| 1 |
@Mekkie3 is @DaKeys and was known to be for a few days. He was let through the ban because some moderators took it upon themselves to unban him based on stories about DaKeys' dad setting him on the straight and narrow, with various bits of partial verification and behavioural assurances. By the time the rest of the moderators were online the policy had already been set.
|
1 |
@Mekkie3 is @DaKeys and was known to be for a few days. He was let through the ban because some moderators took it upon themselves to unban him based on stories about DaKeys' dad setting him on the straight and narrow, with various bits of partial verification and behavioural assurances. By the time the rest of the moderators were online the policy had already been set.
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
I think the course of action should not depend on whether the DaKeys' dad story is true or not. If it is true, then I don't have the time or inclination to have Zero-K function as an integrated facet of an individual's life-wide behavioural therapy. I don't think the other players have much patience for it either. Zero-K is not parental control software, that already exists, so we aren't in the business of unbanning someone because they have done their homework on time. The rules for a game are simple, if a player consistently misbehaves in the game then we should do as any other online game would do and boot them.
|
3 |
I think the course of action should not depend on whether the DaKeys' dad story is true or not. If it is true, then I don't have the time or inclination to have Zero-K function as an integrated facet of an individual's life-wide behavioural therapy. I don't think the other players have much patience for it either. Zero-K is not parental control software, that already exists, so we aren't in the business of unbanning someone because they have done their homework on time. The rules for a game are simple, if a player consistently misbehaves in the game then we should do as any other online game would do and boot them.
|
| 4 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
| 5 |
If the story isn't true then we're just dealing with someone willing to spin any type of tale to get unbanned.
|
5 |
If the story isn't true then we're just dealing with someone willing to spin any type of tale to get unbanned.
|
| 6 |
\n
|
6 |
\n
|
| 7 |
[quote]He is asking why his Mekkie account got banned only a few hours after DeinFreund allowed him to play under that account (with me monitoring his behavior).[/quote]While most of the other moderators read what had been decided upon overnight and decided to not immediately go against what had apparently become policy, not everyone had kept up to date. The result was the banning a clear smurf of someone who was permanently banned, since this is usually what we do with smurfs.
|
7 |
[quote]He is asking why his Mekkie account got banned only a few hours after DeinFreund allowed him to play under that account (with me monitoring his behavior).[/quote]While most of the other moderators read what had been decided upon overnight and decided to not immediately go against what had apparently become policy, not everyone had kept up to date. The result was the banning a clear smurf of someone who was permanently banned, since this is usually what we do with smurfs.
|
| 8 |
\n
|
8 |
\n
|
| 9 |
I am writing this post because the moderators that granted to unban failed to take an important step - tell the community. If the community thinks that someone is technically meant to be banned (and the @DaKeys profile page even says so) then they are correct to report smurfs of that account. Those reports not being acted on creates confusion and is likely to catch non-smurf accounts in the crossfire. If it seems like the community would riot over such an announcement then perhaps the player is not ready to be unbanned. This is a delayed attempt to clear up confusion.
|
9 |
I am writing this post because the moderators that granted to unban failed to take an important step - tell the community. If the community thinks that someone is technically meant to be banned (and the @DaKeys profile page even says so) then they are correct to report smurfs of that account. Those reports not being acted on creates confusion and is likely to catch non-smurf accounts in the crossfire. If it seems like the community would riot over such an announcement then perhaps the player is not ready to be unbanned. This is a delayed attempt to clear up confusion.
|
| 10 |
\n
|
10 |
\n
|
| 11 |
Due to the multitude of reports for a similar pattern of trolling, and the lack of communication from the moderators regarding the unban policy, I have reverted the policy back to "ban @DaKeys". Unfortunately the policy is not completely the same as last time because this has revealed an issue with permanent bans - namely that there is no incentive to not try to work around them. The new policy is as follows:
|
11 |
Due to the multitude of reports for a similar pattern of trolling, and the lack of communication from the moderators regarding the unban policy, I have reverted the policy back to "ban @DaKeys". Unfortunately the policy is not completely the same as last time because this has revealed an issue with permanent bans - namely that there is no incentive to not try to work around them. The new policy is as follows:
|
| 12 |
*
@DaKeys
is
banned
for
one
months.
|
12 |
*
@DaKeys
is
banned
for
one
month.
|
| 13 |
* Any smurfing or wiki vandalism or any other nonsense resets the ban to three months.
|
13 |
* Any smurfing or wiki vandalism or any other nonsense resets the ban to three months.
|
| 14 |
* If he ever makes it to being unbanned then the @DaKeys account is unbanned (if technically feasible) so as to not get reported as a smurf.
|
14 |
* If he ever makes it to being unbanned then the @DaKeys account is unbanned (if technically feasible) so as to not get reported as a smurf.
|
| 15 |
\n
|
15 |
\n
|
| 16 |
Edit: One month.
|
16 |
Edit: One month.
|
Why did DaKeys get banned?