Archived Course Of Action - Changes

This suggestion has been archived / closed and can no longer be voted on.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 27, 2018
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Points
0
My account, PrinceAlbatross, was recently temporarily banned, for something that I (basically) had nothing to do with. This, being a Sugarcane Auto-Farm.
I feel that, the course of action, previously mentioned as a temporal ban, (1 day to be exact), is far too severe a punishment.

I do understand, that if a rule is broken, that action needs to be carried out against any individuals who in any way interacted, or were involved in the situation in which a rule was broken, but I feel that an instant ban, without any fore-warning, is not an acceptable reaction.
If there is a warning, or a jail system, then use it. If a user breaks a rule, give them a warning, or put them in jail (for however long is necessary), and explain to them, that what they did broke a rule, and why it broke a rule. Don't just ban them.

I personally know, that if this issue arises again within my faction, I will attempt to make sure no one is punished, and by the example of my account ban, to destroy the auto-farm, or inform the creator that they are prohibited.
But just banning, without any warning, does not teach that person a lesson. It just irritates them. Just a sudden ban. No feeling of, "oh, I better not do this again, or I'll get banned", no, just an instant ban.

And, there have been people that have said to me, that I got off lucky, saying that "1 day is quite a short punishment for that". Just because my punishment is shorter than it may normally be, or it may have been in the past, does not mean that I may not complain about the course of action taken against me, or the justification of it.

Another thing, which I would suggest, is adding some sort of evidence in the ban message, such as "evidence found in chat logs", etc, because otherwise, the person banned (or just punished in general), may feel that they were punished without evidence, and through simple allegations, or speculation/possibility. (No, I am not accusing any member of staff of punishing a user, without any definitive evidence, I am simply stating, that a user punished, doesn't know this evidence exists).

I think that basically covers everything I wanted to say, but I've probably forgotten a point or two. Thank you for your time, I hope my thoughts are considered.


Edit:
Just remembered a point.
Many new players, may get banned for small things, and this may severely put them off playing on the server in the future. If you just joined a server, and got banned for something small, and simple, would you really want to play there in the future?
I think that it not just effects the players negatively, but there is also a lot of ground of it negatively effecting the server's player-count, which is something that I'm sure everyone opposes.
 
Last edited:
This suggestion has been closed. Votes are no longer accepted.
I'm not aware of the OP's situation, but I remember when I first started off and my first (and only warning)

In short, I edited outside of a Regalian build, which at the time was a forced eviction and something else. Instead of losing the region, I received a mail about how that broke the rules, and the only reason I still had the region was because World Staff had a backup area to paste in.

The warning made me realize I done goofed, but I got the message straight across without having the stated punishment.

I feel that the best course is to teach rather than punish. But ultimately it's staff interpretation.
 
We have taken this issue into account and are already working on expanding our protocol in regards to these matters so that less severe incidents warrant lenient punishments, while serious violations will still warrant a serious punishment. What I mean is - currently our protocol for auto farms and the like is too uniform and fails to take into account the varying types of auto farms, their effects on the server and economy and fails to the modify the punishment to a suitable level that matches the severity of the offense.

We are already working on this and we have taken your concern on board, along with the concerns of other people - as you are well aware.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.