What does map-owner entitle you to?

Sorry, wasn't replying to you, more of a reply to @tabs

 

oh! 87me, I can tell that now

 

Personally I feel that your ban is unjustified, regardless the label it's placed under. That being said the appendix clearly warrants a ban for you in your case under kill stealing. I don't think it's a fair ban but I'm not sure if the terms will or can be changed.

 

I really hope there's more evidence to show what happened.

 

That isn't what I said. I don't think the staff member was being unfair. The staff member just didn't/doesn't know what constitutes as KSing and references it as a ban reason when it's actually something else such as harassment.

The staff member cited KSing as the ban reason and also stated that the player was not banned for attacking Lyka. He specified that it was a KSing ban despite not attacking.

Here are direct quotes from the thread I am referencing:
"But what the reporter reported you for was not leaving his map. I repeat, and read this carefully again, because I don't like repeating myself a thousand times - not leaving his map when requested to, and being shown map ownership belonging to him. ."
"originally banned you for 3 days (for hate speech), only to have reviewed it again and extended your ban by another 3 days (for KS included)"
"I won't remove your KS ban just because of that."
"TLDR: You are banned 3 days for use of those words I mentioned in the 1st page, and you're also banned another 3 days (total of 6 days) for refusing to respect the map owner's wish to leave the map (this KS ban has nothing to do with Lyka), and continuing using those hate speech words."

The staff member stated that the player was banned for KSing, but by KSing he meant for not leaving a map when requested to (despite not attacking). That does not fit the bill for a KS ban, harassment or something else, sure, but not KSing.

This doesn't warrant an abuse report as it's not abuse, it's just the staff member having a misunderstanding of the KS rule and misapplying it when the reason should actually be something else.

 

Yes I do suspect that something else had happened after the SS convo

 

I doubt Tim would initiate the ban based on the SS

 

Yes, I agree with you. I've already stated that I accept the ban since it's only a few days. I just want to make sure that in the future, I know what I can and can't say in a 'CC or get banned' situation.

Reports are anonymous but it's pretty obvious who reported me so I'm more than happy to see the other evidence.

After the kill, I recorded the time it died and left. Nothing else happened.

 

If you need to clarify your ban or think you are wrongly banned, make an appeal so we can review it again. Those who are not involved, please stay out of it.

Edit: when I say not involved, I mean not positively contributing to the topic, but only to stir up the pot.

 

lol

 

"CC or get banned" lmao.

Something needs to be done with these assholes. In my opinion, mapowner should only protect the owner from getting KSed. It should not give the authority to ask another person to get out from the map unless they are being directly disruptive to the mapowner, such as killing monster on the other end and disrupt the spawn flow.

Like, cmon get real what harm can be done if I just wanna see you whack some Lyka to death for fun? Are you insecure about my pixelated stare on your avatar?

 

Can you please explain why did you label this ban as KSing https://royals.ms/forum/threads/acct-blocked.124082/page-2#post-708310 whereas this other 2 bans https://royals.ms/forum/threads/ban-appeal.125619/ and https://royals.ms/forum/threads/closed.125062/ were label as harrasment/objectional behavior?? The reason I would like an explanation from you is because you put the label on @RoyalCupcake 's ban for KSing as 1st offense, now she is serving 7 days ksing for a 2nd offense when she should only be serving 3.

 

Although I very much agree with you for the first time, it's sad to say that even if not under the KS rule, it can still be reported under disruption in which case a ban is warranted. This clearly tells us then TNC needs updating, and this will be on the agenda when we review the TNC in due time.

 

I agree with this unequivocally. We need a general server paradigm shift in this area, actually: just ignore a person on your map unless you see them kill or loot. What's the actual ratio of people just passing through to people dumb enough to try to KS or loot*? 8:2, maybe?

If you're on an Ulu City map and see a bishop teleporting through...you don't need to tell them to CC. They're probably going to Krex, not plotting to steal yo map. If someone spawns on the safe platform, they probably just logged in or are searching for a map; they don't want or need to specifically steal your map. Most people are at least superficially civil and rule abiding. Relax.

*(@Lamperouge still owes me 150k or whatever for that Sparta they looted from me at skeles, though)

 

Alright thanks for the contributive opinions guys.

TL.DR for those who don't read - mapownership rules are clearly stated but not something we are all agreeable on (being able to force a spectator to cc) and the disputes it causes leads to drama and unnecessary work for the staff. For which staff will be looking to review the terms of use. TNC update hype.

 

I personally think this section of the TnC needs to be reviewed. Before I explain further, Im making clear that I am not debating about this appeal itself, but in general.

^ That is a super good point. Imagine in a real life scenario, would you wish to get arrested by the police if you are just sitting aside watching someone (not in a creepy way)?
I know the reason this TnC is there is to protect everyone from any bad intention of the "stare-er", but this is being over protective as he hasn't done anything at all.

I understand the ban was warrant because he fit into the category of "not CC-ing when requested to". But what is the rationale for banning someone for this reason? Yes, maybe the stare-er has some evil plans, so it is fair enough to ask him CC. But how can you prove that? Besides, he MIGHT has bad intention, but was that actually done?

 

People aren't being banned simply because they don't CC when asked by mapowner.

If you're AFK in a map, Mapowner can't get you banned ( I mean, think about it ). KS'ing, harassing, or otherwise being disruptive to the mapowner when they ask you to leave though... that can get you banned.

 

The definition of "disruptive" is very vague here. Am I being disruptive if im just jumping around in your map (Not afking) without CC-ing hence bannable? Just like @MoriForest said, such insecure people who wants to get ppl banned for just watching them.

 

Yes, its disruptive, try to think of this, would you felt disruptive if a stranger walk around inside your house or in your property? I'm pretty sure you will try to expel the stranger?

 

It's more like a person walking around invisibly on an outdoor basketball court while you're playing on it. It's a public map, being occupied by an individual, and the person walking around isn't impacting the individual's ability to use said map that he/she occupies.