Severity of Punishments

Omnicon - Dreamweaver · July 2012

I know we are not allowed to talk about bans. But this opens a topic for discussion. The Severity for certain punishments issued by GM's in PWI.

a) Apparently for .ini editing it's 30 years (16000000 minutes).

b) For the goons punishment, I believe it was 1 week? Correct me if I am wrong.

c) fake TW bidding, I think it was no more then 3 weeks.

I do realize the first two are breechs in the PWI ToS. But it makes me wonder... Exploiting a glitch is 1 week... and .ini is for 30 years? It seems prettyyyyy high. Is this just me noticing how somewhat rediculous it is?

I Just want to open this as a discussion and see others viewpoints here on the forums. b:surrender

Heartz - Dreamweaver · July 2012

Fake tw bidding is 1 week. atleast was the time when it happened here.

frankieraye · July 2012

Omnicon - Dreamweaver wrote: »

I know we are not allowed to talk about bans. But this opens a topic for discussion. The Severity for certain punishments issued by GM's in PWI.

a) Apparently for .ini editing it's 30 years (16000000 minutes).

b) For the goons punishment, I believe it was 1 week? Correct me if I am wrong.

c) fake TW bidding, I think it was no more then 3 weeks.

I do realize the first two are breechs in the PWI ToS. But it makes me wonder... Exploiting a glitch is 1 week... and .ini is for 30 years? It seems prettyyyyy high. Is this just me noticing how somewhat rediculous it is?

I Just want to open this as a discussion and see others viewpoints here on the forums. b:surrender

Gonna re-open this because that forum rule is really referring to people posting about specific bans to specific players.

Discussion about ban lengths in general should be ok.

So as to your questions--

1) for .ini edits, the character is banned until they ticket in, at which point they are given a choice between either agreeing to use a Makeover Scroll to go back to within what is possible in-game, or they can move all items to a different character before being re-banned for good.

2) Goons punishment was not at all how we wanted it to go. As I stated in the thread about it, we weren't confident enough in our information to severely ban people. When it became obvious that some of the worst offenders were not picked up by our tools, we felt that we had no choice but to unban everyone, in the effort to be fair across the board.

3) the punishment for fake bidding can vary, based on whether or not the player has had prior rule violations.

I hope that clears things up, and let me now if you have other questions.

Steopie - Heavens Tear · July 2012

I once got a 3 day ban for world chatting about bodily fluids in peoples faces. I was pleased with myself. b:victory

VenusArmani - Dreamweaver · July 2012

frankieraye wrote: »

2) Goons punishment was not at all how we wanted it to go. As I stated in the thread about it, we weren't confident enough in our information to severely ban people. When it became obvious that some of the worst offenders were not picked up by our tools, we felt that we had no choice but to unban everyone, in the effort to be fair across the board.

I have a question about this part. You say that it some of the worst offenders weren't picked up by your tools so you let everyone ago. Why is letting known offenders fair to the community? You're being unfair to far more people by letting the worst offenders you know about stay. Sure some may have avoided detection, but why does that mean you let everyone go? Would you want to live in a town where they empty the state prison because they didn't catch all of the worst people? How is it fair in anyway to let some people you know violated the rules go without any sort of punishment because you couldn't catch everyone?

And why is this same logic not applied to ini edits? There are tons of people permabanned for ini editing until they submit a ticket but they still are banned. And many never come back because you don't even send them an email about the ban. You are nowhere near close to catching them all. You are nowhere near close to catching the worst offenders. Why ban someone who only has earthguard eyes. But then allow stick thin people who are hard to click on and using earthguard eyes and baby faces and earthguard hair to roam free. Why is that considered any different than the worst offenders with the goon glitch. Why is there mercy for the goon glitchers who have gained a permanent economic and pvp advantage over other players. And who have permanently ruined an entire half of an instance for people and decreased the availability of certain gear for entire servers. But none for ini editors whose changes are purely cosmetic and easily reversed?

Xainou - Sanctuary · July 2012

frankieraye wrote: »

1) for .ini edits, the character is banned until they ticket in, at which point they are given a choice between either agreeing to use a Makeover Scroll to go back to within what it possible in-game, or they can move all items to a different character before being re-banned for good.

Thanks for the update there frankie.

But your wording is kind of unclear. You make it sound like having a better eye texture is a completely new ****. While it is available to the other classes easily...

Geez, I don't get what's so wrong with characters being pretty if it does nothing as a gaming advantage and all other versions are okay with it...

