What you think about the rules and punishment system? And what can be better?

[Minks]

On 10/18/2019 at 6:38 PM, Goku said:

And if you don't have time to follow the rules you agreed to, then you shouldn't play the game in the first place.

 

this is a dumb statement 

 

thing is, OP has a point and the person that gave the example of someone being banned for RMT, staff providing "evidence" of this and then him getting unbanned anyway because the evidence was never evidence in the first place, proves that. Sadly there are people in here that are so far up staffs ass for some reason, they are derailing the thread on purpose. 

Edited October 20 by Minks
u people are stupid

[Goku]

22 minutes ago, Minks said:

this is a dumb statement 

 

thing is, OP has a point and the person that gave the example of someone being banned for RMT, staff providing "evidence" of this and then him getting unbanned anyway because the evidence was never evidence in the first place, proves that. Sadly there are people in here that are so far up staffs ass for some reason, they are derailing the thread on purpose. 

If you think it's a dumb statement then you're free to go fcking play smth else dipshit. They ain't gonna give evidence so people can't find loopholes around it. It's beyond obvious. If they reveal the way they catch these losers it's gonna be exploited. They should close this thread already since desu already gave a clear answer on the first page. I side with staff 100% because the current staff right now are the same staff that handled the biggest rmt time in this game's history. (1000's of cases in less than a few months) so trust me they know what they're doing. "We people might be stupid" but at least we aren't hypocrites.

[Malorne]

45 minutes ago, Minks said:

Sadly there are people in here that are so far up staffs ass for some reason, they are derailing the thread on purpose.

Sadly, there are also people here who had a few run-ups with staff that they start to deem everything staff does negative. That sort of biased point of view kinda invalidates your point. Maybe staff are not always right, but on this one they are. Especially in a case like RMT, where sometimes there are people involved on a black market scale (lots and lots of communication) it is best not to give out that crucial of information for someone to distribute and a whole lot of exploiting starts to begin where RMT cases starts to get harder and harder. So yeah, if you can't see the bigger picture, your concerns starts to weight less.

[Minks]

55 minutes ago, Malorne said:

Sadly, there are also people here who had a few run-ups with staff that they start to deem everything staff does negative. That sort of biased point of view kinda invalidates your point. Maybe staff are not always right, but on this one they are. Especially in a case like RMT, where sometimes there are people involved on a black market scale (lots and lots of communication) it is best not to give out that crucial of information for someone to distribute and a whole lot of exploiting starts to begin where RMT cases starts to get harder and harder. So yeah, if you can't see the bigger picture, your concerns starts to weight less.

No, i think banning someone for RMT, providing "evidence" for that ban and then having to unban him because they were wrong is objectively negative and a mistake. How about just sticking to the arguments used instead of thinking because i got banned a few times, that somehow "clouds my judgement". It doesn't. When it comes to RMT, i dont think they should give out logs or whatever at the moment of handing out a punishment, i never said that so idk where you got this idea from. 

 

Also tell me Malorne, that time when you were trying to get some of us to shittalk staff, so you could go and snitch, is that something that would invalidate your opinion on topics like this or nah? 

[Minks]

1 hour ago, Goku said:

If you think it's a dumb statement then you're free to go fcking play smth else dipshit.

"We people might be stupid" but at least we aren't hypocrites.

i dont think u know what that last word means sir. 

 

the fact that people get banned for RMT when they dont, the fact that ive had multiple punishments for offenses in chat succesfully appealed, proves that moderation could be better. imo, transparency such as giving logs ( instead of posting "inappropriate chat conduct" and nothing else) and telling us what staff member handed out the punishment, are 2 possible things that could improve moderation. 

[Malorne]

22 minutes ago, Minks said:

Also tell me Malorne, that time when you were trying to get some of us to shittalk staff, so you could go and snitch, is that something that would invalidate your opinion on topics like this or nah?

No, that just proves me being unbiased towards staff, that i wont overlook their mistakes either, especially of that nature.

[Minks]

Yea, my (extremely low) opinion of you does not cloud my judgement on moderation of Pokemmo. I'd say nice try, but it really wasn't. 

