Continuation

[XenyStyle]

hes not spamming at all...
And leavers at loading,pluggers,dcers have to be banned by host.they ruined the game,wasted the time of the others.
When host leaves is almost a must to post a ban req.just copy/paste it from a txt doc where u changed the main things(ur nick,server,etc,etc)change names and post it.2 min

[yaphets_]

NEGERTIVS  you talk alot!!!....

Youre target is to spamming here.....

go to google and read what spam is nab

I want to ask you same question! i know what is spam and you should read in google what is it you will take a lesence...

hes not spamming at all...
And leavers at loading,pluggers,dcers have to be banned by host.they ruined the game,wasted the time of the others.
When host leaves is almost a must to post a ban req.just copy/paste it from a txt doc where u changed the main things(ur nick,server,etc,etc)change names and post it.2 min

Agreed but when they respond and give him answer he keep answering and explaining...and that's called typing without any knowledge :/

[ek0]

@NEGERTIVS:
I don't know why do you think that every player that disconnects has a DSL connection and disconnects every game he plays.
Then why do we need a !ban command? Lets auto ban every player that leaves the game (independant of the reason they left).
The rule is made enough clear. If you leave, you'll be banned for a week. If you leave before creeps spawn or if you leave before the game ends, you'll get a warn. If you unplug, you'll be banned for 10 days. If you disconnect due to connection problems, you'll be unbanned without anything.
@PerverzniUm:
There is a reason that the !owner command is no longer used for taking owner after the host has left.

[NEGERTIVS]

Actually you'll find that you are the one spamming here. Who is off-topic here? You. Who's making useless statements here (get "google lesence" people QUICK!)? Oh WAIT, it's you. I "spam" because I "talk a lot"? Wut? Typing without knowledge? Perhaps you should read the rules and reconsider that statement.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

erm ek0, I never said that. I said that if you have a crappy connection, then you are more likely to disconnect, thus making it your fault.

Yes, I agree that such players should be banned, only if they join and ruin many games.

In the above statement you already said you agreed to this, right? The rules are quite clear yes, a leaver is a leaver, where is this "rule" that allows people to disconnect? Because it doesnt seem to exist in my space-time continuüm. Please quote it for me litterally, from the ingame rules section.

The point of debate was if it could be possible to not punish the host for this leaver/disconnecter by actually making the one who ruined the game go through the extra trouble of requesting an unban/conversion to warn. Sigh.

[mrNiceguy]

Negertivs,

since you like to type and argue a lot, please type here with quotes witch rule should be different and more clear than it is now.

Cause you have wrote some rules for moderators and that will never be accepted, since you are regular player.

Post here your opinion about rules you would like to change (but post what kind of change), and we will respond is it possible or not to implement that (well I will respond and I think ek0 will respond too).

Ok?

[fnelleh]

NEGERTIVS  you talk alot!!!....

Youre target is to spamming here.....

go to google and read what spam is nab

I want to ask you same question! i know what is spam and you should read in google what is it you will take a lesence...

hes not spamming at all...
And leavers at loading,pluggers,dcers have to be banned by host.they ruined the game,wasted the time of the others.
When host leaves is almost a must to post a ban req.just copy/paste it from a txt doc where u changed the main things(ur nick,server,etc,etc)change names and post it.2 min

Agreed but when they respond and give him answer he keep answering and explaining...and that's called typing without any knowledge :/

Hypocrite much?

[NEGERTIVS]

Alright mrniceguy if apparently you are not capable of converting logical arguments in a logical plea into the rule-changes that would follow logically, then sure, Ill lay it out for you kindergarten-style. I dont like "arguing" half as much as you think. I deposit logical suggestions and you return me ad-hominem manure. Please actually respond to my arguments instead of hacking away at my person, or I will be forced to call you an "unbelievable tard", because thats exactly what you'll be then.

1. If you want to be able to unban disconnecters, make a rule that allows disconnecting. You people claim that disconnecting is not a bannable offense, but there is no rule for it. Right now, according to the rules, a disconnecter is simply a leaver or even a plugger. It could be done in a number of ways, but the easiest one would be to append the "player must not leave" rule, as such:

Player must not leave;
      - An unintentional disconnect does not count as leaving

There, that wasnt all that difficult, right? OR if you want to be able to punish disconnecters then leave the leaver rule as it is now, and add a punishment clause at the bottom of the rules (where for example it says "warn" for leaving before the creeps spawn): as such:

Disconnecting (before creeps spawn)      Warn               1 Day ban (or whatever)             3 day ban (or whatever)
Disconnecting (after creeps spawn)         No punishment       1 Day ban (or whatever)          3 day ban (or whatever)

Again, not all that difficult.

