Minecraft Name: dork1877 Suggestion: users banned for use of mods or hacks that exploit the economy should not get a third chance. Reason: if they didn't learn the 1st time how serious of an offense it is and they do it again, they are basically telling everyone that they don't care about cheating and only care if they get caught. Other Information: for example. if a user is caught and banned for using xray and then serve a ban and successfully appeal, then if they get convicted for something like fast break, they should receive a permaban. Link to this plugin: NA
Perm bans are up to Andrew, end of discussion. Those types of exploits, if caught, have to submit a very, very good appeal, directly to Andrew, and he decides. Here on ECC we like to think someone can change. We like to forgive, at least once, and hope that mistakes can be learned from. Donators to the server might get an extra chance or two, because they have invested more in the server than the average user, but it doesn't make them exempt from punishment. Balance wipes, town deletions, and in one case, a World Edit out of property/possessions. There is no need to take this suggestion further because everything is already being handled the way Andrew wants it to be. If it works for him, as the owner, why argue the point?
Understood. I would still like to address your final question. I would hope that we play on a server where if we disagreed with something, or thought something was unfair, we could bring it up in discussion. Talk about it to let our feeling or disagreements known. To improve the standards. To improve our community. I would hope that your response is just frustration at how many times this is brought up (which should say something in itself) and my tactless semi-joke that, I admit, may not have furthered the discussion appropriately. But it did make my point. This 'argument', or discussion, was created in the suggestion area. There was a valid suggestion that andrew/staff relook at the way certain bans are handled. I think the Original Poster was very sincere and polite about how he presented it. He didn't "bash" anyone and wasn't ranting. He wasn't being rude and not listening to other view points or shutting anyone out. Again, my semi-joke may not have been in the best taste, but it doesn't invalidate the original poster's concern. Why argue the point? Because I like to believe, like you do, that, "Here on ECC we like to think someone can change. We like to forgive, at least once, and hope that mistakes can be learned from." Even the staff and server owner.
Emau People can change from mistakes, though asking them to take a very different stance on criminal justice is a bit much; especially if you phrase the request as though their current stance is a mistake. In any case, go for it, by all means; but chances are that you will get requests to step off your soap box. As for my own opinion on the thread, just go read KMax's or any of my other posts in dork's threads. Should be clear enough as is.
Were getting off track, but let me make my point before I get back to the original problem. We should be allowed to bring up any solid point we want, no matter the difference. If he wants to bring it up, let him. We still have free speech don't we? But I agree, it's up to Andrew. If someone exploits twice, it's his decision. But if they exploit three times, I could see a problem, unless it was a very good reason.
people with bans so old they don't come up on /seen or are in the forums somewhere aren't allowed to appeal their bans because "they might have been banned for something like xray" but the people that admit to it twice in a couple months are still let in tell me how that makes sense?
I believe that hacked clients should get 2 chances and a exploit of any sort (Beside Clients) Should get 1 or zero chances depending on how big the exploit