Deceptistar - Sanctuary · July 2012

Steopie - Heavens Tear wrote: »

I once got a 3 day ban for world chatting about bodily fluids in peoples faces. I was pleased with myself. b:victory

you should change your avatar msg to "bodily fluid lover" b:chuckle

MageMERC - Harshlands · July 2012

frankieraye wrote: »

...to be fair across the board.

To be fair across the board would be to put the goons back to their original xp and let the rest of us have a crack at it. b:shutup

thumbs · July 2012

MageMERC - Harshlands wrote: »

To be fair across the board would be to put the goons back to their original xp and let the rest of us have a crack at it. b:shutup

^^ I agree. Never should have changed it. Also; allowing it for so long made it seem clear that nothing would ever get done. To punish so long after was just wrong.

Fake TW bidding isn't something they can be sure of detecting. Had a leader get banned because he just wanted to TW; didn't care about whether we had a decent army for it or not.

frankieraye · July 2012

Xainou - Sanctuary wrote: »

Thanks for the update there frankie.

But your wording is kind of unclear. You make it sound like having a better eye texture is a completely new ****. While it is available to the other classes easily...

Geez, I don't get what's so wrong with characters being pretty if it does nothing as a gaming advantage and all other versions are okay with it...

I agree with you, changing an eye color is not damaging to the game in any way, and it's unfortunate that so many Customer Service hours are spent on enforcing the rule in this way. The thing is, the rule exists because such changes are covered in the whole "You're not allowed to modify any game files" rule. There have been exploits in the past that involved editing other client-side game files, so that's why the rule exists in the first place, and unfortunately purely cosmetic changes fall under it as well. Another part of it is the possibility that modifying certain game files will keep you from being able to log in to the game.

Honestly, we'd love to allow the harmless cosmetic .ini changes, since it would one allow our GM team to focus on far more important issues like **** accounts etc, and two it would let players achieve higher levels of customization to their own characters, which they obviously are interested in doing. Doing so, though, would require a re-wording of that "modifying game files" rule, along with further clarification into its various shades of grey. Still it's definitely something that's being looked at right now.

Sirrobert - Dreamweaver · July 2012

frankieraye wrote: »

I agree with you, changing an eye color is not damaging to the game in any way, and it's unfortunate that so many Customer Service hours are spent on enforcing the rule in this way. The thing is, the rule exists because such changes are covered in the whole "You're not allowed to modify any game files" rule. There have been exploits in the past that involved editing other client-side game files, so that's why the rule exists in the first place, and unfortunately purely cosmetic changes fall under it as well. Another part of it is the possibility that modifying certain game files will keep you from being able to log in to the game.

Honestly, we'd love to allow the harmless cosmetic .ini changes, since it would one allow our GM team to focus on far more important issues like **** accounts etc, and two it would let players achieve higher levels of customization to their own characters, which they obviously are interested in doing. Doing so, though, would require a re-wording of that "modifying game files" rule, along with further clarification into its various shades of grey. Still it's definitely something that's being looked at right now.

Than why do you punish it so severly, if you don't actually want to?

The rules are there to help YOU monitor the game. They are not there to force you to do stuf, just because the wording is bad.
Ban people acording to the idea behind the rule, instead of the literal translation of the rule.

That means, give the people with .ini changes a warning that it is illigal, and here is a makeover scroll to fix it, and if you don't fix it within a week, you will be banned.

Or even ignore it. The IDEA behind the rule is not to ban them afteral.

Why do you let the ToS rule you (banning stuf cause of bad writing, while you don't actually want to), while you should be using the ToS to help you monitor the game

Schznider - Dreamweaver · July 2012

frankieraye wrote: »

1) for .ini edits, the character is banned until they ticket in, at which point they are given a choice between either agreeing to use a Makeover Scroll to go back to within what is possible in-game, or they can move all items to a different character before being re-banned for good.

Thank you SO much, THIS is eXACtly what i was thinking to ask through sending a ticket, a chance to make over my character before being banned for good. Thank you.

Maelael - Heavens Tear · July 2012

Productive:

Frankieraye,

"Modifying game files that affect gameplay"

Done. Left nebulous enough to encompass everything, while allowing the ability to accept .ini edits for cosmetic changes.