2. Now on to the rule changes resulting from my plea: I think hosts should not be bannable for banning rulebreakers. This could be done in several ways:

Appending the "ban abuse" rule would be the easiest way:
Game owner must take control of the game
      - Abusing the !banlast command is not allowed.
      - Banning a rulebreaker is never ban abuse.

There you have it. Banning an early disconnecter is not "ban abuse" anymore now, and rightfully so. The disconnecter can easily go to the forum, put in some extra trouble and get warned instead of banned no problem. Since he has broken a rule and ruined the game for 9 people, he should be the one to request himself an unban. Do not punish the host or the other players for his failure.

Now if you would implement a rule that allows disconnecting altogether, then this specific case would be irrelevant. But I still think this would be a very good rulechange to protect hosts with good intentions. After all a lot of the "bad host" bans are made from what I call "mod logic" instead of properly sticking to the rules. How is banning a rulebreaker ever a violation of the "bad host" or "ban abuse" rule?

And might I also add that simply allowing all disconnects would be unwise, since plugpulling and then claiming a disconnect is rediculously easy and therefore very abusable. And I am of the opinion (like I said before) that a disconnecter is liable for his own bad connection and/or hardware/software, and should therefore feel the consequences when he ruins the game for other people by disconnecting. Allowing disconnects would let these people off the hook too easily and would be abusable to the point where any plugger/loading screen leaver can claim disconnect.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Last but not least the mod rules I suggested. Lol. Your reactions to a proposed set of rules for mods, like the ones being used all over the world and in many, many gaming communities, was so unreasonably defensive that I could hardly believe it. They are apparently NOT for PD.eu? OHNOES, a code of conduct that would make mods actually do their jobs instead of randomly ninja-banning people. I think it would be very beneficial to the entire community and as Domagoj stated before I also think it would generate a lot of support. Maybe that's why it was closed within minutes by ek0? You're scared of discussing making the conduct of mods more fair to the community, is that it?

I had a hilarious exchange of pm's with ek0 about it. Apparently there already are rules for mod behavior in place, but according to ek0 the players will not be allowed to know them! How hilarious is that! His reason for this is (and I quote, Im not sure if Im allowed to quote a pm but this line is just TOO GOOD to deprive the public of it):

"I don't have any intention to posting these moderator rules to the public, because I doubt that a player who just enters the site would care about moderators and what they do."

Can I get a LOLOLOL here? That's got to be the weakest excuse Ive ever heard, for anything. Hello?! I'm caring here! Id like to know! As would I think many players who feel a mod has abused them and who just want to know their rights. Is it that unreasonable to publish them? Is this really DPR Korea?

[AliRadicali]

Negertivs,

since you like to type and argue a lot, please type here with quotes witch rule should be different and more clear than it is now.

Cause you have wrote some rules for moderators and that will never be accepted, since you are regular player.

Post here your opinion about rules you would like to change (but post what kind of change), and we will respond is it possible or not to implement that (well I will respond and I think ek0 will respond too).

Ok?

Well, since the current rules don't adequately cover "what to do if someone discs/plugs/leaves before creepspawn", this wouldn't be about changing the rules inasmuch as it would be about making them. Personally, I think making distinctions between different types of leaver is completely arbitrary and requires hosts to make judgement calls that they can't possibly make, so I'd get rid of the whole "leaving before creepspawn rule", but seeing as you guys seem adamant about keeping it, this is how you should change your interpretation of the rules:

Stop banning hosts who ban someone for leaving before creepspawn.
A host doesn't have a a special !warn-command, so he can't give the "correct" punishment in-game.  He has to go on the forums to write a report, only to see the leaver get warned. This is a such a waste of effort that it's no wonder no-one ever does it. But since no-one ever bothers to write reports about this stuff, it shouldn't come as a surprise that repeat-offenders (I.E. Serial Laggers) don't get caught.
Allow hosts to ban early leavers. Sure, this forces people with a "legitimate" reason for leaving to go and write an unban report. So what? If you ruin a game by disconnecting at start, you probably wasted 9*10 = 90 mins of other peoples' time, so being forced to actively get yourself unbanned is the least amount of effort you can do.
Using the !ban command when someone leaves after loading is not host abuse; it's common freaking sense. If you really want to distinguish between leavers and disconnects then you should at least require the leaver to make sure he's dealt with accordingly, not force the hosts to make a distinction they can't.

