Posted 20 October 2015 - 09:42 AM
Posted 22 October 2015 - 10:21 AM
There will be may be possible to unban,
Posted 22 October 2015 - 10:50 AM
Learner - Has this chap been banzorred and, do you feel able to tell us why.
Et_alors - I should point out that Learner is, for the most part, a fairly decent chap who has generally been disinclined to start banzorring peeps unless they've cheated or otherwise damaged the game. Being the patient and generous soul that he is, it seems unlikely that he'd banzor you just for being a galactic asshat.
If you have been banzorred for cheating (and not just being a little tick), then I suspect he's still apt to be annoyed and, under the circumstances, has every right to be. Personally, i'd suggest you apologise profusely and send him a nice bottle of amagnac, just to demonstrate that you mean it - http://www.brandycla...m/armagnac.html
Posted 22 October 2015 - 11:16 AM
Posted 22 October 2015 - 08:36 PM
People generally don't like their things being stolen. Theft..is not looked upon favorably.
DTF needs a rule or something that your equipped items never drop if you die, but items in your inventory that aren't equipped can still drop. Will give many players a sigh of relief knowing that if they die, their most prized possessions are still with them.
It doesn't totally remove the prospect of BJ'ing..but this will ensure that BJ'ing will be cut down considerably.
eh idk...just wish that players didn't focus their whole time at trying to take others items.
Posted 23 October 2015 - 12:56 AM
I created the alt yes, but I have not done them of exchange
In short, nothing illegal
Posted 23 October 2015 - 11:25 AM
And now we do have level restrictions in DTF(thanks et)
We have a very hard time as it is trying to get the right amount of players needed to do a DTF, and with you there hopping around on peoples bags like a fly on shit, makes people leave the DTF in fear of you BJ'ing, then we end up failing.
The only time i ever seen you logged in, is during hard invasions where you follow people round that are likely to die so u can take their stuff, or harrassing in DTF.
Your main goal while playing this game is harrassment, do you get why your banned now?
Posted 23 October 2015 - 06:52 PM
Edit - was not aware that et_alors was tricked in to breaking a rule. I was also not aware that another rule had been added about posting a specific link on channels. I think these game changes should be communicated to the players, because anyone could have posted radu's fan page for shits and giggles (sometimes i look upon it to make myself smile when I am sad). Withdrawed my comment for now, but my vote would still be no (if this is even a poll) until et_alors can prove that he's got some humanity in him
Posted 25 October 2015 - 10:48 AM
was not tricked, he knew the outcome, He tried to trick the server in a way to post it in channel w/o getting the action of the bann taken, and PHAILED. This is learner coding, you gotta think more out of the box than that.
In result we wanted community opinion, and the purpose of even trying to get him to bann himself was to have less stress in an already stressful and intense DTF event. In which a solution has presented itself to assist with the matter.
Posted 25 October 2015 - 12:43 PM
What he is doing is exploiting a feature in the game's design to gain an advantage over others (kind of like what stivvy/newhope do with the red dragon spawn in EL). The only difference is that I don't think it was ever intended that invasions/DTF should provide the means for bag jumpers to focus on stalking participants to the point where it makes important features of the game effectively unplayable.
However, the problem here is not so much et_alors, but the failing in game design that allows him to profit from invasions/DTF with far less risk than legitimate participants. Banzorring him won't close that loophole and, it's only a matter of time until some other arsehat takes up where he left off.
Ofc you can take the easy way out and invent all manner of EL style rules that allow you to banzorr anyone for virtually anything. However, it's an inelegant, ineffective and ultimately unfair way of handling things. What is required (I would suggest) is a way to level the playing field so as the risks to a stalker are the same as a legitimate participant. It seems reasonable to expect that et_alors would be somewhat less likely to stalk peeps during invasions if he himself were at risk of being pursued by his victims (or victims guild). Under the circumstances, might it not be an idea to consider how this might be achieved ???
Posted 25 October 2015 - 01:33 PM
that is actually being done as we speak (new feature), thus good came of this. Which is why this conversation happened
as for in invasions, I think the playing field will be more even as new features planned to be added when the game progresses.
Posted 28 October 2015 - 01:21 PM
He knew that typing that auto-ban link SHOULD get him auto-banned. He mistakenly thought he could bypass the punishment, so he did it ANYWAY.
He's growing a new troublemaker, so let him live with the punishment that he knew he was SUPPOSED to get for posting the link he posted on his old character. Just because he failed to 'work the system' to his benefit doesn't mean he should be rewarded for his failure.
Posted 29 October 2015 - 05:52 AM
However, I still think we should prepare ourselves to deal with this 'situation,' as it will happen again. Next time, he (or whoever) will not likely self-ban.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users