Unproductive:

Sirrobert,

That was the best misplaced nerd rage I've seen in a while. I'll give you 1m on HT if you use spellcheck next time.

larkray · July 2012

One. I would like to apologize to a certain moderator. ChaoticShelly. I was very agitated yesterday and was not thinking clearly when I made my posts, so I deeply apologize for calling you a forum n.azi. You do a good job of keeping them clean, that's what your job is to do. I'm sorry. (This is Larkray's alt account if you couldn't guess~)

Two. Why is our version the only version that does not permit .ini edits? Even the European servers are apparently allowed according to the word of mouth.

And if you realllllllly want to get into it, the notepad files that are edited, are NOT game files. The are completely created on THIS ONE SPECIFIC computer. As in, it will NOT show up in anyone else's files. So wouldn't that make it that I'm just editing my own files?

I can even make a guide as how to exactly do it step by step so as people do NOT irreparably corrupt their game files (I've had to redownload the game at least 3 times from experimenting on certain aspects, not for any gain, just to see what happened xD)

But, I digress. Still waiting on a response to tickets btw~

Schznider - Dreamweaver · July 2012

frankieraye wrote: »

I agree with you, changing an eye color is not damaging to the game in any way, and it's unfortunate that so many Customer Service hours are spent on enforcing the rule in this way. The thing is, the rule exists because such changes are covered in the whole "You're not allowed to modify any game files" rule. There have been exploits in the past that involved editing other client-side game files, so that's why the rule exists in the first place, and unfortunately purely cosmetic changes fall under it as well. Another part of it is the possibility that modifying certain game files will keep you from being able to log in to the game.

Honestly, we'd love to allow the harmless cosmetic .ini changes, since it would one allow our GM team to focus on far more important issues like **** accounts etc, and two it would let players achieve higher levels of customization to their own characters, which they obviously are interested in doing. Doing so, though, would require a re-wording of that "modifying game files" rule, along with further clarification into its various shades of grey. Still it's definitely something that's being looked at right now.

And wow thank you for noticing it too! i really do hope that everyone in the team comes into an agreement to make this "legal" and re-word the rule.. most of us really want it, i cannot be more possitive about this, thank you!b:thanks

Labells - Dreamweaver · July 2012

Sirrobert - Dreamweaver wrote: »

Than why do you punish it so severly, if you don't actually want to?

The rules are there to help YOU monitor the game. They are not there to force you to do stuf, just because the wording is bad.
Ban people acording to the idea behind the rule, instead of the literal translation of the rule.

That means, give the people with .ini changes a warning that it is illigal, and here is a makeover scroll to fix it, and if you don't fix it within a week, you will be banned.

Or even ignore it. The IDEA behind the rule is not to ban them afteral.

Why do you let the ToS rule you (banning stuf cause of bad writing, while you don't actually want to), while you should be using the ToS to help you monitor the game

The QQers on the Forums & the portion of the players always looking for an easy way to level have unfortunately left the GM's no alternative but to completely inforce the ToS, if they let 1 aspect of ToS non compliance slide (such as customisation that has no impact to game play) they are tying their own hands with other ToS infringements (that may significantly impact game play) they therefore have clearly decided to start enforcing a zero tolerance policy towards all infringements on ToS. So basically blame an element of the player base not the GM's it's the players that have left the GM's no choice

It is a sad day that the GM's are now forced to be completely unbending but they are only actively inforcing what was always there. b:sad

Sirrobert - Dreamweaver · July 2012

Maelael - Heavens Tear wrote: »

Sirrobert,

That was the best misplaced nerd rage I've seen in a while. I'll give you 1m on HT if you use spellcheck next time.

You understood what it sais?
Good, job done, don't need anything else

And I have never been banned, never even knew about changing .ini when I made my toons. But it's funny how some people can still call it nerd rage

sweetandkind · July 2012

the general attitude of the player base is:

"if other people violate the ToS permaban them but if I do it it's OK"

if an option isn't available to you unless you muddy around in game files then its not fair for you to have it while those who follow the rules don't

karmelia · July 2012

frankieraye wrote: »

2) Goons punishment was not at all how we wanted it to go. As I stated in the thread about it, we weren't confident enough in our information to severely ban people. When it became obvious that some of the worst offenders were not picked up by our tools, we felt that we had no choice but to unban everyone, in the effort to be fair across the board.

And where is the fairness of your decision about those who did not abuse the glitch?

Read my sig Frankie, and tell us what you did so far to do what you said PWI will do.

Answer : Nothing.

