easily identify the reason for a ban through either the ban or account’s notes.

Alternate account bans should typically be in the form Alt of OriginalUsername or AltUsername alt of OriginalUsername.

Bans of additional non-username information should typically include the GUID of the targeted player as a ban detail and should have a reason with just the account username. The earliest placed ban’s reason will appear for the player when trying to connect.

Dewhitelisting

Superseded by MRP Policy

Offense Table

Modifiers Tables

Mitigating: Required

Mitigating: Discretionary

Aggravating

Grouping and Stacking

• When separate offenses occur, the suggested time should be determined by summing the suggestions for each separate offense.
• Offenses across multiple rounds can always be treated as separate offenses, but are not required to be.
• Offenses within the same round are “grouped”, and not separate offenses if there is no relevant ahelp between them¹⁴ and if any of the following are true:
  • the offenses are non-grouping and one is necessary for the other to have occurred, or
  • the offenses are in the same grouping category.
• Grouped offenses should use the guideline for the most specific offense.

Role Ban Rounding

The total time of a role ban may be rounded to the nearest available autofill.

Examples

AME Sabotage

A technical assistant sets the AME to 50. Their offenses are:

• Self antag
• Station sabotage
• Unreasonable incompetence in role Self antag and station sabotage are part of the same grouping category, so are treated as only station sabotage. Both remaining offenses can have the new player modifier applied if the player is new to the game, which would allow the offenses to result in only a warning and an instruction to read the rules. The station sabotage offense may optionally have the role specific modifier applied. Any of the following total suggestions are valid:
• With new player modifier
  • W - 3d GB + W - 7d RB
• With role specific modifier
  • W - 3d GB + W - 13d RB if the role ban is applied in addition to the game ban, or
  • W - 13d RB if the role ban is applied as an alternative

RDM + Lying

A player RDMs another. When asked why they killed the other player, they say they haven’t done anything all round other than walk around, despite having just beaten the victim to death with a bat. Their offenses are:

• 1x RDM

The lying in ahelp modifier applies. The resulting guideline is:

• 36hr - 4.5d GB

Over escalation with history of issues

A player over escalates in a way unlikely to result in the victim’s round removal. They have a prior offense of RDM, a prior offense of self-antagging, and a prior offense of griefing the arrivals terminal. They have no prior bans. The offenses in this case are:

• 1x over escalation

No modifiers apply. Only the prior RDM offense is relevant because it is the only one in the same grouping category. The prior RDM offense means that for the current over escalation incident, second offense guidelines are used.

Appeals

Appeals Team

The Appeals Team is a group of admins within the Admin Team specifically tasked with handling ban appeals. Their members are appointed, and removed via Admin Team Votes. Any member of the Appeals Team is capable of handling any appeal on their own. Head game admins are always members of the Appeals Team.

An Appeals Team vote is required before placing a Voucher Ban as the outcome to an appeal. An absolute majority of its members must vote for a voucher in order for it to be applied. Should this not be met, but the voucher option holds a relative majority then the ban shall be reduced to 6 months.

Any member of Appeals Team may put an appeal to a vote within the Appeals Team, or the admin team as a whole instead of handling it on their own. The Admin Team is competent to decide on anything a singular member, or the Appeals Team as a whole is competent to decide. A vote within the entire Admin Team is required where a Permanent Ban is considered.

Appeals of Incorrect Bans

Unless the ban was an upgrade resulting from an unsucessful appeal, if an appeal disputes the events which were used to justify the ban, the first appeal of a voucher or permanent ban may only be declined after it has been verified that it was appropriately placed.

Appeal Hijacking

If an appeal is currently assigned to someone, it is generally best to let them finish processing it. Cases where it may be acceptable to “hijack” an appeal are:

• the processor has not responded to the appeal recently,
• the processor has somehow indicated that they are not going to process the appeal, or
• a head game admin has told you that you can process the appeal.

Processing by non-Appeal Team Members

Game Admins and Trial Game Admins may not process appeals without the supervision of an Appeals Team Member. Before an outcome can be made it must be approved by the supervising Appeals Team member. The only exception to this is when an admin reduces or removes their own ban.

Appealling the same ban multiple times

After an appeal, a banned player with a correctly handled appeal is only entitled to appeal their ban again if the ban is an Indefinite Ban, or a Voucher Ban. Typically the wait period between attempts is 6 months.

A player with a temporary ban may be told when they can appeal again by the processing admin. This is at the processing admin’s discretion, but is typically 2 weeks or double the waiting period for the previous appeal.

A player may have their appeal reviewed again or be allowed to submit a new appeal regardless of any waiting period if their appeal was handled improperly(e.g. The Handling Appeals Team member relied on incorrect facts). This may only be authorized by a head game admin following a successful complaint.

If a ban appeal is handled by the banning admin and the ban is not fully removed then the banned player may appeal again immediately.

Appeal Procedure

1. Check for ban evasion. If found deny the appeal.
2. If the ban has expired you may, but are not required to, deny the appeal.
3. If you are not the banning admin, an Appeals Team Member or under the supervision of an Appeals Team member you may not process the appeal.
4. If you placed the ban, you are only allowed to process the appeal if you intend to remove or reduce the ban.
5. If the appeal is extremely low effort, or a “troll appeal” deny the appeal. An appeal is considered to be low effort if it meets any of the following critera:
   • The appeal is clearly the output of an LLM such as ChatGPT.
   • The appellant is clearly not expecting their appeal to be accepted, and made it simply to troll.
   • The appeal is incomprehensible or written in a language other than English.
   • The appeal has such little effort put into it that no other outcome can be derived from it but to close it.
6. Collect information
   1. Check the player’s history of appeals.
   2. Make a reasonable attempt to verify any claims made in the appeal by the player, or accept them to be true.
   3. Check the player’s note and ban history.
   4. Read the ahelp that led to the ban if it exists.
   5. Attempt to contact the banning admin.
   6. Ask the player questions that are important for the processing of the appeal.
   7. Attempt to allow the player to respond to information which will be considered in the appeal that it would be unfair to not allow them the opportunity to address.
7. If Applicable, Run a vote
   • Votes must run at least 24 hours unless the net vote criteria is met.
   • Votes must not be closed if there is ongoing discussion unless the net vote criteria is met.
   • Votes must be made in one of the designated internal appeals discussion channels.
   • Votes should present as much relevant information as possible.
   • Votes should indicate if the ban is within guidelines, preferably by presenting the guideline range for the ban.
8. Check for ban evasion. If found deny the appeal.
9. Post a response on the appeal which must be a summary of the following:
   • The outcome of the appeal.
   • The facts relied on for the outcome.
   • An opinion detailing why you, the appeals team or the admin team as a whole have decided upon the outcome.
   • If applicable, when the player is able to reappeal.
10. Implement the outcome