Java Reports that are "already punished"

[PaperKnight13]

Yes, I know there is already an unsuccesful thread about this, but what I'm proposing is a different idea.

When you report a player, normally it doesn't get looked at until a while has passed. I'm not complaining about that, as the staff team can't be constantly active on the report site. Despite that, the delay between you reporting a player and when a staff member(s) actually looks into it some times results in you getting feedback saying "player has already been punished", and your report marked as Closed. This visually gives you a feeling that you weren't right about the report, although it's completely the contrary: you were right about the report but the player was either reported by someone else or banned by Sentinel.

So, to correct this, I've came up with two solutions:
1--> Keep the same report output but change the color of the letters [Closed or Closed or similar]
2--> Change the report output to a different message [Already Punished or similar]

In my opinion, this would visually make "already punished" reports visually give the feeling that you did do something right, instead of facing red colored letters that usually mean the report was denied. Thanks for reading this!

(I marked this as Java as I do not know how reporting system works on Bedrock, but if it is the same way or similar I suggest that this gets implemented on that platform too)

 

[ToonBer]

In my opinion, this would visually make "already punished" reports visually give the feeling that you did do something right, instead of facing red colored letters that usually mean the report was denied. Thanks for reading this!

That seems unnecessary to me if the denial message already contains it. You will see something similar with the following:

 

[PaperKnight13]

That seems unnecessary to me if the denial message already contains it. You will see something similar with the following:
View attachment 211645

Yes, that is true, but to distinguish between the "denied" and the "already punished" reports, you need to click each one individually, which is a pretty long and unnecessary task.

 

[Marieke2001]

I highly doubt that this would get implemented, seen the server team recently denied all website suggestions due to lack of a web developer. This would likely also require a web developer, and thus are the chances slim of this getting implemented probably.

And about the suggestion, I disagree. Your head is making it a bad thing, whilst it really isn’t. A red word saying closed doesn’t necessarily mean that you did anything wrong or incorrect, it’s just how you interpret it.

 

[PaperKnight13]

I highly doubt that this would get implemented, seen the server team recently denied all website suggestions due to lack of a web developer. This would likely also require a web developer, and thus are the chances slim of this gestión implemented probably.

Yes, I feared that would be an issue if this does eventually get implemented. Nevertheless, as it is a very simple modification, I think that it can be done hopefully without many complications

 

[Matriox]

Yes, I feared that would be an issue if this does eventually get implemented. Nevertheless, as it is a very simple modification, I think that it can be done hopefully without many complications

Idk.. a lot of the Web suggestions that were denied were pretty simple too

 

[josepadgui]

I highly doubt that this would get implemented, seen the server team recently denied all website suggestions due to lack of a web developer. This would likely also require a web developer, and thus are the chances slim of this getting implemented probably.

And about the suggestion, I disagree. Your head is making it a bad thing, whilst it really isn’t. A red word saying closed doesn’t necessarily mean that you did anything wrong or incorrect, it’s just how you interpret it.

The point is that when you get your report denied because the player has already been punished, it shouldn't be marked as "denied" because you gave enough evidence proving they were breaking the rules. The thing is that they were previously punished by the staff or by Sentinel, but the report shouldn't be marked as if there was something wrong there.

I know this may sound stupid because it's just a damn number, but it is becoming really hard to get reports accepted for this reason (reports which are necessary to apply for helper btw), because when you find a hacker, most likely someone has already reported them using /report (which is the fastest way to get someone banned) or /sr. So by the time your website report gets reviewed, most times it's too late.

 

[Marieke2001]

it shouldn't be marked as "denied" because you gave enough evidence proving they were breaking the rules.

This is definitely not true. If we see that the player has already been punished we check what track is worse, but if it’s the same type or punishment track it’s not even worth checking if the evidence is sufficient.

 

[josepadgui]

This is definitely not true. If we see that the player has already been punished we check what track is worse, but if it’s the same type or punishment track it’s not even worth checking if the evidence is sufficient.

I didn't mean that, it's true that it's a waste of time to check a report's evidence if the player has already been punished for the same reason, that's right. But what I say is that the report shouldn't be marked as closed, as it seems like the evidence provided wasn't enough. I agree with the suggestion of adding a new label which would say "already punished" or something similar. I don't think it would take that long to add that.

 

[Matriox]

I didn't mean that, it's true that it's a waste of time to check a report's evidence if the player has already been punished for the same reason, that's right. But what I say is that the report shouldn't be marked as closed, as it seems like the evidence provided wasn't enough. I agree with the suggestion of adding a new label which would say "already punished" or something similar. I don't think it would take that long to add that.

There was a suggestion denied that wanted 3 letters to be added to the appeals site message that would also take very little time; it seems even the smallest Web suggestions will be/are being denied

 

[josepadgui]

There was a suggestion denied that wanted 3 letters to be added to the appeals site message that would also take very little time; it seems even the smallest Web suggestions will be/are being denied

Well, that isn't the right attitude to treat the community, because as you said that kind of things don't take long to be implemmented. Any community needs to feel that they are being listened by the staff, otherwise it will become less active and won't make less suggestions because they think their threads will be straightly denied.

 

[Matriox]

Well, that isn't the right attitude to treat the community, because as you said that kind of things don't take long to be implemmented. Any community needs to feel that they are being listened by the staff, otherwise it will become less active and won't make less suggestions because they think their threads will be straightly denied.

Developers cost money tho, you'd be talking about hiring a Web developer to implement suggestions like these and CubeCraft may not want to make this investment as there is a lot of money at stake

 

[Siza]

I see both good and bad sides to this idea. Personally I would love to see this being implemented but I can also see how this wouldn't really work out.

This is definitely not true. If we see that the player has already been punished we check what track is worse, but if it’s the same type or punishment track it’s not even worth checking if the evidence is sufficient.

As mentioned here, it's not always certain that the evidence admitted would be enough for a succesful report. Though changing it to a neutral colour using a different word that 'closed' would not hurt in this case, even if the evidence wouldn't be enough.

This statement however:

A red word saying closed doesn’t necessarily mean that you did anything wrong or incorrect, it’s just how you interpret it.

makes that idea not worth it, so I think this should not be implemented.

 

[josepadgui]

Developers cost money tho, you'd be talking about hiring a Web developer to implement suggestions like these and CubeCraft may not want to make this investment as there is a lot of money at stake

I know, but I guess they have at least 1 web developer to handle minor changes and updates on the CubeCraft's websites, in case they don't have any by now, the investment wouldn't be worth.

 

[Matriox]

I know, but I guess they have at least 1 web developer to handle minor changes and updates on the CubeCraft's websites, in case they don't have any by now, the investment wouldn't be worth.

They most likely have a developer who fixes and changes small things on the website as that is a thing that happens; for example "Home" changing to "Featured" but im assuming that Dev is not employed to do Web development and only does small changes like these and CubeCraft wont commit to doing so many small changes because then it turns into quite a lot of work - not sure tho - maybe a staff member could reply better on this