help

[LiZaT]

Well, you have right Azarael, you all have but this ended in a privet talk. You should close this Tread, or it never ending.

[Azarael]

You don't agree with 3) how please?

"Warnings are only given when adminstrators are present and one player is in the process of committing an offense"

This is an assumption for the test case (i.e. a necessary criterion of any ban which would be made were this to be a rule) and not something I have attempted yet to prove with respect to THIS ban.

[iZumo]

As for 3) it depends on the actual offense (racism -> ban right away, taunt spam (which is not extreme) -> still get just warned (considering WA to be as "admin present" on this).

[Azarael]

If a player warns another player not to taunt spam or that an admin's around it doesn't matter because the webadmin log can be consulted, no obstruction takes place. Similarly in cases of racism, the logs can easily be checked (assuming that the player will execute these offenses while they believe there is no admin around.)

[Azarael]

Oh god I've just realised what you meant.

My bad.

3) should read "The players only warn each other ..." and not "Warnings..." It means that for there to be an offense, the players must only warn each other for glitching (in reality: explicitly for the presence of an admin like this player did) when an admin is present, so that it can clearly be inferred that the warning is in bad faith.

[iZumo]

Ah, I see. Go on.

[iRobot]

You're sending out the message of letting people glitch, because if you warn them, you'll be banned :/

[iZumo]

Yes, I know. I was about to ask about "proof that the player sending the warning is undoubtely supportive towards the player that is glitching" at some point. If such existed (proof, not bs opinion / experience) I would agree that the player sending the warning should be banned along with the player that would glitch if not warned (when it's clear he is about to glitch).

[Azarael]

Not exactly, iRobot. I'm sending out the message that if you know there is an admin present in the game and you give out an ambiguous warning to a player who is committing, or is about to commit, an offense, you are obstructing an administrator and the rules.

To bring things back to the current case: The player in this ban clearly knew I was here watching the other player and yet still felt the need to communicate to his friend/acquaintance that an administrator was watching him. He did not give me any information which would have clarified the offense nor did he phrase his warning around the rules. Had he said "<player> stop that/it" I would have been less than pleased but would have said nothing. Had he said "<player> <offense> is against the rules" or "<player> is <offense>ing" that would still be less than desirable but I would have had something to go on and it would have been a clear statement phrased around the rules. Instead he addressed the player I was spectating DIRECTLY and said "warning illegal, there are admins there". That to me communicated two things: 1) That the player meant to alert his friend to my presence and b) that the player felt so sure that his friend was going to break the rules that he felt such a warning was necessary to give.

I feel that the above does not constitute "bs opinion". It is valid conjecture with support from experience, which I hope you are not going to invalidate as a necessary tool for dealing with players. Even if we make this a general case of an admin and two players, instead of Azarael and IllegalName/Coucounet, I feel that my interpretation is still valid. The warning was not necessary, addressed to the wrong person and phrased in such a way that it would give me no concrete idea what the player was about to do while still making me suspicious enough about the motives for the warning being given.

What are your interpretations of this? I feel the situation can easily be solved by making it clear that if an admin is around, the admin should be allowed to deal with the offense or, if you feel the administrator has not spotted the offense, you should address the administrator directly and state the offense. Alternatively the creation of an ingame report chat, a one way channel for players to send a message to an ingame adminstrator, would allow reporting offenses in public chat in the presence of an admin to be actively discouraged in all cases.

[iRobot]

Perhaps just simply add a rule with "No backseat administrating", and treat all inter-player warnings as an offense, well intended or not.

I think it would be harsh, but it would be clear cut.