URS - Suggestion

[Warped]

R.Fiets, trust me. As Luke said, there are not any irrelevant contents recorded in your or anyone else's URS page other than possible warnings and other entries which have descriptions of the events and no more than that.

[◄Chuck►]

I guess there is still some room for a compromise.
For instance in form of a "criminal record" showing kicks/bans/fines with a reason and date. Purely factual, no stories.

Furthermore, I think minor offences should have a limitation period, meaning they should be discarded after a year or so. I mean who cares if somebody drifted the roundabout 3 years ago?? Those obsolete records should then no longer be regarded when a new penalty is issued.

However, there will always remain strictly confidential information that never will be made public. That is also important to the people who put them there in belief they remain classified.

[Owl]

That Chuck, about the kicks bans and fines is practically what I wanted to get out of this thread. That is only because I didn't understand what the URS had in it. If something could be implemented like that, that would be great

[[TC]►BP◄]

R.Fiets Wrote:Wild guess? I'm not afraid, why should I -.- If im banned one day, so be it. To finish this all for me, im not worried about URS or anything. In general, URS is mirror of your acting. Mine? 2-3 swearing fines +1 recent "spam" warning, which was made before some kind of "spam rule" came.
Just some actions which were made by some admins, no names, not reporting, gave me doubts about how honest things are. Nothing more, nothing less. Bye

Not sure where your sudden bad attitude came from. In any event, it's obvious spamming isn't allowed. It is common sense.

Chuck, I don't understand how that would work.

[Owl]

BP, it would show:
•Past Bans (with reasons)
•Past Kicks (with reasons)
•Recent Fines

If that's what I should understand.

[[TC]►BP◄]

Yes, but I don't understand that in conjunction with what Chuck said here:

Quote: However, there will always remain strictly confidential information that never will be made public. That is also important to the people who put them there in belief they remain classified.

I am wondering how this system would figure out whether the entry needs to be classified or not.

[Owl]

Then you could have it under ors.city-driving.co.uk (ORS = Offence Record System)

[[TC]►Ash◄]

(2015-04-19 10:07)Skoda Wrote:  BP, it would show:
•Past Bans (with reasons)
•Past Kicks (with reasons)
•Recent Fines

If that's what I should understand.

So the "(with reasons)" bit will pretty much show the URS in itself.

I dont see what the big deal is. Players have gone YEARS AND YEARS without being bothered. Why now?

End of the matter is this: You dont break the rules, you dont have to worry about your URS.

[Owl]

Have a tickbox option in the URS saying "Classified Entry". Easy.

[Dan]

(2015-04-19 10:11)Skoda Wrote:  Have a tickbox option in the URS saying "Classified Entry". Easy.

And for all the past entries?

[Owl]

I don't understand why most of the TC's are having such a bad attitude towards this. It was a suggestion that everyone exploded about. Not naming names but the attitude in this thread is appalling

---

(2015-04-19 10:14)Dan Wrote:  

(2015-04-19 10:11)Skoda Wrote:  Have a tickbox option in the URS saying "Classified Entry". Easy.

And for all the past entries?

That would be the users fault if they got that many wouldn't it?

---

If so, do it like the PM System where you can multi select the entries and make them classified

[[TC]►Ash◄]

I think the 'attitude' your talking about is being slightly exaggerated by you. I think [TC]'s are trying to explain that the URS has always been a tool specifically for admins to help them in their job, not for the general public to have a nose around and see their past.

Even if it was to be like "You've had 5 bans, 2 unbans and 3 kicks", it still is pointless as it will not truly represent you or your account.

For example, if I banned you for 14 days but then thought, "ahh crap was a bit harsh", in the URS I have to put an "unban" entry in and a "reban" for the length of the ban I wish for you to still serve.

So straight away, you have 1 false unban on your account along with 1 false ban.

[Owl]

Good point. But then again, room for improvement, make to reduce the days instead or unban then reban

[Dan]

(2015-04-19 10:14)Skoda Wrote:  That would be the users fault if they got that many wouldn't it?

---

If so, do it like the PM System where you can multi select the entries and make them classified

Not really, that's just beating around the bush. How are we going to know what a past TC administrator would have wanted as "classified"?

(2015-04-19 10:21)Skoda Wrote:  Good point. But then again, room for improvement, make to reduce the days instead or unban then reban

This is just turning into a lot of stuff that needs changing for something that works perfectly as it is already.