Omnicon - Dreamweaver · July 2012

frankieraye wrote: »

I agree with you, changing an eye color is not damaging to the game in any way, and it's unfortunate that so many Customer Service hours are spent on enforcing the rule in this way. The thing is, the rule exists because such changes are covered in the whole "You're not allowed to modify any game files" rule. There have been exploits in the past that involved editing other client-side game files, so that's why the rule exists in the first place, and unfortunately purely cosmetic changes fall under it as well. Another part of it is the possibility that modifying certain game files will keep you from being able to log in to the game.

Honestly, we'd love to allow the harmless cosmetic .ini changes, since it would one allow our GM team to focus on far more important issues like **** accounts etc, and two it would let players achieve higher levels of customization to their own characters, which they obviously are interested in doing. Doing so, though, would require a re-wording of that "modifying game files" rule, along with further clarification into its various shades of grey. Still it's definitely something that's being looked at right now.

First off, thank you so much for reopening my thread Frankie b:cute

Here is a small idea I had after a long night of no sleep about .ini edits. Instead of having to reword the rule. Why not request PWE to insert these customizations into the character customization currently avalible. Not completely retexture the original races, no... some people adore the characters they have currently. But add the options to have the wonderfully defined Earthguard eyes. Or the newer dated hairstyles.
That being said, I adore the character customization that pwi already gives, this would just make it all the better. And it would get rid of quite a few headaches down the road for the Modding team as well as pwe main.

Aurores - Heavens Tear · July 2012

frankieraye wrote: »

Honestly, we'd love to allow the harmless cosmetic .ini changes, since it would one allow our GM team to focus on far more important issues like **** accounts etc, and two it would let players achieve higher levels of customization to their own characters, which they obviously are interested in doing. Doing so, though, would require a re-wording of that "modifying game files" rule, along with further clarification into its various shades of grey. Still it's definitely something that's being looked at right now.

If that is the problem, then why not simply look at the wording from the EU servers' TOS then fix yours accordingly? It can't be that hard. b:sweat

frankieraye · July 2012

VenusArmani - Dreamweaver wrote: »

I have a question about this part. You say that it some of the worst offenders weren't picked up by your tools so you let everyone ago. Why is letting known offenders fair to the community? You're being unfair to far more people by letting the worst offenders you know about stay. Sure some may have avoided detection, but why does that mean you let everyone go? Would you want to live in a town where they empty the state prison because they didn't catch all of the worst people? How is it fair in anyway to let some people you know violated the rules go without any sort of punishment because you couldn't catch everyone?

I definitely understand your point, although the state prison analogy brings actual public safety issues into the equation, which make it not the best comparison.

About the bans, the way that we announced it was that those banned were the "worst offenders", and when it turned out that there were actually players who were worse than these and hadn't been caught, it really forced us to question the tools and methods that we had used. With this questioning came the possibility that we had banned people who may not have deserved it, and all of this made us feel that it was safer to clear all of the bans and start anew.

You are right, though, the ultimate resolution was not fair to the community as a whole. We had a major issue which we were not able to fix it quickly enough by a longshot, and those who exploited made out like bandits while those who abided by the rules ended up at a leveling disadvantage because of it. The consequences of all of this is apparent, and we are doing everything we can to make sure that nothing like this ever happens again.

Xainou - Sanctuary · July 2012

frankieraye wrote: »

I agree with you, changing an eye color is not damaging to the game in any way, and it's unfortunate that so many Customer Service hours are spent on enforcing the rule in this way. The thing is, the rule exists because such changes are covered in the whole "You're not allowed to modify any game files" rule. There have been exploits in the past that involved editing other client-side game files, so that's why the rule exists in the first place, and unfortunately purely cosmetic changes fall under it as well. Another part of it is the possibility that modifying certain game files will keep you from being able to log in to the game.

Frankie. How does that work though. I could go and play on the EU servers now, and would still be under the same ToS. But it would be allowed to edit there. b:surrender

Why can't you just edit the rules? Or specifically state somewhere that cosmetic modficiation like exe texture or hair changes are allowed?

I think I'm speaking for a lot of users if I say: We don't want to edit crazy files or break our client. We just want to have a character with updated graphics. That's all we ask you for. Just a good-to-go for more free character creation. b:thanks

I_willscrewU - Sanctuary · July 2012

Im not interested at all in the cosmetic part of this game.

