I will let my attached proposal speak for itself. However, I do want to mention that this thread should NOT be a place for discussing any previous administrative action, as that would be against the Community Rules. Instead, please focus on the contents of my proposed changes and voice any concerns relevant. Proposed Amendment to the Community Rules Overview: In light of recent events regarding administrative actions taken by PA Inc., I propose the following to be taken into consideration as potential amendments to PA’s official rules and guidelines: Clarification of where the Community Rules apply. The implementation of a warning system for first time offenders. A clear set of guidelines for moderators that explicitly states when bans are recommended to be used for administrative action. Clear communication of the duration of issued bans. The adoption of an appeals system by which administrative actions may be reviewed and either upheld or struck down. For context: In the last month, several members of the community have been banned, either temporarily or permanently. All of said bans are allowed according to the current Community Rules: Despite their validity, these administrative actions have not sat well with some members of the community. This has resulted in further bans, as discussing disciplinary actions violates the rules. Further stoking the confusion, nowhere in the Community Rules do they mention the boundaries of their jurisdiction. Many people, including myself, were under the impression that they were limited to activity on the official Discord server, the only place they are officially linked outside PA’s website itself and an obscure link in the Community Chat. This situation, though justified, has taken a toll on both the community and PA Inc., with community members feeling broadsided and PA Inc. wasting valuable development time dealing with frustrating moderation action. Thus, it stands to reason that measures should be taken to prevent future issues from arising as a result of these tensions or other necessary administrative decisions. With this in mind, I present some solutions. I will outline possible actions that could be taken to amend the Community Rules to create a better PA evironment. Proposal 1: It is fair to reason that many of the complications arising from recent administrative actions have stemmed from a fundamental misunderstanding of the current set of rules and where they apply. Understanding of the community rules by the PA community can be improved by increasing accessibility by displaying the link to the Community Rules more prominently in the main menu. Furthermore, I propose that an additional clause be added specifying where the Community Rules do and do not apply, e.g., the official Discord, in-game chat, etc. Steam’s Rules and Guidelines feature this sort of clause: This clause will clarify the scope of the Rules and Guidelines and create defined boundaries for the PA community, which is, after all, what rules are for. Proposal 2: Even with increased visibility of the rules, there will always be those who do not read them with due diligence, if at all. However, this should not be cause to remove them from the community, especially since their contributions are still valuable with such a small population. Thus, behavior that is in violation of the rules should be met with a warning as long as the individual does not have previous offenses. As Curse Web states in their article on Minecraft forum moderation, “warnings can be formal or informal.” An informal warning would not hurt the player’s record, serving instead as a way to inform the player of the Community Rules. A formal warning would go on the player’s record for consideration if future administrative actions are required. Using warnings, PA Inc. may consider implementing a “strike” system which would give clearer guidelines to the communities moderators and ultimately make their job easier. Proposal 3: A ban is the highest form of punishment in a game. It then follows that such actions should be taken sparingly. Take, for instance, the Great Debate Community which requires at least 3 rule infractions for a ban to be doled out by a moderator as well as the support of a fellow moderator. Their Moderator Guidelines provide a clear list of actions that may be taken against users who violate the rules. While PA Inc. may not adopt a carbon copy of these guidelines, as the GDC and PA communities are very different, I would encourage embracing a similar set of rules and guidelines for their moderators to ensure a fair and transparent use of bans, mutes, and other moderation tools. Additionally, transparency is difficult in regards to deleting content on forums and the discord. If clearly expressing the reason for removing said posts cannot be maintained on a case-by-case basis, I would at least propose that a discord bot be introduced to indicate the contents of any deleted message, so as to be fairly reviewed by other moderators. Proposal 4: This proposal can be addressed quite easily after the adoption of PANet and is simply a gesture of transparency on the part of PA Inc. With the current system, a player who has been banned is not notified of the duration of their ban which leaves them to wonder whether their ban is for just 48 hours or permanent. That sort of ambiguity can lead to outbursts which only escalate the situation, something neither the player nor the moderator wants. The simple addition of a timer to the ban message would remedy this problem. Proposal 5: Appeals are a standard feature of justice systems both on and offline. Reddit’s Guidelines for Healthy Communities articulates the importance of appeals quite effectively: The implementation of an appeals system may seem daunting for PA Inc., but the size of the community works to its advantage in this case. Appeals could be dealt with quickly and painlessly with the appointment of a moderator with the specific role of dealing with appeals. As long as this moderator is free to judge the moderation decisions of the other moderators, the appeals system could work freely and fairly. Alternatively, PA Inc. could leave appeals to the general community, with a quota of positive referrals required to overturn a moderation decision or a majority vote from appointed community counselors. The appeals system does not need to be extremely complex to function fairly, and it is something PA Inc. should consider including in the Rules and Guidelines. Conclusion: The recent tensions in the community regarding administrative actions is indicative of underlying problems in the framework of the Community Rules. If PA is to be the best community that it can be, measures should be taken swiftly to remedy these issues. These proposals are simply my attempt at facilitating positive change in the community, and I hope that PA Inc. can give them serious consideration.