[[TC]►Ash◄]

(2015-04-19 10:21)Skoda Wrote:  Good point. But then again, room for improvement, make to reduce the days instead or unban then reban

This would require extra work to do so when its not really required.

If the whole point of this is to see the "URS in all its glory", ill be happy to get a screenshot of my URS file with permission of a team leader to post it in this thread just so you can see how "basic" it really is.

EDIT: In response to your suggestion aswell, that would not apply for all the past bans anyway. So straight away regardless of how you go about it, your stats will always be incorrect, unless your account had not had any records/bans.

[◄Chuck►]

(2015-04-19 10:08)BP Wrote:  Yes, but I don't understand that in conjunction with what Chuck said here:

Quote: However, there will always remain strictly confidential information that never will be made public. That is also important to the people who put them there in belief they remain classified.

I am wondering how this system would figure out whether the entry needs to be classified or not.

That is pretty simple. Only warning/fine/kick/ban/report entries will be shown and only with the "public comment" field. Maybe we can extend that a little. Info records and the internal text will remain private. So the listing would be something like:

2014-08-12 KICK - "Causing crashed in pitlane"
2014-08-12 WARNING - "Ignoring sirens"
2012-09-01 USER REPORT - No details
2014-09-16 BAN 7 DAYS - "Interfering with chase (Forum report xxx)"
2015-02-02 FINE - Automated 1000€ swearing fine
2015-03-17 RESTRICT - "Restricted 30 minutes for ramming"

[[TC]►Ash◄]

(2015-04-19 10:32)Chuck Wrote:  

(2015-04-19 10:08)BP Wrote:  Yes, but I don't understand that in conjunction with what Chuck said here:

Quote: However, there will always remain strictly confidential information that never will be made public. That is also important to the people who put them there in belief they remain classified.

I am wondering how this system would figure out whether the entry needs to be classified or not.

That is pretty simple. Only warning/fine/kick/ban/report entries will be shown and only with the "public comment" field. Maybe we can extend that a little. Info records and the internal text will remain private. So the listing would be something like:

2014-08-12 KICK - "Causing crashed in pitlane"
2014-08-12 WARNING - "Ignoring sirens"
2012-09-01 USER REPORT - No details
2014-09-16 BAN 7 DAYS - "Interfering with chase (Forum report xxx)"
2015-02-02 FINE - Automated 1000€ swearing fine
2015-03-17 RESTRICT - "Restricted 30 minutes for ramming"

As you know Chuck, for example with Bans, not all of the bans issued have a "public" comment. So if what you say would go ahead, you will have users seeing:

2014-08-12 KICK - "Causing crashed in pitlane"
2014-08-12 WARNING - "Ignoring sirens"
2012-09-01 USER REPORT - No details
2014-09-16 BAN 7 DAYS -
2015-02-02 FINE - Automated 1000€ swearing fine
2015-03-17 RESTRICT - "Restricted 30 minutes for ramming"

Then it will turn into:

"NO I DIDNT, it was actually User XYZ who did that NOT ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

"WHAT WAS I REPORTED FOR??!?!?! GOD SAKE WHO REPORTED ME"

and

"OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH WHAT WAS THE REASON FOR MY BAN, CAN YOU GO CHECK FOR ME PLEASE"

... Which again, turns into a long process of being a middle man.

PS - No disrespect to anyone with the above comments, I am purely using them as examples, not from previous text stated by anyone

[◄Chuck►]

(2015-04-19 10:35)Ash Wrote:  ...
As you know Chuck, for example with Bans, not all of the bans issued have a "public" comment. So if what you say would go ahead, you will have users seeing:
..

We wouldn't need to show all old records. Just the new ones would work as well.

[[TC]►Ash◄]

(2015-04-19 10:49)Chuck Wrote:  

(2015-04-19 10:35)Ash Wrote:  ...
As you know Chuck, for example with Bans, not all of the bans issued have a "public" comment. So if what you say would go ahead, you will have users seeing:
..

We wouldn't need to show all old records. Just the new ones would work as well.

Then thats not so bad However my point about being a "Public Equiry Officer" would still stand.

[Pipa]

Awful idea.

You are supposed to follow the rules to the best of your ability, so i don't see how checking your history is relevant here. I certainly never had a problem in the long time i was not able to see my URS.

For the well behaved users in this community this bares no improvement at all, but the people that constantly misbehave will get another tool that allows them to see with how much crap they can now get away with.