However If i remember correctly in every single online multiplayer game that've got the chance to play , Admins and Players have always consider editing initialization Files simply as an extension of the ingame Settings and custumizations itself and nothing more. Certainly part of the Game and in no way a reazon to ban people left and right, instead it is encouraged amongs the players as if it was just another fun aspect of the game.

So ever since I became aware that ini editing in this game was a banable offense I was like.. what the heck do you mean! It's almost like telling people that They will get baned for Changing the Gama in the game Settings. But as they say.. their game, their rules.. as crazy and nonsense making them might be. b:bye

resnov098 · July 2012

I'M BACK!!! THANK YOU FRANKIE! THANK YOU GMS!!! <3333333333333333b:dirtyb:dirtyb:dirty

I_willscrewU - Sanctuary · July 2012

permabanned wrote: »

So what about all them youtube TW vids where trees were not there due to people editing .ini files? They didn't get banned yet it was obvious. Surely that's worse than editing eyes. I can name you 1 user on my server who had nearly 30 TW vids like this on youtube ....

I dont think this has to do with .ini files, sounds more like editing pack files or scripts. And that's another whole story

Mimiroppu - Heavens Tear · July 2012

frankieraye wrote: »

I agree with you, changing an eye color is not damaging to the game in any way, and it's unfortunate that so many Customer Service hours are spent on enforcing the rule in this way. The thing is, the rule exists because such changes are covered in the whole "You're not allowed to modify any game files" rule. There have been exploits in the past that involved editing other client-side game files, so that's why the rule exists in the first place, and unfortunately purely cosmetic changes fall under it as well. Another part of it is the possibility that modifying certain game files will keep you from being able to log in to the game.

Honestly, we'd love to allow the harmless cosmetic .ini changes, since it would one allow our GM team to focus on far more important issues like **** accounts etc, and two it would let players achieve higher levels of customization to their own characters, which they obviously are interested in doing. Doing so, though, would require a re-wording of that "modifying game files" rule, along with further clarification into its various shades of grey. Still it's definitely something that's being looked at right now.

I actually cheered a little. Admin input. Thank you. I feel like this is a huge step foward and something I don't have to be so cranky about.

I think Xainou's point of looking at the EU server's ToS is a good idea. They stem from us, so I figure their ToS isn't that much different from ours.

I wish I could see this more often on the forums, but I also know that not everyone can be answered at once. I appreciate the feedback, even though this isn't my topic.

also aaaaaaaaa I feel so relieved to actually hear stances and reasonings why!

b:thanks

hyperbarb99 · July 2012

I know this aint the best way to get a hold of you but nobody responds when i holler in the world chat for a gm.

This one guy in DW server *removed* ( yes they removed not only the name but about 4 lines of text, thank you whoever did that and not being able to unstick your delete key... ) this person has been reporting players who were drunk and messing around in faction chat.

Because of what they were ranting about or saying in faction chat got kicked from the faction i think the words were typed in the wrong order one guy said he bought it and the other guy was talking about his accounts.

I think they got confused cause one knocked his computer over and it shut off and he was telling the guy next to him what to type so it got confusing as hell.

Now both players are banned for supposedly selling things outside pwi or selling their accounts?

I know both of them quite well we are all in the same website and we do our LAN gaming alot running the same ip address thanks entirely to proxy servers and programs so it syncs us up pretty good in the game, yes causes a bit of lag for some of us since we are in different cities and states.

I know it wont help their tickets them all sharing the same ip with me and a few others in our little pwi group.

Hope you can help them get their tickets pushed up towards the front of the line cause we are set for a 4th of July spam runs of nirvy and they both got responses to give all this bunch of info to verify who they are and that they are the owner of the account and bla bla bla...

I'm sure with a little talking to co workers you could figure it out, oh and one quick question.....

How to exact revenge on the nab who reported them? The person who reported them *un-named character here for effect* caused massive drama in faction, and one of the two players has broke up with their girlfriend cause of this stupidity not cause the two were getting drunk or high or whatever they were up to... but because they got banned.

I just wish they wouldn't be accepting just one persons claim of a stolen or sold account when half the faction knows it snit and the other half are never online to care or worry.

It was not the two who ended up banned that caused the problem since we all understand they get nuts on sundays from whatever things they get into, it was the *un-named character here* who started the drama and stuff in the faction and who kicked them from the faction since they are in a place of authority to do so.

