Yeah I'm with you, I've always found it weird that the response for revealing an alt has been an instant ban regardless of how active it is, though the fact that a lot of these do turn out to be active multis funneling cash in the end always makes me a bit suspicious when someone is banned.
It's such an asinine policy. Ban the ones that are obviously active and funneling. If it's abandoned, especially with only progens (sometimes not even, some people don't make it that far), give them the grace of locking it up.
It's these things that I've committed to playing legit as of the Aether release, despite my stupidity + history with harassment. I'm not very social, and I don't file tickets (if I do, I need to double check emails), so thankfully, I don't draw attention that much. Fingers crossed that putting everything in the past will allow me to slip by, moving forward.
It's clear that staff doesn't put anyone above the rules though, and I'm pretty glad for that, but sheesh. Strict much? (in others' cases, that is)
Yeah but on the other hand I can also see why they'd just want to draw a hard line instead of having the policy be case by case for a variety of reasons. Having multis listed as an instant bannable offense is a pretty big deterrent, and having it apply to anyone with a multi might feel more fair than a situation like staff deciding to ban user A for funneling 400g and progens three years ago but not banning user B who only funneled 10g but logs into their alt every day to bump their own forum raffles. Whole can of wyrms I still think contacting staff to close an old dead alt that hasn't funneled anything shouldn't be ban worthy, but I don't run a website, what do I know.
...Yes sorry lmao. I'm exhausted with brain fog. (AYRT)
But I get that it would be easier to moderate with just a coverall policy as well as a deterrent like you said. Less work, it's easier to tackle too, I'd imagine. "Yep, they're doing this, boom bye see you later." "Okay here's another, but they look dead. Just to be safe, let's get em all, byeeeee." So it's unfortunate for the people that mean well and aren't actually using the other accounts. But also, like you said, we don't run pet sites. What do we know, really?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
Re: brightmyth banned?
(Anonymous) 2023-04-01 12:04 am (UTC)(link)Re: brightmyth banned?
(Anonymous) 2023-04-01 12:13 am (UTC)(link)It's such an asinine policy. Ban the ones that are obviously active and funneling. If it's abandoned, especially with only progens (sometimes not even, some people don't make it that far), give them the grace of locking it up.
It's these things that I've committed to playing legit as of the Aether release, despite my stupidity + history with harassment. I'm not very social, and I don't file tickets (if I do, I need to double check emails), so thankfully, I don't draw attention that much. Fingers crossed that putting everything in the past will allow me to slip by, moving forward.
It's clear that staff doesn't put anyone above the rules though, and I'm pretty glad for that, but sheesh. Strict much? (in others' cases, that is)
Re: brightmyth banned?
(Anonymous) 2023-04-01 12:27 am (UTC)(link)Did you mean ayrt instead of SA?
Yeah but on the other hand I can also see why they'd just want to draw a hard line instead of having the policy be case by case for a variety of reasons. Having multis listed as an instant bannable offense is a pretty big deterrent, and having it apply to anyone with a multi might feel more fair than a situation like staff deciding to ban user A for funneling 400g and progens three years ago but not banning user B who only funneled 10g but logs into their alt every day to bump their own forum raffles. Whole can of wyrms I still think contacting staff to close an old dead alt that hasn't funneled anything shouldn't be ban worthy, but I don't run a website, what do I know.
Re: brightmyth banned?
(Anonymous) 2023-04-01 12:38 am (UTC)(link)But I get that it would be easier to moderate with just a coverall policy as well as a deterrent like you said. Less work, it's easier to tackle too, I'd imagine. "Yep, they're doing this, boom bye see you later." "Okay here's another, but they look dead. Just to be safe, let's get em all, byeeeee." So it's unfortunate for the people that mean well and aren't actually using the other accounts. But also, like you said, we don't run pet sites. What do we know, really?
Re: brightmyth banned?