[bimkx]

Comparing prisoners in the US to being banned from a GMod server lmfao

[BlackDog]

The comparison is more or less that it is a similar concept, with similar consequences in the long run.

Not nearly as severe yes, but comparable due to the idea behind it.

[greg]

for the first time im gonna have to agree with the blackdog fella he brings up some good points


-support cuz i got n words who are permed and i know they would love to help the server

[Soviethooves]

(1) LL offers 2 services so far: A Gmod Server and a Forum to act as a hub. If we ever offer more services, how is it fair for a player who got punished for Fearp on the Gmod server to not be allowed to vote or discuss arguments and suggestions? And if we do get more games supported by LL, why can’t they voice their opinion on those topics?

(2) If they didn’t break forum rules they don’t deserve to be suspended here, especially if they want to argue their suspension.

(1) I think you've misunderstood something. Players who simply get punished for FearRP, as you've mentioned, do not loose the ability to vote or discuss arguments. The suggestion is about permanently banned players to loose their ability to vote. They will keep their ability to discuss.

(2) If this suggestion gets approved they can still be on the forums like before, they can still argue their suspension. They simply loose the ability to vote on teacher application and suggestions.

Read the suggestion again.

1. Didnt misunderstand anything. Your last ban could be all the way from a TOS break to Fearp. I don’t think such a wide spectrum should all fall under banning someone from the forums when that service is not directly involved.

2. You are still limiting not only their power (which they have the right to on the forums), but also their credibility and chance to make an impact on the community so they can continue to be involved.

If you can show me a singular case of a player that affected the forum negatively significantly that was also “permanently” banned from the Gmod server, I may consider changing to just not voting at all as I see no reason to strip someone’s right to the forum for a ban that may be unrelated.

[Doctor Internet]

(1) LL offers 2 services so far: A Gmod Server and a Forum to act as a hub. If we ever offer more services, how is it fair for a player who got punished for Fearp on the Gmod server to not be allowed to vote or discuss arguments and suggestions? And if we do get more games supported by LL, why can’t they voice their opinion on those topics?

(2) If they didn’t break forum rules they don’t deserve to be suspended here, especially if they want to argue their suspension.

(1) I think you've misunderstood something. Players who simply get punished for FearRP, as you've mentioned, do not loose the ability to vote or discuss arguments. The suggestion is about permanently banned players to loose their ability to vote. They will keep their ability to discuss.

(2) If this suggestion gets approved they can still be on the forums like before, they can still argue their suspension. They simply loose the ability to vote on teacher application and suggestions.

Read the suggestion again.

1. Didnt misunderstand anything. Your last ban could be all the way from a TOS break to Fearp. I don’t think such a wide spectrum should all fall under banning someone from the forums when that service is not directly involved.

2. You are still limiting not only their power (which they have the right to on the forums), but also their credibility and chance to make an impact on the community so they can continue to be involved.

If you can show me a singular case of a player that affected the forum negatively significantly that was also “permanently” banned from the Gmod server, I may consider changing to just not voting at all as I see no reason to strip someone’s right to the forum for a ban that may be unrelated.

To add onto this.

If you can show me a singular case of a player that affected the forum negatively significantly that was also “permanently” banned from the Gmod server and wasn't already banned for their actions on the forum, I may consider changing to just not voting at all as I see no reason to strip someone’s right to the forum for a ban that may be unrelated.

[Limelight Gaming]

Pushing for Staff Review.

#type:[review]

[Project]

(1) LL offers 2 services so far: A Gmod Server and a Forum to act as a hub. If we ever offer more services, how is it fair for a player who got punished for Fearp on the Gmod server to not be allowed to vote or discuss arguments and suggestions? And if we do get more games supported by LL, why can’t they voice their opinion on those topics?

(2) If they didn’t break forum rules they don’t deserve to be suspended here, especially if they want to argue their suspension.

