[zoomer]

What about PM the person who is banned the reason they got banned ?

[kerovon]

What about PM the person who is banned the reason they got banned ?

That would require every person who is banned to have a forum account, than for us to figure out which forum account corresponds to which player, then to send a message. That would be at least 5 minutes of work for each ban. With the 94185 bans we currently have, that means that staff would spend more time trying to track people down to tell them why they got banned than actually moderating the server.

In the two hours since my last post, we would have had to spend a full hour pming people their ban reasons, which would cut our time to be useful down in half.

[Didag]

I think it's a good idea but would require way to much work :L

[MEMYYSELFANDME!!]

How about no ban appeals allowed... Problem solved.

seriously, we don't need this suggested at all. Staff have everything under control and it is fine the way it is now.

[Twiztidguy]

How about no ban appeals allowed... Problem solved.

seriously, we don't need this suggested at all. Staff have everything under control and it is fine the way it is now.

I'm assuming this was a joke... so i'm going to Lol. However, if they did cut out the curse bans which I have already said is unnecessary. (There is a curse filter already) That would lighten the ban list. Of course then you would have spammers trying to get banned, but that I think would still lighten the load. This is all hypothetical, due to the fact that everyone seems deadset with the rules currently in place.

[Eetrab]

No.

[MEMYYSELFANDME!!]

(no one ever reads the fine print)

Anyway, this is not needed. Staff know what they are doing and so far there are no problems with our current way of dealing with bans. Nothing needs to be changed at all. If it works keep it the way it is.

Also note that zoomer did poorly on his suggestion. He gave us barely anything but a few words to give us any clue of why this should be made. If not invalid, this will most likely be rejected.

[dlgn]

As always, kevin put it best.

Now, as I see it, this would basically be like making the ban list public again (which is fine with me, I'm not really sure why it was made private in the first place) but with staff having to post each individual entry in the bans section for the edification of nubcakes.

TL;DR: Too much work for not enough payoff.

The only way this could possibly work was if the ban list was made public again, and stickied. That way, nubs could check to see what they were banned for. However, Intelli made the ban list private, presumably for a good reason, although I don't think that he's bothered to tell anyone.

TL;DR: Intelli could make the entire list public, but he decided not to.

~dlgn

p.s. If one of the staff could post the reason for this, that would be wonderful. Merely to satisfy my and my colleague's endless curiosity, of course.

[zoomer]

I'd like to say thank you for the fairness on the following post, I've tired to avoid posting as I don't want to get re-banned I did not want this to be about me and I could see it going down that way,

http://www.minerealm.com/community/view ... 20&t=13195

My reason for posting now is to show where I was coming from not to say hey look what happened to me

I wondered if the way the banns work could be improved I don't have all the answers and I realise it is a awkward subject as basically it could go down when your banned no appeal, but I was hoping something good would come out of my post when someone joins the server they are welcomed the banns compared to this feels like an ugly process.

You are probably not told what you did so it makes you admit everything, anything you might have done

If you removed the swearing auto ban you will get young kids constantly swearing flooding chat

my final idea would be

What about banning people for different durations swearing 1 month, griefing 1 year, flying permanent etc

if a young kid grief's on the server not really knowing what they are doing a year later they could be mature enough to not do the same

[SilentCitizen]