I believe we should make “maturity” a requirement for the Pokémon Database

Question

Lately, there’s been an influx of immature users. Users who refuse to listen to staff, users who constantly post low-quality questions, users who throw tantrums in the chatroom, and more. I believe a maturity requirement to be a user on this site will help filter out the less mature members, while not discriminating our younger members and not validating the same behaviours of older members.

My thought behind this is if a user causes enough of the headache, and multiple warnings from staff and advice from other users won’t change their behaviour, staff can decide together if a ban for “inappropriate behaviour”* is acceptable, and follow through.

*disclaimer: inappropriate behaviour does not necessarily mean NSFW; just means it isn’t appropriate for site standards. In this case, the maturity level.

In other words, I believe maturity level should be taken into consideration for our user base, and potentially be a bannable offence. What do you guys think?

Please excuse my poor wording; I’m not the best at explaining myself. Please do not hesitate to ask for clarification or voice your opinions. This is exclusively my personal option on a problem and my idea at solving it.

Comments

How can "maturity" be measured? It's not possible to tell how much someone can be "matured" at the time of registering, we had need to see their actions for some time to ultimately decide if they're mature enough or not.

---

The “maturity” will be determined by staff and their standards after the user is registered. If they believe the user is unable to act mature on this website, then it can be a bannable offence for being “inappropriate”

Is my idea, at least. The guidelines will probably be community based if this gets implemented

---

Agree with Inferno here. I think the general maturity level of DB should be brought up a bit, but I don't really know how we measure that. Plus, I'm pretty sure we already do ban users for being immature. If anyone remembers scorbunny rules, I think he's a prime example. And I guess Team RR Blaziken fit the bill for being too immature as well.

---

“My thought behind this is if a user causes enough of the headache, and multiple warnings from staff and advice from other users won’t change their behaviour, staff can decide together if a ban for “inappropriate behaviour”* is acceptable, and follow through.” @Frozen Inferno 火


Also, good post.

---

@PS doesn't that happen already, like in case of Scorbunny rules and Blaziken as X already told? Albeit we need to deal with them more harshly but to make sense this requires some rewording.

---

They weren’t banned sooner because staff “didn’t have a valid reason” though. Making this a “valid reason” will help prevent that long-term to the same extent again, and it also applies to chat room

---

I kinda agree with this but I think that this'll be much of an hassle if not implemented properly. Everyone has their priorities, and checking if a certain user is "mature" or not here would definitely not come in the top 5. I guess that we can make the rules a tad bit more strict so that it's easier to block/ban/whatever them.
First, the staff should issue warnings, and if the same situation persists, they can do the needful by banning the user.

---

I agree that this should be implemented, but I think it's extremely hard to find a consistent and unbiased way to do this though.  Some problems to be worked out at a later time include
1.  How many offenses does it take to be considered immature?
2.  Do certain offenses carry more weight than others (e.g. Bad questions and a Chat Room tantrum like Primarina Girl)?
3. This is the most important one.  How can this be implemented in an unbiased and consistent way?
4.  Will these bans be based on precedent on previous bans, or on a case by case basis?  

I support the idea, but in order to agree with its implementation, I would need answers to these questions so I can be sure that nothing bad comes out of this.

---

@J good points. I don’t really think I have a say in this, since ultimately it would be up to Fizz to implement this or not and he’ll have final say in the rules and guidelines. I’d like to imagine that this will be a collaborative effort of the entire staff server, though, so that we have multiple minds into each case

In my personal opinion, 1 would be consistent behaviour after ignoring staff/being rude to staff after being asked not to do something multiple times.

2… I’d say probably not. If something were serious, it’d be an instant ban. This is just to prevent more minor nuisances that could potentially become a long term issue (see blaziken)

For 3, I think if we do a majority rules thing in the staff server and take into consideration the main pokebase’s opinions (e.g multiple regular users wall Fizz and complain about user)

4. I’d personally like each case to be case-by-case, but at the same time taken into consideration of other cases to use as reference.

Disclaimer for anyone reading this: these are just my opinions, no one else’s, I speak for no one else

---

Why would that be necessary?

---

Read the OP..?

---

I feel it would still be idiotic to add maturity rules for this site. It's used a lot basically worldwide and just doing that all of a sudden may confuse said users.

---

We've already said we're not adding rules like that.

---

Cool. I didn't think so.

Answer 1

I have three opinions on this:

1. As others mentioned, it's hard to make a good/fair rule based around one vague quality. I'd also feel bad banning people under a "maturity" rule, since it basically amounts to a personal attack (which might be warranted, but it certainly won't make people like you).
2. Maturity can be enforced indirectly using other (more particular) rules. If there are lots of problem users making bad questions, getting upset etc then our rules are not tight enough. (Stay tuned!)
3. We/I was too slow to deal with some of the people mentioned in this thread. Won't happen again.

As other have mentioned, we've ended up banning people who were considered "immature" before. I think the main things that need to change are a) harsher rules and b) faster bans instead of repeated warnings. The former is coming soon (actually soon), and I guess the latter is already happening.

Comments

I guess if we have faster bans, it'll gonna be nicer. And yeah lol we need some stronger rules. Also what about temporary bans so the the user *does* get some time to think?

---

Yeah temp bans is probably the way to go. Historically, my habit has been to repeatedly warn people and eventually give them a lengthy (2+ weeks) ban, but maybe now I'll do shorter bans (maybe 5-7 days) after fewer warnings. Other staff have told me for ages that I'm too lenient, so you can trust they're already on board lol.

---

I feel that shorter bans + fewer warning would be better, yeah. The bad users don't listen to warnings x].