Talk:Ban

If having the email address linked here generates spam for the readers of the banplead email, I'm going to have to unlink it. Just a warning. --Eurydice 17:13, 25 August 2005 (PDT)

I was wondering about that. --Barrister 19:34, 25 August 2005 (PDT)

I haven't noticed an increase in spam to my mailbox by putting my email address on my user page, but this page is obviously more likely to be found by potential spammers. – Yaten ^talk 19:39, 25 August 2005 (PDT)

Liz's change rolled back until ban pleading is phased out officially. --Eurydice 16:00, 31 October 2005 (PST)

History

Did the Temporary Ban come into being in Release 2005-10-20? Could a ==History== section be added to indicate when it was put in place? — Callistan ^{(talk/contrib)} 11:14, 27 October 2005 (PDT)

Image

The temp ban image (though it doesn't show up, just linkes) seems to be of the doubloon trading screen. But when I look through the image list, the image it's supposed to be comes up with an error of some kind. Perhaps someone more wiki-knowledgeable can fix it?

This is the bug mentioned (currently) at the top of every page: images are not always visible. The mini-window you see on the Temp-Ban image page is the template applied to all User Interface images. — Callistan ^{(talk/contrib)}

Ah, I understood the not visible bit was the bug, but didn't realize that the link to a completely different, entirely unrelated image was a feature.

Aha. I think you're actually looking at the yellow-boxed template which describes what category of image the ban screen is. Perhaps that's a point of confusion and I'll need to whip up some less confusing, icon-y images for the templates. – Yaten ^talk 13:34, 31 October 2005 (PST)

Yep, that's it alright. I'm sure it looks fine on an image page where the main image actually appears, since it would, presumably, be dwarfed by that main image. But on a blank image page, it rather looks like the image in question.

When to ban, and when to deal a temp. ban?

I've not seen this pup up before, so here goes:

When are the OMs more likely to temporary ban, rather than perma-ban? I can guess that if a temped pirate came back and broke the ToS, it'd be a perma ban without doubt, but I can't quite puzzle out if you're leaning on the side of "keep the borderline in by a thread" or "get rid of the idiots". Or does it just vary between OMs?

Based on some of the official documentation sections here on the YPPedia, I'd venture a guess that most situations are issued a temporary ban first. Only in extreme cases, such as someone blatantly and very intentionally breaking the TOS, would a permanent ban be issued before temp bans. I do believe that the case of 4 blackspots results in a permanent ban (provided the player wasn't a paying customer). The temporary ban is useful as a warning to some of the less bright people that there are consequences for being an idiot in the game. --Thunderbird 00:14, 4 January 2006 (PST)

Also to add to that i believe that Ocean Masters do not temp ban trial users ( anyone who has not boughten doubloons or subscription ) , basicly they temp ban as a warning of course unlike a blackspot you have to do something serious to get banned temp or perm... --32083 04:38, 12 January 2006 (PST)^talk

Im not a subscriber or doubloon user and I got a Temp. Ban --Lpmike 10:31, 17 May 2006 (PDT)

That's nice. This entire discussion is conjecture. (And conjecture that's several months old at that.) --Ponytailguy 11:10, 17 May 2006 (PDT)

A little late, but, my friend was banned for stealing from a unlocked ship, then when questioned by an OM, lied and said he owned the ship, which the OM could tell he didn't and had never owned a ship. he got a perment bad

"Tainting"

I have concerns that explaining how getting banned "taints" your computer might worry those who get banned they may have caused something terrible to happen on their computer (If I was very young and greenie-like, I'd probably be sick with worry that I've just got my Dad's new PC "tainted"). Can we expand on the explanation to explain exactly what tainting is. It's not actually linked to the computer itself - just the IP address no? --Sagacious ^(talk) 12:06, 27 May 2006 (PDT)

It's not just the IP, but also the MAC address and 1 other "secret" mechanism that Liz doesn't want made public. But yes, it's actually linked to each individual computer, not just the network. --Rixation^(t/c) 12:16, 27 May 2006 (PDT)

This may be done for various reasons including theft, swearing in public, shouting repeatedly, and "making rude and unsavory allusions as to the sexual or other propensities of other Pirates"

Or, asking for cheats, in my case. Rm2001 07:08, 4 April 2007 (PDT)

Ban Pleading Email

Question on the email for pleading bans; thats for bans only, not for suspensions or like my dumb self long 29 day suspension right? --Dum_bubi

A suspension is a temporary ban. --Guppymomma 19:51, 29 September 2007 (PDT)

Why do we have this page?

It seems to be identical to the Official:Bans page, aside from the 'see also'. Why not just have a redirect? Jbzdarkid 01:34, 8 May 2014 (PDT)

It's because the page transcludes (uses as a template) most of the stuff on Official:bans. The story goes...a while ago I wanted to make this page a little more detailed/useful. To start with I stuck in a link to the official:bans page, because obviously you want to link folk to that... Then, while I was thinking about how best to make changes so the transclusion could be got rid of, Clotho came along and edit-protected the page :D (apparently we're not meant to transclude official docs). I do agree, this page might be better as a redirect. Might have to have a word with an admin about doing it, though. --Therobotdude 06:08, 8 May 2014 (PDT)

I've unprotected this page now. A redirect is fine too, but then we would miss the advantage of having historical notes, comments and explanations to the official documentation. --Clotho 12:06, 8 May 2014 (PDT)

There used to be a player-written page describing what a ban was, why it was bad etc. It got replaced in this edit with the transcluded Official:Bans material by an OM, so I'm not sure how the powers that be feel about Ban and Official:Bans being distinct. I think there are three main things we could do to this page:

Redirect this page to Official:Bans (and maybe copy extra notes/comments into Official:Bans) Revert the transclusion edits and make the page distinct from Official:Bans as it was Keep the page as it is (transclusion + historical notes)

Personally I'm for redirecting (1) or reverting (2), because there isn't much point having a duplicate page (3) floating around. I think this situation might be similar to the one discussed at Talk:Blackspot#Discrepancy regarding the terms of service article and ToS. (Currently that page gives an introduction, but leaves the talking and the authority to the official document.) --Therobotdude 16:47, 8 May 2014 (PDT)

Reverting to the way the page was before is not a good option. As mentioned in the ToS page, we need to be very careful not to interpret policy as it can create misunderstanding. We can redirect if that's preferred, but we will lose the disambiguation note at the top, historical notes and link to the forum discussion - none of that can be added to the official page. --Clotho 09:21, 9 May 2014 (PDT)

Ok. What about reverting, but omit the "How do I get unbanned" and the "Banning activities" sections from the old revision? For those we could point to the Official:Bans page, since it's policy. --Therobotdude 13:32, 11 May 2014 (PDT)