[Market Down]

There's been a lot of gossip on the server recently about the banning of Cons and Chezz, which has sparked anger at staff and confusion about who has been banned and what they've done. I suggest a moderator transparency post explaining what happened with a situation so that the players are aware of what's happened and included in the discussion of punishments.

[matt_st3 (Strongrule)]

I would suggest following the unban request made by cons
It was a straightforward case, clearly marked in our rules
Staff are just doing their jobs here, no need to start drama over it. Cons has requested his unban in the proper manner.

[La Flama Blanca]

To sum up my opinion on the Chezz/Cons ban, I'm not a fan of it. Despite this, I'm also a pragmatist. This idea wouldn't work particularly well because the vast majority of our bans are for trolls, mass RDMers, and RDM and leave. Perhaps a mere 5% of all bans might be particularly contentious, such as this one. Staff members have their chance to explain their side of a situation in the unban requests of players. If their explanation doesn't suffice, the banned player or concerned community members could perhaps reach out to the staff member responsible for the ban.

[Market Down]

I would suggest following the unban request made by cons
It was a straightforward case, clearly marked in our rules
Staff are just doing their jobs here, no need to start drama over it. Cons has requested his unban in the proper manner.

The issue is that people don't have a clear idea about what happened, and are starting drama on the server about it because of hearsay. The story has extended to say that Aiser got banned as well, which a transparency post would have cleared up.

---

To sum up my opinion on the Chezz/Cons ban, I'm not a fan of it. Despite this, I'm also a pragmatist. This idea wouldn't work particularly well because the vast majority of our bans are for trolls, mass RDMers, and RDM and leave. Perhaps a mere 5% of all bans might be particularly contentious, such as this one. Staff members have their chance to explain their side of a situation in the unban requests of players. If their explanation doesn't suffice, the banned player or concerned community members could perhaps reach out to the staff member responsible for the ban.

I know that we have people banned fairly often for mass rdm, hacking, etc., but these people are hardly ever regular players. The players involved are people involved in the community, and when regulars are banned people start asking questions. A transparency post would take less than 5 minutes to type up and explains the staff's side of the story and the reason the player was banned.

[courtana]

I just want to add on this thread that really what Market Down is requesting (and maybe this is explained in detail on the ban request), but people on the server are very confused over the ruling and want it clarified by some admins. That's all.

[matt_st3 (Strongrule)]

It will be (or should be) in the unban post clarified

[EpicGuy]

Chezz was a Traitor. Cons was an Innocent. Chezz drops a defibrillator right in front of Cons. Cons, rather than shooting Chezz for dropping a defibrillator right in front of him, decides to revive Aiser. Chezz runs away after dropping the defib. Aiser, wondering how he was brought back to life, calls a KOS on me (for being a Traitor and killing him, and another Traitor).

If a Traitor drops a T weapon right in front of you, and you willingly accept that gift as an Innocent, you've teamed, and you'll be banned. I understand that these players have a lot of play time on the server. That's great. But rule of law exists here, just like in real life. Everyone is subject to the same rules, and no one is above them (well, except maybe Dinkleberg. Which kind of defeats the purpose of rule of law doesn't it...) Like I said in Cons' unban request: I have no problem with Cons. I want his ban to be reduced. In fact, because of this very situation, we're currently discussing a rework of the teaming punishment. But if you clearly, and blatantly break the rules, you're going to be banned.

I'd also like to point out that Chezz has yet to make a ban appeal. I'm not going to speculate, but I will comment that Chezz has not made a ban appeal yet.


Hopefully this transparent post shines some light on my decision to permanently ban some very popular players.

[Market Down]

Chezz was a Traitor. Cons was an Innocent. Chezz drops a defibrillator right in front of Cons. Cons, rather than shooting Chezz for dropping a defibrillator right in front of him, decides to revive Aiser. Chezz runs away after dropping the defib. Aiser, wondering how he was brought back to life, calls a KOS on me (for being a Traitor and killing him, and another Traitor).

If a Traitor drops a T weapon right in front of you, and you willingly accept that gift as an Innocent, you've teamed, and you'll be banned. I understand that these players have a lot of play time on the server. That's great. But rule of law exists here, just like in real life. Everyone is subject to the same rules, and no one is above them (well, except maybe Dinkleberg. Which kind of defeats the purpose of rule of law doesn't it...) Like I said in Cons' unban request: I have no problem with Cons. I want his ban to be reduced. In fact, because of this very situation, we're currently discussing a rework of the teaming punishment. But if you clearly, and blatantly break the rules, you're going to be banned.

I'd also like to point out that Chezz has yet to make a ban appeal. I'm not going to speculate, but I will comment that Chezz has not made a ban appeal yet.


Hopefully this transparent post shines some light on my decision to permanently ban some very popular players.

Thank you! This is the kind of thing I was looking for!