codierose wrote:correct me if im wrong but are they not already branded as guests or guested under there groups. Not sure but thought i saw it somewhere ??
That is true if they don't buy back.
Moderator: Community Team
codierose wrote:correct me if im wrong but are they not already branded as guests or guested under there groups. Not sure but thought i saw it somewhere ??
chapcrap wrote:codierose wrote:correct me if im wrong but are they not already branded as guests or guested under there groups. Not sure but thought i saw it somewhere ??
That is true if they don't buy back.
codierose wrote:chapcrap wrote:codierose wrote:correct me if im wrong but are they not already branded as guests or guested under there groups. Not sure but thought i saw it somewhere ??
That is true if they don't buy back.
ok so way brand them twice ?
How many times can you buy back after being busted ?
greenoaks wrote:codierose wrote:chapcrap wrote:codierose wrote:correct me if im wrong but are they not already branded as guests or guested under there groups. Not sure but thought i saw it somewhere ??
That is true if they don't buy back.
ok so way brand them twice ?
How many times can you buy back after being busted ?
once
patrickaa317 wrote:I'd agree that it's not a permanent asterisk, especially for those issues where you weren't sure of a rule once. I think the warning and noted points were good. And this of course would only be for gameplay issues, nothing to do with deemed misuse of the forum.
Just_essence wrote:I don't see shaming as an effective way of righting a wrong. Public humiliation only further hampers rehabilitation after an offense. We want these players to feel welcomed back into society to discourage further offenses, not alienated, which only makes more offenses likely.
Just_essence wrote:I don't see shaming as an effective way of righting a wrong. Public humiliation only further hampers rehabilitation after an offense. We want these players to feel welcomed back into society to discourage further offenses, not alienated, which only makes more offenses likely.
Of course, this means that offenders who aren't interested with being constructive and helpful on CC, or at least decent, will get past unnoticed and ruin games unexpectedly. But isn't that what the 3-strikes-equals-a-ban system is for? Catching offenders who, when past 3 offenses, are more likely just trolls?
rdsrds2120 wrote:What exactly would the public do with this information, were it to be implemented as such?
BMO
rdsrds2120 wrote:What exactly would the public do with this information, were it to be implemented as such?
BMO
rdsrds2120 wrote:What exactly would the public do with this information, were it to be implemented as such?
BMO
BigBallinStalin wrote:rdsrds2120 wrote:What exactly would the public do with this information, were it to be implemented as such?
BMO
Realize who's a cheater and who isn't, and then respond accordingly. Let the shunning begin!
(this suggestion would increase the costs of cheating, thus strengthening the current threat deterrent against cheating).
patrickaa317 wrote:rdsrds2120 wrote:What exactly would the public do with this information, were it to be implemented as such?
BMO
It would make it be public and thus less people would do it, which would make people happier, which will increase premium membership, which increases revenue. In other words, there is some great ROI on this, get it done!
nicestash wrote:rds, the scarlet letter would NOT replace website bans, rather, it would be added alongside a point reset.
rdsrds2120 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:rdsrds2120 wrote:What exactly would the public do with this information, were it to be implemented as such?
BMO
Realize who's a cheater and who isn't, and then respond accordingly. Let the shunning begin!
(this suggestion would increase the costs of cheating, thus strengthening the current threat deterrent against cheating).patrickaa317 wrote:rdsrds2120 wrote:What exactly would the public do with this information, were it to be implemented as such?
BMO
It would make it be public and thus less people would do it, which would make people happier, which will increase premium membership, which increases revenue. In other words, there is some great ROI on this, get it done!
Let's follow this through:
1) The current punishment for cheating is a website ban. This is arguably a far greater deterrent than what's been proposed.
2) It would not make the people who have bought back any happier, and the number of people to NOT buy back would be far greater than the very few that I imagine would buy premium just so that...nothing changes for their account.
3) The consequence of Item 2 is a projected profit loss, combined with the branding of of members of our site, providing a constant access to be baited, flamed, etc.
I am very heavily against this.
BMO
patrickaa317 wrote:If you want to keep people from being labeled as cheaters all together, make the C&A forum decisions private.
Also, if the site is concerned around cheaters buying back, I can submit a suggestion for cheaters to get 50% off their premium buy back. Is that something that would be implemented, more cheaters would be apt to buy back given the discount on premium membership. Right?
Return to Archived Suggestions
Users browsing this forum: No registered users