Better change your sig quick before a don sees, max dimensions are 400x75.
OcUK Minecraft Server - Rules & Chat
- Thread starter Windle
- Start date
Better change your sig quick before a don sees, max dimensions are 400x75.
Soldato
he has just joined linktart and joined the mc group too
Soldato
ello?
Soldato
Hiya
Caporegime
So this guy admits to doing wrong, like you asked people to do, yet he's still perma banned?
Tad harsh imho, not that it counts for anything.
Soldato
Thanks for the gift in my home admin team, minor problem, my names spelt wrong so I'm locked out of the chest, lol 
Can someone change it please, needs to be andituk not andiuk
Can someone change it please, needs to be andituk not andiuk
Depends how you look at it - it wasn't an admission, it was a conversation which highlighted it. As far as I'm aware Scrlk didn't PM an admin pointing out the exploit - he just kept on using it and would have continued too.
Like you Tummy I'd be in favour of letting Scrlk back on as I think he's a nice chap, but I'd personally strip him of everything in any chests he has, he and his friends can replenish it and he'd obviously be on his last warning.
At some point though last warnings run out, admins look weak if they don't follow through with punishments and people keep pushing the boundaries. I don't want someone who's had several warnings/suspensions to damage my build - it'd be the admins who got the blame if they did for not banning permanently. It's not an easy balance to get right.
Caporegime
Scrlk doesn't strike me as the kind of person that's going to damage property or anything like that, he's always been fairly pleasant when I've seen him on, can't say I pay too much attention to chat anymore.
Freddie has vouched for two (that I know of) people who have been mega ass hats and faced no punishment, not even a warning, which is far worse then this imho.
He might of done wrong in the past, but his willingness to comply this time and his understanding that he'd done wrong is what makes the perma ban seem harsh.
I understand admins need to look tough and have respect, but if anything silly decisions could lose them that.
*fully expect an admin to tell me to keep quiet tbh*
Freddie has vouched for two (that I know of) people who have been mega ass hats and faced no punishment, not even a warning, which is far worse then this imho.
He might of done wrong in the past, but his willingness to comply this time and his understanding that he'd done wrong is what makes the perma ban seem harsh.
I understand admins need to look tough and have respect, but if anything silly decisions could lose them that.
*fully expect an admin to tell me to keep quiet tbh*
Server down
I think griefing's a more punishable offense that duping and it's not as if he tried to hide what he was doing. I didn't agree with his first temp ban (but I don't remember the full story of it) and think this should've been temporary instead of permanent.
It'd look bad if the admins allowed griefers more than 1 chance, but I think on this occasion - given scrlk's good history on the server as a friendly and helpful player - he should be given a final chance
Just my 2 pence
I think griefing's a more punishable offense that duping and it's not as if he tried to hide what he was doing. I didn't agree with his first temp ban (but I don't remember the full story of it) and think this should've been temporary instead of permanent.
It'd look bad if the admins allowed griefers more than 1 chance, but I think on this occasion - given scrlk's good history on the server as a friendly and helpful player - he should be given a final chance
Just my 2 pence
I logged off the server and went to sleep between 23:00-23:15 which means I would have not had the chance to even see the post before I got banned.
gazzab - first time round was dismantling a railway (which French consented to) and TNT'ing that desert.
Soldato
Not really, Fred can't control how other people act.
Last edited:
Caporegime
I think you should be responsible for the people you vouch for and if they turn out to be ass hats on your head be it as well as their perma.
As I said on the previous page, I don't agree with Perma banning someone over this when he's been very open and compliant over it all. I don't think admin's will take any notice though.
All power to the people and that jazz.
As I said on the previous page, I don't agree with Perma banning someone over this when he's been very open and compliant over it all. I don't think admin's will take any notice though.
All power to the people and that jazz.
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 1,279
As stated a few pages back I have banned myself for vouching for anyone else ever again! And I am also sorry for the problems the past people i have vouched for have caused and had no idea that they would act the way they did.
Man of Honour
Couple of points:
1) Scrlk didn't approach the admins about a possible bug. He instead abused it and boasted about openly in server chat.
2) Scrlk has caused damage to areas on the server previously and when asked to fix the damage has had an incredibly bad attitude towards the admins. He has been told before that he was on his last warning.
3) Scrlk's attitude towards admins whllst on the server has been inflammatory. Admins are doing their job. They don't deserver abuse or childish remarks any more than any of the rest of you do.
4) Random comments about admins not listening and similar remarks look pretty stupid when the very reason this has been investigated and discussed amongst the admins is a forum post from a member on here.
5) So far there have been no punishments for 'bad vouching' beyond us keeping a closer eye on the player in question. It is quite possible that the player will lose 'vouching rights' if we discover any further problems but that hasn't been decided upon yet. Either way, it is a completely different situation to scrlk - the players that freddie vouched for that *did* cause problems have already been banned.
1) Scrlk didn't approach the admins about a possible bug. He instead abused it and boasted about openly in server chat.
2) Scrlk has caused damage to areas on the server previously and when asked to fix the damage has had an incredibly bad attitude towards the admins. He has been told before that he was on his last warning.
3) Scrlk's attitude towards admins whllst on the server has been inflammatory. Admins are doing their job. They don't deserver abuse or childish remarks any more than any of the rest of you do.
4) Random comments about admins not listening and similar remarks look pretty stupid when the very reason this has been investigated and discussed amongst the admins is a forum post from a member on here.
5) So far there have been no punishments for 'bad vouching' beyond us keeping a closer eye on the player in question. It is quite possible that the player will lose 'vouching rights' if we discover any further problems but that hasn't been decided upon yet. Either way, it is a completely different situation to scrlk - the players that freddie vouched for that *did* cause problems have already been banned.
Man of Honour
On further discussion amongst the admins it has been decided that scrlk's banning be a permanent one. This is in part because of his previous behaviour - otherwise it likely would've been a temporary ban at worst.