VenusArmani - Dreamweaver · July 2012

hyperbarb99 wrote: »

I know this aint the best way to get a hold of you but nobody responds when i holler in the world chat for a gm This one guy in DW server *removed* i think it is has been reporting players who were drunk and messing around in faction chat and who cause of what they were ranting about or saying in faction chat got kicked from the faction i think the words were typed in the wrong order one guy said he bought it and the other guy was talking about his accounts and i think they got confused cause one knocked his computer over and it shut off and he was telling the guy next to him what to type so it got confusing as hell. now both players are banned for supposedly selling things outside pwi or selling their accounts? i know both of them quite well we are all in the same website and we do our LAN gaming alot running the same ip address thanks entirely to proxy servers and programs so it syncs us up pretty good in the game, yes causes a bit of lag for some of us since we are in different cities and states. Hope you can help them get their tickets pushed up towards the front of the line cause we are set for a 4th of july spam runs of nirvy and they both got responses to give all this bunch of info to verify who they are and that they are the owner of the account and bla bla bla... im sure with a little talking to co workers you could figure it out and one quick question. How to exact revenge on the nab who reported them? This caused massive drama in faction and one of them broke up with their girlfriend cause of this stupidity not cause the two were getting drunk or high or whatever they were up to... but because they got banned.

1) Naming and Shaming is not allowed

2) They are just going to have to wait for the tickets to be responded to, I wouldn't get my hopes up that they will be back by the fourth of July but you never know.

3)To avoid confusion in the future both you and your friends should use some punctuation. Grammar isn't everything but it was a bit difficult for me to read your post.

4)If someone is drunk and acting abusively in faction, that player doesn't have to put up with it and GMs aren't going to help you get revenge on him for reporting bannable offenses. Next time make sure you're perfectly clear when it comes to mentioning something like account selling because it's punished pretty severely. I'd suggest you just let it go and not talk to this person again as continuously harassing them would also be in violation of the ToS. Sometimes the best revenge is living well.

5) Open proxies aren't allowed to be used so that isn't going to help your friends case much.

6)If you want to increase the odds of you're ticket being handled quickly, I'd tell your friends not to send multiple tickets. Every time you send a new ticket that ticket is added to the back of the line. They also only really consider the most recent one as that is the one likely to contain the most up-to-date information. So you're essentially extending your own ban by constantly jumping to the back of the line.

Olbaze - Sanctuary · July 2012

frankieraye wrote: »

About the bans, the way that we announced it was that those banned were the "worst offenders", and when it turned out that there were actually players who were worse than these and hadn't been caught, it really forced us to question the tools and methods that we had used. With this questioning came the possibility that we had banned people who may not have deserved it, and all of this made us feel that it was safer to clear all of the bans and start anew.

You would've seen better results if you had kept the goon glitchers banned and apologized for not having yet detected all of the worst offenders.

The thing is, the community wanted the glitchers punished, because that's what was fair for them. Most people couldn't care less whether the wording in your banning announcement was accurate or not. Of course, you would still have to deal with the obvious complaints about not having banned some of them, but you could have used that as a means of launching an investigation into those people.

Neither option is perfect, but the unbanning left people concluding that PWE does not enforce rules if you cash shop enough, as most of the 105s we have are heavy cash shoppers. And that is exactly the kind of image you would want to avoid at all costs. Because speaking about "fairness" that looks identical to favoritism for your paying customers isn't even funny.

VenusArmani - Dreamweaver · July 2012

frankieraye wrote: »

I definitely understand your point, although the state prison analogy brings actual public safety issues into the equation, which make it not the best comparison.

It was just a metaphor. If I say I want a guy whose strong like an OX for my movie, I don't really want the guy to take steroids and become the strongest man in the world and dedicate his life to it. I just want want a muscular guy. It's to help paint a mental image by comparing similar concepts. At any rate it got my point across so mission accomplished. b:cool

Olbaze - Sanctuary wrote: »

You would've seen better results if you had kept the goon glitchers banned and apologized for not having yet detected all of the worst offenders.

The thing is, the community wanted the glitchers punished, because that's what for was fair for them. Most people couldn't care less whether the wording in your banning announcement was accurate or not. Of course, you would still have to deal with the obvious complaints about not having banned some of them, but you could have used that as a means of launching an investigation into those people.

This. I realize you can't go and redo the bans for a third time but in the future realize that people just want you to deter future would-be exploiters and nobody expects you to be perfect. With something like this people are always going to slip through the cracks. But the community does want you to do what is fair to them for the people you DO know about. Someone should have been punished besides just the community who listened to you.

Severity of Punishments

Comments

Categories