[vaikiss]

I bet atleast 80% players would be intrested in reading mod rules

[PerverzniUm]

NEGERTIVS  you talk alot!!!....

Youre target is to spamming here.....

go to google and read what spam is nab

+1

[PerverzniUm]

So conclusion: we need "plugers" 2 be banned by request only and !owner comand when host leaves

so true but still needs some editing cant get all done in one shot it was just my tought

[PerverzniUm]

@NEGERTIVS:
I don't know why do you think that every player that disconnects has a DSL connection and disconnects every game he plays.
Then why do we need a !ban command? Lets auto ban every player that leaves the game (independant of the reason they left).
The rule is made enough clear. If you leave, you'll be banned for a week. If you leave before creeps spawn or if you leave before the game ends, you'll get a warn. If you unplug, you'll be banned for 10 days. If you disconnect due to connection problems, you'll be unbanned without anything.
@PerverzniUm:
There is a reason that the !owner command is no longer used for taking owner after the host has left.

ok this is was i meant this is an example of not giving full answ!   so wuts is that reason? or if its hard to type it post pls a link where i cant find it!

[yaphets_]

Actually you'll find that you are the one spamming here. Who is off-topic here? You. Who's making useless statements here (get "google lesence" people QUICK!)? Oh WAIT, it's you. I "spam" because I "talk a lot"? Wut? Typing without knowledge? Perhaps you should read the rules and reconsider that statement.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

erm ek0, I never said that. I said that if you have a crappy connection, then you are more likely to disconnect, thus making it your fault.

Yes, I agree that such players should be banned, only if they join and ruin many games.

In the above statement you already said you agreed to this, right? The rules are quite clear yes, a leaver is a leaver, where is this "rule" that allows people to disconnect? Because it doesnt seem to exist in my space-time continuüm. Please quote it for me litterally, from the ingame rules section.

The point of debate was if it could be possible to not punish the host for this leaver/disconnecter by actually making the one who ruined the game go through the extra trouble of requesting an unban/conversion to warn. Sigh.

ok i won't respond ....but when someon keep typing such 20 lign of paragraphs and doesn't make sence (in my opinion) It's called mass spamm not only spamming and i won't respond anymmore here cause i think i am spaming too!

[NEGERTIVS]

Im sorry if it doesnt make sense to you. It makes perfect sense to me and apparently to others as well. The obvious next step that you've left me, as an open door, would be to question your intelligence. But I wont do that. Remember that you don't have to read it. But then don't post here.

[mrNiceguy]

Alright mrniceguy if apparently you are not capable of converting logical arguments in a logical plea into the rule-changes that would follow logically, then sure, Ill lay it out for you kindergarten-style.

Well you have proofed opposit cause even the kindergarten-style can not help you to understand things whe have wrote above.

Ok here is explanation why your proposals will not be accepted:

1. If you want to be able to unban disconnecters, make a rule that allows disconnecting. You people claim that disconnecting is not a bannable offense, but there is no rule for it. Right now, according to the rules, a disconnecter is simply a leaver or even a plugger.

1. Disconnecting is something that can happend everyone: power failure, losing connection, w3 crash, losing connection with bot (thats why gproxy++ has been inventend and it will be implemented in our bot).

And yes that is not bannable offense cause it is very easy for me, and I believe for all moderators to divide what is disconnecting and what is leaving/unpluging on purpose. If you can not understand that then you are not welcome to be host on our bot, rather play on it and avoid hosting.

2. Unplugging/leaving is something what you do when you are losing badly and you cant stand it anymore. Unplug the cable or leave the game.

We wont implement your proposal cause of that.

2. Now on to the rule changes resulting from my plea: I think hosts should not be bannable for banning rulebreakers. This could be done in several ways:

Appending the "ban abuse" rule would be the easiest way:
Game owner must take control of the game
      - Abusing the !banlast command is not allowed.
      - Banning a rulebreaker is never ban abuse.

Host was never banned for banning the rulebreakers, YOU IN OTHER WAY DID NOT BANNED THE RULE BREAKER YOU HAVE BANNED SOMEONE WHO LOST CONNECTION AT LOADING THAT IS BAN ABUSE.

I rly dont understand how you cant get it:

YOU CANT KNOW DID HE LEFT ON PURPOSE OR LOST CONNECTION THAT IS WHY YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BAN HIM ON 00:00.

If you cant follow that simply once again avoid beeing the host.

Now, this will not be implemented cause there is no any reason for that. And if you want that someone accept you as sirious here, try to avoid provocations like this:

Ill lay it out for you kindergarten-style.

and all that you posted below ------------------------------------.