(1) I think you've misunderstood something. Players who simply get punished for FearRP, as you've mentioned, do not loose the ability to vote or discuss arguments. The suggestion is about permanently banned players to loose their ability to vote. They will keep their ability to discuss.

(2) If this suggestion gets approved they can still be on the forums like before, they can still argue their suspension. They simply loose the ability to vote on teacher application and suggestions.

Read the suggestion again.

1. He fully understood what the suggestion is about, the problem is: The player has not violated any of LL's policies that would lead them to have their forum abilities restricted in anyway, thus they should not be limited until such time they do violate them.

2. If the suggestion is approved, all youve done is stigmitize said players more so than they already are, and will make it harder for them to ever return to LL proper.


They have done nothing to warrant their forum accesses being limited in anyway, as soviet pointed out:

What if LL had more than one game service? What if we had say Space engineers, Minecraft, Project Zomboid, or other various game servers, and a player received a perma ban from one of them, should they now suddenly be not allowed to post suggestions or vote within the community?

If you are banned from the GMod server, you lose access to the "CityRP 2" gamemode, it just so happens, that this subforum right now is under the CityRP category, if there is a new service, there will be a new category with new a new suggestion subforum for that one.

So what we are saying is both simple and logical. If you have been permanently banned on the CityRP server, you lose your right to vote on changes on CityRP related votes.

[BlackDog]

Just because a player can no longer play on the server, does not mean they can not add to the discussions in a meaningfull way, and eventualy use these experiences to re-enter the community proper.

[Nudel]

Just because a player can no longer play on the server, does not mean they can not add to the discussions in a meaningfull way, and eventualy use these experiences to re-enter the community proper.

they     can     still     take     part     in     discussions

[BlackDog]

Yes, but their voice is overall meaningless without a vote to back it.

They would have zero true say or power in any of those discussions.

They would be less than any other community member, even though they have not violated any of the policies that would actually restrict their accesses

[Doctor Internet]

(1) I think you've misunderstood something. Players who simply get punished for FearRP, as you've mentioned, do not loose the ability to vote or discuss arguments. The suggestion is about permanently banned players to loose their ability to vote. They will keep their ability to discuss.

(2) If this suggestion gets approved they can still be on the forums like before, they can still argue their suspension. They simply loose the ability to vote on teacher application and suggestions.

Read the suggestion again.

1. He fully understood what the suggestion is about, the problem is: The player has not violated any of LL's policies that would lead them to have their forum abilities restricted in anyway, thus they should not be limited until such time they do violate them.

2. If the suggestion is approved, all youve done is stigmitize said players more so than they already are, and will make it harder for them to ever return to LL proper.


They have done nothing to warrant their forum accesses being limited in anyway, as soviet pointed out:

What if LL had more than one game service? What if we had say Space engineers, Minecraft, Project Zomboid, or other various game servers, and a player received a perma ban from one of them, should they now suddenly be not allowed to post suggestions or vote within the community?

If you are banned from the GMod server, you lose access to the "CityRP 2" gamemode, it just so happens, that this subforum right now is under the CityRP category, if there is a new service, there will be a new category with new a new suggestion subforum for that one.

So what we are saying is both simple and logical. If you have been permanently banned on the CityRP server, you lose your right to vote on changes on CityRP related votes.

Teachers do more than ingame. They do a lot of their work on discord qnd the forums.

Why shouldn't people be able to vote on that?

[Project]

1. He fully understood what the suggestion is about, the problem is: The player has not violated any of LL's policies that would lead them to have their forum abilities restricted in anyway, thus they should not be limited until such time they do violate them.

2. If the suggestion is approved, all youve done is stigmitize said players more so than they already are, and will make it harder for them to ever return to LL proper.


They have done nothing to warrant their forum accesses being limited in anyway, as soviet pointed out:

What if LL had more than one game service? What if we had say Space engineers, Minecraft, Project Zomboid, or other various game servers, and a player received a perma ban from one of them, should they now suddenly be not allowed to post suggestions or vote within the community?

