Why is it that users can file a report up to seven days after the offense has taken place?
It doesn't make sense to me that the time period is that long. It should be reduced to 48 hours at the most.
The only thing that seven days allows someone is the chance to dig into the game records and see if they can get them banned.
Shorter reporting periods will allow users enough time to report offenses but also help to reduce report spam when people find each and every violation a person has committed in the last week.
The reason, though, that we can't just say "Only people in this game can report for violations" is because if there was a game full of friends, they can't break rules and get away with it.
By reducing the time to 48 hours or less, it leaves just enough time to report the violations and also keep out the report trolls who just want to try to get people banned and overuse the system.
People who review other people's games to spite report are not going through everyone's games to report any offensive activity, just one person in particular who they are frustrated with.
I'm sorry that I wish to discourage people from being spiteful. I'm so sorry for you.
deleteddeletedover 10 years ago
Because that's dirty and not why it was intended.
deleteddeletedover 10 years ago
It's definitely not something to use to your advantage when it's convenient for you
why the hell not?
deleteddeletedover 10 years ago
It's definitely not something to use to your advantage when it's convenient for you
10
deleteddeletedover 10 years ago
what is the report system for if not to punish people who break the rules
1
deleteddeletedover 10 years ago
So then it's the person-who-failed to-report-it's fault.
so you're telling me i have to pretend something mattered to me IN CASE i end up top of the leaderboard?
No, I am saying that, if your argument is to stay consistent, you would report it solely for "enforcing the rules."
Otherwise, you're flip flopping your points.
rutab, but its reality that some people really don't want to bother with getting people violations in order to enforce the rules. at least in connors case, a rule was broken and at least at some point correct enforcement was given to a rule breaker.
was it reported for a righteous reason? no, but at least now somebody breaking a rule got a violation which imo is not a terrible thing
I disagree. If you choose to let it go, then you let it go. Over-policing would be letting it go, and then having someone report it 6-7 days later because it benefits them in that time.
So then it's the person-who-failed to-report-it's fault.
so you're telling me i have to pretend something mattered to me IN CASE i end up top of the leaderboard?
No, I am saying that, if your argument is to stay consistent, you would report it solely for "enforcing the rules."
Otherwise, you're flip flopping your points.
rutab, but its reality that some people really don't want to bother with getting people violations in order to enforce the rules. at least in connors case, a rule was broken and at least at some point correct enforcement was given to a rule breaker.
was it reported for a righteous reason? no, but at least now somebody breaking a rule got a violation which imo is not a terrible thing
So then it's the person-who-failed to-report-it's fault.
so you're telling me i have to pretend something mattered to me IN CASE i end up top of the leaderboard?
No, I am saying that, if your argument is to stay consistent, you would report it solely for "enforcing the rules."
Otherwise, you're flip flopping your points.
the premise of the scenario i presented was that i was only reporting games i cared about, regardless of the rules, which is what roadman suggests is the better option