[Denied]: Remove /bmode from all blocks placed by permabanned players

Discussion in 'Suggestion Box Archives' started by D_ceased, Apr 26, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. In the event that a player has been permanently banned on EMC for griefing, stealing, scamming, X-ray, etcetera, it makes it difficult to have to call in a mod twice: once to report them, and once again when you find out they left junk blocks at your outpost or wherever that you can't get rid of because they have protected blocks despite not being a member of EMC anymore.

    This would help out a lot in the long run, I'm sure.
    SkeleTin007 likes this.
  2. As weird as this may sound I have to go -1 on this, sorry.

    Now, your idea is honestly a good one but it is the effects it would have that I disagree with.

    My problem is that this could give out a wrong signal that griefing is allowed whenever a player is permbanned which is most certainly not the case. Griefing, at any given time, is an unwanted bannable offense and it doesn't matter who you're griefing. And never forget that even being permbanned doesn't always mean that a player is gone for good.

    See: you're absolutely right that this would help for "troll blocks" (as I like to call them). Blocks which were only placed to hinder other players. No arguments there.

    My problem though is that such a system would also affect legitimate buildings made by the player. Which would then suddenly come at risk of griefing by others. Sure the player was banned, but that does not give out a freebie to simply destroy their belongings.
  3. -1

    This would be considered Greifing even if the player is banned.
    ItsDicey likes this.
  4. Understood, I can see why you'd think that.

    That's something I honestly hadn't considered before, hence why I said "permabanned" players and not "temp banned" or "banned" in-general; I'm honestly not doing this to players who are only going to be gone for a short while, then come back, and it's not my intention to encourage griefing of any sort. However, 99 times out of 100 (especially with what we've seen lately in forum threads as well) people who are banned for one reason or another, especially when it comes to trolling, don't really intend to come back anyway, as them trolling was their only "means of solace" on EMC, or rather, the only thing they found enjoyable. Again, I see how you would dislike this idea and why, while I consider the fact of the people doing this wanting to return a possibility, I don't really find it feasible or realistic if that was all they had to gain from it in the first place.

    But there's other instances too, such as when you disrupt a public build by placing a block down on a sign making it intentionally hard to read and basically griefing all replanting supplies just days before you get banned for attempting to scam someone.

    Then there's another instance, such as someone breaking/replacing a block in your build that you don't have a use for anymore because you're trying to expand upon a build or change it, but you can't get rid of it because the person is already banned.

    (Both of the above aren't just examples, they're actual instances, and I can give proof of both if I need to.)

    Again, not my intention to encourage griefing, as karmic as this suggestion may seem. But, especially if it's way out there, it's honestly not fair to someone new to EMC and willing to build an outpost only to be have to told to "git gud" and go farther if they want because someone already has an outpost established where any, if all, of the leaders of it are banned (in addition to the other reasons I described).
  5. For griefing cases, simply contact a moderator and they can resolve the issue for you.

    If the owner of blocks in the way of an outpost is all banned members, then Staff can ignore those blocks in approving outpost.

    So, going to deny this.
  6. I have to agree with Aikar on this -1
    ForeverMaster and ItsDicey like this.
  7. I'd like to have this thread locked before it gets to the point of controversy. But at the same time, I'd also like to point out that I actually do agree with everyone here. I agree with everyone else's points and I see where this could be abused or lead to abuse.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.