2) You say that the forum has a report subforum, therefore justifying there being a no admin-player communication system. Only video evidence is accepted, and if you're an actually experienced player you'll know how hard it is to catch a hacker on tape, crop out unnecesary parts, and upload it to YouTube (only form of video accepted), and make a formal report following report format. it just doesn't happen often.
3) Theres no way to see if an admin is on if they're vanished (which around um, 90% of the time they are). Admins are humans like you and i, and they are not on indefinitely. this system is just so flawed, and you can't deny it. This was a point stoneheart was trying to convey.
please review these three points. thank you, have a nice day.
1) This isn't a terrible point. In fact, it's completely logical. Humans are capable of feeling, albeit on different ends of the spectrum. Imagine yourself being accused of as a thief and the whole community judging you from that. How would you feel? Not the least sad nor hurt? Not even anger? Now all of these emotions triggered are negative.
I have made my point very clear on how accusations in chat can have its negative implications. Afterall, GC wishes to build a friendly community where players can enjoy and have fun. Allowing players to hurl accusations at one another can and will disrupt the status of the chat we are having right now. You aren't gonna deny that are you?
Now that we got this aside, I have actually only heard you trying to discredit my point on how accusations have their negative implications. I would be interested i hearing you validate your point. Other than allowing players to freely express their hate and anger in chat and preventing players who don't read the rules from being punished, what other good does it bring to the server with the removal of this rule?
2) I do not justify a no admin-player communication system. As I have stated in my replies on the thread, the rule itself isn't perfect, and quoting you, admins are humans too. They aren't always online. The reason for having the section is simple. In the event that admins are not online, players can seek help on the forums.
Whether it is easy to make a report on the forum is secondary. We are not dealing with whether the reporting system is efficient here. Rather, we are more interested in whether the rule should be removed so that some players do not get banned innocently. What I have said is not an indication that admins and players do not need to interact.
Rather, I am pointing out that there are various platforms for players to communicate with staffs about such issues. Resorting to public chat is simply unnecessary. While players should have the right to express themselves, the line still needs to be drawn clear that these expressions should not have the slightest capability of offending others.
3) StoneHeart did raise the point, but I did state clearly I will not discuss about how the staffs have been doing their job. You speak as if removing the rule on "No Hackusation" will make things better. Your 3rd point has got no relevance with regards to whether the rule should be kept. You may want to read my comments in the post again.
3) you're avoiding the point, and that point is that the system is flawed, not just the rule. even you can't dream up another novel-length post to cleverly maneuver around this.
I never said the system is perfect :P Yes it has its flaws, but I'm just saying that removing the "No Hackusation" rule wouldn't do any better :) In any case, have a nice day too :)
... fyi lolnoteven I actually DO care when people hackusate me -as long as they mean it. If they do then I'm always happy to offer to 1v1 to prove them wrong. And the point of my thread was to fight flawed logic with experience combined with reasoning. Something no one appreciated.
»Comments on Profile Post by lolnoteven