The volume of problem players is on the rise again.
Would anyone object to "3 strikes and an automatic 30 day ban" rule rather than having to wait while everyone votes ?
The last several votes we have had "0" objections which means everyone here is pretty much on the same page. I honestly don't believe anyone here wants to railroad innocent players off the server, I know I don't. If we have admins that can't be trusted then they shouldn't be admins in my opinion. If we have 3 different detailed accounts of some player that won't play by the rules and attempts have been made to communicate with the player I think that should be enough.
They would still have to be told they were being banned and still have the recourse to come to the forum and defend themselves or ask for another chance. It would expedite the process and minimize the impact to our guests, members, and our server.
I am interested in hearing everyones opinion on this.
mAmA
Either way works for me. Im already seen as the {DOU}Asshole for telling people to play by the rules so no matter what happens people dont like me 😆
I am IN
I will agree but I would add that these three strike must come by spectator only. Not from someone actually playing. I have seen too many times where someone is accused of something while I was spectating him/her and nothing of the kind occured.
{DOU}Cygnus wrote: I will agree but I would add that these three strike must come by spectator only. Not from someone actually playing. I have seen too many times where someone is accused of something while I was spectating him/her and nothing of the kind occured.
Agreed.... And good point.
{DOU}Cygnus wrote: I will agree but I would add that these three strike must come by spectator only. Not from someone actually playing. I have seen too many times where someone is accused of something while I was spectating him/her and nothing of the kind occured.
I agree...and more: there should also be a problem description, map, time. Hopefully some logs.
Heck, I don't care if we don't tell them that they are banned for 30 days unless they come on the server under proxy. Otherwise, I say the three strikes rule is good enough for me.
{DOU}Cygnus wrote: I will agree but I would add that these three strike must come by spectator only. Not from someone actually playing. I have seen too many times where someone is accused of something while I was spectating him/her and nothing of the kind occured.
Agreed Cyg, IMO if you're playing there's a lot you can't see. It would need to be an admin spectating in the game, not the RSA either. Can't see anything there. You can see dialogue but that's only an indicator there might be a problem unless it's someone already on the ban/KOS list.
mAmA
I think that we would be limiting our resources if we go by spectating only because the admin that have only the RSA would be no longer be admin, but only players. As a result, I bet we call less "strikes" even though the number of players on the server is increasing.
If an admin with RSA only kicks someone, that's good enough for me and should be considered a "strike" as well given that the rule infractions are witnessed first hand by the admin, and not by the accusation of others.
I think 3 observed strikes is good enough to ban them.
Mr Underhill wrote: I think that we would be limiting our resources if we go by spectating only because the admin that have only the RSA would be no longer be admin, but only players. As a result, I bet we call less "strikes" even though the number of players on the server is increasing.
If an admin with RSA only kicks someone, that's good enough for me and should be considered a "strike" as well given that the rule infractions are witnessed first hand by the admin, and not by the accusation of others.
All DOU members have spectator rights and all admins are required to spectate players, so dont get what you mean here about no longer being admin?
-------------------o00o---°(_)°---o00o----------------------
I was under the impression that only about 1/2 of admin could spectate as the spectator password was presented to me the same time admin rights were, not when I became a full member. I'm not mad about it, just was a little corn-fused.
I'm going to use this Father's Day to take the eggs off.
When I became a DOU member, I was never presented the password to be a spectator. I was told that is for the ADMINS only.
Mr Underhill wrote:
If an admin with RSA only kicks someone, that's good enough for me and should be considered a "strike" as well given that the rule infractions are witnessed first hand by the admin, and not by the accusation of others.
This confuses me. You can't see anything throught the RSA.
You can see the events and dialogue as described through the control panel. You can see what players are on the server and their ip's. You can see what map is being played. There is no picture of what is happening on the server. You can't see anything except the dialogue of people complaining about a particular player.
mAmA
{DOU} yO mAmA wrote: [quote=Mr Underhill]
If an admin with RSA only kicks someone, that's good enough for me and should be considered a "strike" as well given that the rule infractions are witnessed first hand by the admin, and not by the accusation of others.
This confuses me. You can't see anything throught the RSA.
You can see the events and dialogue as described through the control panel. You can see what players are on the server and their ip's. You can see what map is being played. There is no picture of what is happening on the server. You can't see anything except the dialogue of people complaining about a particular player.
mAmA
I have RSA access and it is the same for me mama. I have no way to spectate.
I can only see players that are in game and there ip's.
otodbattlecommander@gmail.com
Latest Post: IRC How-To Our newest member: Wrotkaw Recent Posts Unread Posts
