Admin bans

[arron_bobson]

Hi all.

I understand that currently admins do not have to warn or even discuss rule breaking with people because they should spend 5 minutes to read the rules. This leads to situations where people receive a warning (or nothing at all), get banned and then complain on the forums asking for an unban.

Perhaps if instead of instantly banning everyone or giving them a warning and then banning them anyway you could warn them if they seem like a decent player that made a mistake, and then if they continue they could be banned. It will take an additional 20 seconds of your time ("UserName read the rules (specifically NLR) or you will be banned") and save a lot of sour feelings from people.

I am posting this because yesterday an admin admitted to me that "yes a warning would be better", but they still go ahead with warning the player than banning them anyway. What was the point in the warning? Honestly, warning the player THEN banning if they continue seems like the mature way to deal with rulebreakers unless they are just total minges.

---

And by the way, I think the admins do a fantastic job keeping minges out so don't take this the wrong way :-). I think this will really improve things so wanted to suggest it.

[Enzyme]

The rules are literally the first thing which pops up on your screen every time you join the servers.
We cannot force people to read the rules, but we expect people to read them on their own initiative as it is their responsibility to make sure to have an understandment of the rules so they won't get a ban.

We will gladly answer any questions regarding rules ofcourse, but we cannot simply tell everyone to read the rules when they break the rules. I often give warnings if the player is new or if the rulebreakage is very minor, but ignorance is not an excuse to breaking the rules.

We are a reaction to rulebreakage. What we do is not popular, but we're here to enforce the rules, and we do this in our own free time. This means that we cannot babysit every player, and we sadly have to give a few bans even when a warning could suffice.

Constructive critisism is always welcome ofcourse and your suggestion will be taken into account.

[arron_bobson]

Thanks for taking the time to reply in detail mate, I appreciate it.

I completely agree with everything you say yet you state "we sadly have to give a few bans even when a warning could suffice". So if a warning would suffice why not just do that? Of course, only in situations where a warning does indeed suffice (i.e. not for total minges) should it be used.

[DoomDude1]

Reading the rules and following them is what every player is expected to do. You have the rules in your face, every time you connect to our servers. Every player is treated as a person who read and understood the rules, unless he has questions which he is free to pose to an online staff member or on the forums.

[arron_bobson]

Of course.

What I am getting at is that you ban someone to 1) stop them breaking the rule and any more and 2) punishment for breaking the rule in the first place.

#1 can be achieved by warning them and for players who are not minges and have been playing well for the last 6 hours straight, make one small mistake and are then banned (even after being warned, apologising and agreeing not to do it again) they could be given a little leniency by simply warning them for the first infraction.

Not demanding you guys all adhere to this religiously or anything, just perhaps bear it in mind when someone makes a relatively small mistake after playing well for hours and hours on end.