Unban Request = Digglez

[Slamz]

In regards to:
http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,17692.0.html

With no admins on and the vote-ban disabled, Digglez admitted to having to team-wound a person in order to get him to stop destroying deployables and stop opening the gate to let the enemies flood in.  It was against the rules, but it was a last resort as no other means of enforcement were available, short of simply logging off the game and giving it up for dead.


Digglez got a 1-day ban for his admission in teamwounding someone.  He admitted this to highlight the lack of admins on NA_CRPG_2 (many admins play regularly on NA_CRPG_1, but few regularly engage in siege).  It should be pointed out that he could have easily teamkilled the person but settled for the least amount of force available to get him to stop what he was doing.


I would like to submit to the court exhibit A:
http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,17304.0.html

Here we find that Balton, who admitted to intentionally teamkilling two people, along with various other rule breaks, got his 5 day ban reduced to 1 day.


If Balton can purposefully kill 2 people and break other lesser rules and only get a 1 day ban out of it, I see no reason why Digglez should have an identical 1-day ban for merely teamwounding someone that was purposefully griefing the server, when there was no other way to deal with the person.


I request that the ban on Digglez be reduced to "time already served" with a warning that we should all do our best to contact admins if possible, but with a realization that sometimes it's just 3am on a weeknight and there are no admins and if vote-bans were left disabled, we eventually have no choice but to bash someone in the brain in order to make them stop ruining the server.



I am personally all in favor of the mighty swing of the ban hammer, long may it swing swift and true, but there also has to be some allowance for players to police themselves when the tools normally used for this are disabled, provided the players act with all possible restraint, which Digglez did.

[Earthdforce]

The ban will not be reduced. If you do the crime you must do the time.

[Slamz]

I can tell you that I personally ran in front of Le_Beaver numerous times and had other people help out with this as well, as this interrupts gate openings.  We knew he was going to try to open it again and did everything possible to get him to stop.

He was vote-kicked.
Vote-bans were disabled.
No admins could be located.
He was interrupted by running in front of him.
He was yelled at in chat.

None of this was effective.  He continued to destroy defensive deployables and continued to open gates.


Given all of this, what do you propose we do instead?

We have to be allowed to police ourselves, within strict limits, when there is absolutely no alternative.  Personally, if this is the final ruling, then for the future we're still going to have to do it and we'll just draw straws to see who's going to accept the ban.  "Welp, another person is here ruining the siege server and no admins are around.  Everyone draw straws.  Shortest straw deals with the person, saves the server and accepts the ban for it."

[MadMac]

I'm agreement here. The wrong person is being penalized here. When there is nobody to enforce the rules on the server, it is up to the public to administer justice. Punishing someone for administering said justice, after he honestly admits to his actions is ridiculous. If there was an admin on at the time then of course he should suffer the consequences, but in the absence of authority leniency should be observed.

[SeQuel]

In regards to:
http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,17692.0.html

With no admins on and the vote-ban disabled, Digglez admitted to having to team-wound a person in order to get him to stop destroying deployables and stop opening the gate to let the enemies flood in.  It was against the rules, but it was a last resort as no other means of enforcement were available, short of simply logging off the game and giving it up for dead.


Digglez got a 1-day ban for his admission in teamwounding someone.  He admitted this to highlight the lack of admins on NA_CRPG_2 (many admins play regularly on NA_CRPG_1, but few regularly engage in siege).  It should be pointed out that he could have easily teamkilled the person but settled for the least amount of force available to get him to stop what he was doing.


I would like to submit to the court exhibit A:
http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,17304.0.html

Here we find that Balton, who admitted to intentionally teamkilling two people, along with various other rule breaks, got his 5 day ban reduced to 1 day.


If Balton can purposefully kill 2 people and break other lesser rules and only get a 1 day ban out of it, I see no reason why Digglez should have an identical 1-day ban for merely teamwounding someone that was purposefully griefing the server, when there was no other way to deal with the person.


I request that the ban on Digglez be reduced to "time already served" with a warning that we should all do our best to contact admins if possible, but with a realization that sometimes it's just 3am on a weeknight and there are no admins and if vote-bans were left disabled, we eventually have no choice but to bash someone in the brain in order to make them stop ruining the server.



I am personally all in favor of the mighty swing of the ban hammer, long may it swing swift and true, but there also has to be some allowance for players to police themselves when the tools normally used for this are disabled, provided the players act with all possible restraint, which Digglez did.

"Exhibit A" isn't a good example as Balton was banned for 2 days before I reduced it. So technically he was banned for 3.

[Slamz]

Given all of this, what do you propose we do instead?

Regardless of any other decisions, we are going to need an answer to this question --^

That should be the one thing to come out of all of this.

Someone is on siege.
They are intentionally screwing with the server and ruining the game for everyone.
Admins are not available.
Vote-kick isn't acting as a sufficient deterrent.
Talking to the person in chat isn't working.
Physically blocking him isn't working.
Vote-bans are disabled.

In some cases an admin can be found on IRC or another server but sometimes there just plain isn't a cop around when you need one.

Earthdforce indicates that we cannot take action on our own to rectify the situation, regardless of circumstances, which means the only action left to us is to log off of cRPG.  Is this the Official Stance?  Do all admins stand behind this rule?  If so, I believe it should be specifically added to the official rules list, as such:

"Players may not engage in self-policing even if admins are not available, even if the player is ruining the server for everyone.  Attempting to self-police will result in a one day ban.  Instead, the player should post screenshots, log off and try again tomorrow."

(click to show/hide)

The real decision here should have been "ban the person, pretend you didn't see what Digglez said and move on with your lives".  That seems like the common sense solution to this.  Earthdforce didn't really think this through and was simply adhering to the letter of the law, which in this case is silly and has created a brand new problem.

I recommend Digglez be unbanned, these threads be deleted (so that "you got banned once" can never be held against him in the future), we pretend none of this happened and we never speak of it again.

[SeQuel]

If your so against the ban talk with Shik on IRC, till then the ban stays.