I agree the type of ban should have an effect on the duration of the ban. I think we both agree an item destroyer is a magnitude worse than a afker and should warrant a different length ban.
For example, I think Falen did a great job on this ban: viewtopic.php?f=172&t=142609
It was a clear example of an intent to gameruin with a game-breaking glitch. 45 Days is very fair for multiple knowingly-committed glitch offenses is short succession.
I was banned by Haz atleast twice for courier-mines glitch (which was accidental) but the rule was black-and-white so there was no reason for me to contest it. It was cut-and-dry that your chicken walks over mines, you get banned. I didn't like the rule, but it was clearly stated. It was also was a substantially less impactful glitch exploit (compared to layna-refract) which is why Haz only gave me 5 days even on my 2nd offense.
SnowwyWolf wrote:I know what you're after, you want something like this :
- First game ruining 2 day ban.
- Second game ruining 5 day ban.
- Third game ruining 10 day ban.
I'm not actually concerned with your double-length-every ban soft-policy ent seems to have, but what I am concerned with is What is a repeat offender?
Is a repeat offender someone who commits 2 offenses in 100 games? 1000 games? infinite games? For example, I don' t think it is fair to keep doubling bans if someone had oodles of games in-between offenses. Therefore I am more concerned with a policy/formula that defines what a repeat offender is (not how punishments ramp for a player who designated a repeat offender).
SnowwyWolf wrote:How about this, you explain in words what type of policy could possibly exist in black and white that factors :
-, Total number of games.
- Total numbers of games over a certain period.
- which rules have been broken and to what extent and impact this has on the game and fellow players.
- how each varied rule broken, to each different extent, over each time period and to what ban period each combination would lead to.
It is a bit tricky for me to answer that since I'm not sure what data mods have at their disposal. For example, I think it would be good to make a policy like "a player is a repeat offender if they commit an identical offense in every X-amount of games". But if you cannot see how many games a player has played in between bans, then this is not feasible.
An alternative way could be "a player's bans after x-amount of years become irrelevant" - however, I think this is less preferable since you could have a player play 100 games in a month and commit 1 ban every 4 months and they will get labeled a ruiner when a casual player who playes 2 games a month could commit a ban every 4 months and be considered just as bad. The amount of games in between offenses is the best determining factor in my opinion.
Another way it could be done is the dotacash way: 14 days for soft-ruining offenses (afk, grief, refusing to defend) and 31 days for extreme ruining (item destroy, intentional feed, item stealing) and perma for MH or dodge. Dotacash's ban durations never increased with repeat offenses and were just a hefty one-time ban and bans would stack if you committed multiple bans before a mod handled it (example if furion feed-frenzied 3 game in a row before a mod saw the first few, you get 93 days). I think it is kind of ent to allow ignorant users to learn from/correct their gameplay with short-bans since dotacash was very harsh. However, the one good thing about dotacash's tit-for-tat (fixed-duration for a given offense) was that it completely side-stepped the repeat offender subjectivity. It also discourages ban history obfuscation since if you made a new account, you'd get nailed with the same 14 or 31 day ban if you committed the offense again. I'm not saying this is an ideal policy (especially since it is not ignorant-friendly or newbie-friendly) but it does certainly show ways the issue of inevitably banning long-term players into oblivion could be resolved.
SnowwyWolf wrote:However it isn't just the rule they break, it's to the extent they break it, over what time period, how they are generally etc.
There is a general guideline of doubling the ban for each time the offence occurs but that also isn't straightforward as again there is many different factors in every single case to consider.
I hope this brings some clarity.
It does, and I've looking through bans you've processed and you seem quite fair. The issue is this subjective policy creates gross discrepancies between mods. Mods like Amnon interpret this policy that any ban over 2 years is irrelevant, where Merex feels it doesn't matter if the prior ban happened today or 5 years ago. I'd argue the policy isn't working well when we get deltas of over 2 weeks between mods.
Astros wrote:The fact that your ban has not been overturned or revised tells me that they have agreed, in consensus, that you deserve to be banned
Have I argued for my ban to be overturned? Nope. In fact one of the points I made in my OP is that Merex didn't even write a single sentence to what offense I committed or how my rebuttal was invalid. How would I even begin to appeal this? "Hi i'd like to appeal this because apparently I committed a 5th offense but I have no idea what time this offense was committed at or what was invalid in my rebuttal". That would be a great appeal, hey? Let assume Merex "correctly" banned me, how would I know what I did wrong without timestamps to show me what events I needed to act differently in? It is why I brought this point up in my OP.
Astros wrote: I'd reckon the fact you are here discussing your ban numerous times with Merex and others has some weight as to why you are banned because you should know by now what not to do.
I'm actually not here to contest my ban (I don't even know why exactly I was banned). I am here because I am contesting Merex's conduct (removing legit posts, closing suggesting he doesn't want to debate, etc.)
Astros wrote:The difference is, what he does is not against the rules if he is actively helping his teammates. What you are doing involves ignoring your teammates so you can farm for a complete set of items that isn't necessary to win.
Actively "helping" his teammates by siphoning off kill gold to pat k/d and HURT their chance of winning? You've exactly made my point for me. You are more concerned someone hangs around with the team than actually trying to win. I strongly disagree with that sentiment
"isn't necessary" maybe, but if you can guarantee the win with a bit more farming, then why risk it? I don't know how many times I've played on a team with an early lead and we push early to get wrecked by one expertly executed AOE spell and after that we lose momentum, maybe even the game. You essentially are advocating to ban gameplay that minimizes the risk of losing by taking a few extra minutes.
Astros wrote:You are literally the first person to ever draw up this sort of drama to stir up an evident rule stating that you will be banned for refusing to cooperate and the obvious in which you will be banned for a longer duration of time if you are a serial offender
Maybe true, but with Merex's (and your) opinion on ramping ban durations irregardless of time in between, means the longer ent is around, the more likely this is going to happen. I have committed "this" offense once every ~1000 games. That mean the multiplier is starting to get large and is why my concern is growing as well. To be fair, next to masterpain and a couple others I probably have the most games on ENT, and therefore it should be more than reasonable to expect I have a higher number of bans than most as well due to the shear volume of games I have played. I may be the first to bring this issue to the table, but it is far from unfounded that I would be the one to draw attention to them since I have been here so long and have played oodles of games and I don't obfuscate my history.
,Astros wrote:The majority of the community dislikes you. Stop speaking for them.
Thanks for making this super relevant and helpful comment. You managed to answer every question and resolve every issue presented in this thread by slandering me in these last 2 sentences. Can't even leave the Banter out of a single reply, can you?
Astros wrote:He won't even take a minute to download Discord to discuss the issue so it's obvious that publishing this thread is more of a hobby than a disagreement for him.
And discord improves the likelihood that Merex won't ignore my PMs how? Unless you are ashamed of your actions, then there should be no reason you wouldn't feel comfortable discussing this in a public thread like we are now.
Astros wrote:What has been achieved here?
Well if you actually tried to address the concerns I raised regarding Merex's conduct rather than slandering me and trying to start Banter we might be able to reach some common ground. You essentially are asking for this thread to be closed based on my character rather than the substance of my complaints. If you feel my complaints have no bases, then explain why with facts and reasoning. Just like Merex, you seem to be awfully hasty to shut down discussions that you have gone out of your way to be apart of.