help

[Azarael]

I don't want to go so far as to take action against people for such things as "don't do that <name> you'll get banned", because something of that nature clearly tells me that the warning player is sure of the other player's intent to commit or actual committing of an offense. I just take exception to warnings of the type specified in this thread which obstruct me completely.

[iRobot]

I don't want to go so far as to take action against people for such things as "don't do that <name> you'll get banned"

But isn't that the opposite of what you have been arguing?

Surely by using that quote, it can be implying that they shouldn't be glitching because of risk of ban, rather than because of honoring the rules?

[Azarael]

The perceived ambiguity of Coucounet's warning caused people to rally against me in the first few pages of this thread. Though, as I said, a warning such as the one I described in my last post is still undesirable, I wouldn't ban for it because it could still be well intentioned and it still offers me support should I look through the logs or deal with the player later for glitching in that I now know it's not an isolated offense and the player is known for such actions. I find that a player could say something like "don't do x, you'll get banned" completely innocently and in good faith (for example to a player who is honestly ignorant of the rules) and I don't want to have to come down on people doing so.

[iZumo]

Well, given last post, I think we're clear here now.

Still want to reply to the previous post:

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.

And how did Coucounet know that you're spectating IllegalName? By "bs opinion/experience" I meant that you found in the occured events what you wanted to rather than seeing as they occured.

[Coucounet]

I absolutely didn't know, just knew Aza was on the server.

[Azarael]

And how did Coucounet know that you're spectating IllegalName? By "bs opinion/experience" I meant that you found in the occured events what you wanted to rather than seeing as they occured.

Looks like he's answered that himself; in any case, it's not for me to know. His statement is clear enough. For some additional context, map was J-Vehicle Race so of course I was in an aerial vehicle.

@smalltown: I've deleted your post because it wasn't on topic to the thread. Ban appeals has stricter rules.

[iZumo]

Well it's just that you posted in a manner that he would know you're spectating IllegalName.