Bans for ban evade must be full server locks because banning the main account of the abuser doesn't really make any difference, they can just use another one. This type of lock prevents the user to use the server entirely so it is a heavy punishment which we don't really like to use often.
We have an internal rule for b&u staff to only apply this type of ban for mass abusers. Based on this agreement, not baning the specified user was correct decision since using 2 accounts does not fall into the heavy abuser range. However, it is also wrong that this types of abuses go completely unpunished as it happened in this case.
Why this response took a few days is due to the fact that we had to discuss with b&u staff how to handle such cases. The decision is:
1. For mass abuse it stays as it is now, b&u admin decides on when and for how long to apply the full lock when such a case is discovered.
2. For lower cases, rule table was adjusted to issue warning for first time evade and full lock on next occurences. This rule will now be actively enforced again as specified. It was suspended last summer due to very low number of online players and it might need to be suspended again as we see fit.
Final decision in this specific case (keka):
- no ban issued was correct decision according to internal b&u policy
- Warn for ban evade (1st time).
I would also like to explain that some users of internet cafes and similar places are almost impossible to ban because we risk banning the whole place. So if an admin decides not to issue such a ban, stop spamming about it every day in every topic as a certain user did lately. We don't have to explain every damn thing which regular players have no business knowing about.
WiKi
How To
Rules
Ban
Unban
LA Staff
Maps
Streams