[XelaKebert]

1 hour ago, Minks said:

No, i think banning someone for RMT, providing "evidence" for that ban and then having to unban him because they were wrong is objectively negative and a mistake. How about just sticking to the arguments used instead of thinking because i got banned a few times, that somehow "clouds my judgement". It doesn't. When it comes to RMT, i dont think they should give out logs or whatever at the moment of handing out a punishment, i never said that so idk where you got this idea from. 

Hi, former GM. The amount of evidence that is required for an RMT ban is a magnitudes larger than evidence needed for botting. False bans do still occur do to misinterpreting evidence gathered, but the vast majority of RMT bans have more evidence than you think. Not up the staff's ass like you claim. I've just been on that side of things. As someone already said, some chat logs are provided on appeals, but critical evidence that could jeopardize capture techniques is not and will never be shared. Your point of view is severely biased as is since it was already stated that non-critical portions of evidence are provided in appeals. So the ball is in the player's court to prove innocence.

 

On 10/19/2019 at 7:30 AM, Lavalu said:

There is a fair point that they can't show everything if there's a risk of exposing capture methods, but that doesn't change the idea of presumption of innocence (Art. 6 ECHR).

Reading this thread really makes me think more people should study law lol.

Access to a fan made Pokemon game is not a human right. Perhaps you should learn how legal precedents apply before bringing up stuff like human rights, freedom of speech and such. You are not protected from being banned because ECHR. Being banned in any game is not a human rights violation. Having to prove your innocence in a ban appeal is not a violation of your human rights. Due Process and the presumption of innocence applies to government abuses of their people. If you read the Terms of Service it is already stated that PokeMMO reserves the right to terminate your account at any time for any reason. You agreed to it and it is an enforceable clause. ECHR doesn't protect you from that.

Edited October 20 by XelaKebert

[Minks]

30 minutes ago, XelaKebert said:

Hi, former GM. The amount of evidence that is required for an RMT ban is a magnitudes larger than evidence needed for botting. False bans do still occur do to misinterpreting evidence gathered, but the vast majority of RMT bans have more evidence than you think. Not up the staff's ass like you claim. I've just been on that side of things. As someone already said, some chat logs are provided on appeals, but critical evidence that could jeopardize capture techniques is not and will never be shared. Your point of view is severely biased as is since it was already stated that non-critical portions of evidence are provided in appeals. So the ball is in the player's court to prove innocence.

 

and what exactly does this have to do with my opinion being; if u get banned for chatrelated incidents, you should get more information than just "inappropriate chat conduct"? I never said "hey, give these RMTers tips on how not to get caught next time" Anything i said regarding RMT should just be viewed as "yea they make mistakes"

 

and i wasnt referring to u, i was referring to the 2 that quoted me, which they did because they know im right about them. 

 

Gonna make a simple analogy here, but if i get a speeding ticket it tells me how fast i was going and where i got caught. Not "Speeding" and the amount i have to pay. If that was the case, i'd have to first find out if it was accurate, if i was in fact speeding, if i was at that location etc etc. Adding an extra step and more work for both me and the authorities. That is currently how the appeal system works here and you can cut out half the work if instead you'd get "inappropriate chat conduct, at 4:20 pm you said <this>". That has been my entire point, from the very beginning, i hope you understand better now, mister "former GM". :')

Edited October 20 by Minks
i cant spell

[zorghyh]

2 hours ago, Minks said:

Also tell me Malorne, that time when you were trying to get some of us to shittalk staff, so you could go and snitch, is that something that would invalidate your opinion on topics like this or nah? 

Unfortunately, since 2013 when i start, a lot of players use this fail of the half relatory, without properly explanations about the infraction, to make a report against others. Using the example of jesus, everyone can make a fake account to send a great amount of gold in the game for mail to report other by RMT, and this will make used like prove. This type of judgment with incomplete relatory open a great door to make fake reports.

[Desu]

This thread has gone on long enough.

 

We have no intention to change how we handle appeals for certain punishment types. That said, we already do provide detailed evidence and reasoning to most social/behavioral punishments during appeals.