If you are banned from the GMod server, you lose access to the "CityRP 2" gamemode, it just so happens, that this subforum right now is under the CityRP category, if there is a new service, there will be a new category with new a new suggestion subforum for that one.

So what we are saying is both simple and logical. If you have been permanently banned on the CityRP server, you lose your right to vote on changes on CityRP related votes.

Teachers do more than ingame. They do a lot of their work on discord qnd the forums.

Why shouldn't people be able to vote on that?

The answer is very simple.


We are not talking about teachers, we are talking about applicants. A big chunk of the application requires see how the candidate acts on the server, somewhere that if they get accepted, they would hold most of their powers. If you take a look, most of the teacher rank is related and relies on the CityRP gamemode, something that if a player is permanently banned would not be able to have a up-to-date and unbiased opinion about the actions of the applicant.

In my opinion, it also falls under the same logic as the suggestions. If you permanently lost access from the server, you should not be able to vote for someone to be promoted to a rank that holds most of its powers in said server.

Also I would say that most applicants are judged mainly from their in-game behaviour first before anything else.

[BlackDog]

It seems the main arguments for this restriction is: They can no longer see whats happening ingame, so they shouldnt be able to vote on changes for ingame.

They can no longer see how applicants act ingame, thus they shouldnt be able to vote on applications.


By the logic put forward by this suggestion and above, then this also should be a thing:

Players with under (Insert time) of ingame time cannot post suggestions nor vote in them

Players with under (Insert Post count)  post count also cannot vote or post suggestions.

Due to players who fit into the above categories not having enough information to be able to make said votes in good faith.


Mind you id be just as against these two bits as whats being proposed here, but the logic is similar and just as flawed.

[Doctor Internet]

It seems the main arguments for this restriction is: They can no longer see whats happening ingame, so they shouldnt be able to vote on changes for ingame.

They can no longer see how applicants act ingame, thus they shouldnt be able to vote on applications.


By the logic put forward by this suggestion and above, then this also should be a thing:

Players with under (Insert time) of ingame time cannot post suggestions nor vote in them

Players with under (Insert Post count)  post count also cannot vote or post suggestions.

Due to players who fit into the above categories not having enough information to be able to make said votes in good faith.


Mind you id be just as against these two bits as whats being proposed here, but the logic is similar and just as flawed.

Not only that, people who are banned shouldn't be able to.
People who haven't played recently shouldn't be able to.
And people who think differently to me shouldn't be able to.

[Project]

It seems the main arguments for this restriction is: They can no longer see whats happening ingame, so they shouldnt be able to vote on changes for ingame.

They can no longer see how applicants act ingame, thus they shouldnt be able to vote on applications.


By the logic put forward by this suggestion and above, then this also should be a thing:

Players with under (Insert time) of ingame time cannot post suggestions nor vote in them

Players with under (Insert Post count)  post count also cannot vote or post suggestions.

Due to players who fit into the above categories not having enough information to be able to make said votes in good faith.


Mind you id be just as against these two bits as whats being proposed here, but the logic is similar and just as flawed.

Not only that, people who are banned shouldn't be able to.
People who haven't played recently shouldn't be able to.
And people who think differently to me shouldn't be able to.

You can both keep twisting my words again and again.

Blackdog,
The same logic doesn't apply. I am talking about people who have lost their access permanently. Low hour players can get on the server and acquire information first hand, they can read the requirements for teacher and vote in good faith. They have access to the server, if they get on they can have a educated train of though if a suggestion is good or not. Post count is irrelevant and has nothing to do with what I have said previously.

Internet,
While I personally would support that people who haven't played in over 2 months (or are banned for longer than that) shouldn't vote and people should at least have 5-10 hours of playtime in the last month, this is not what this suggestion is about and I won't take it off-topic.

I really don't understand why it is unreasonable to ask that people who haven't played recently either due to inactivity or due to being banned, to loose their voting rights, would be a bad choice. People have always complained about it, even staff have.