[Suggestion] Allowing Alternate Accounts for Banned Users

[Im_Cozzy]

So I know a lot of people who read the title will be automatically opposed, but hear me out.

Gaming has become a serious thing, even in minecraft, competition has blown up.

With competition, comes toxic players, whether it be in a form of hacking, flaming, or other various generally toxic concepts. It cannot be avoided, so banning players have become something of a necessity in most major games.

MCSG, unlike most competitive formats does NOT allow alternate accounts for banned users.

In theory, not allowing banned players to play again is a good idea, but in a competitive and fun scene, maybe less so.

Banning a user for hacking is an acceptable ban in mostly everyone's eyes, so I'll use this for example.

Let's say user 'TomBstone' gets banned. He was flying, and got banned twice as he didn't learn his lesson the first time. He is now set with a permanent ban. This is his favorite server and now he cannot play. You say "His fault, he should of learned his lesson the first time." Sure, but ever considered that the average user doesn't really learn a lesson through a ban? They learn it through monetary punishment. Granted, some wealthy may be able to break what I'm saying, so I came up with an idea.

The One-Chance concept. A user is banned, that user is allowed ONE more account, which will assure he is being punished through monetary values, and if he breaks another rule ONCE, his account will be banned again permanently, and his IP will also be banned.

Simple, and effective. It will also lower drama on 'unfair' bans. Nobody likes to deal with drama.

Honestly, MCSG is becoming one of the most competitive communities, and it should follow some footsteps of communities well ahead of it. League Of Legends allows new accounts. Microsoft allows users to purchase a new xbox when they are banned. Other, more populated, MC communities allow new accounts. There are so many more examples, but you get the idea.

Please, tell me what you think.

It depends on their ban, if they were banned for something stupid like killerkons was then yes, they should be allowed an alternate account, but if they were banned for something like hacking, then they should not be allowed one.

Then again, this would put allot of extra time and work into moderating, therefore I would have to say no to the idea of allowing alternate accounts for banned players.

 

[Col_StaR]

I love this thread. I'm rather opposed to the suggestion, but I think it's probably one of the most creative alternatives to existing policies to date.

Here are the two biggest issue I have with this. I have plenty of others, but these are the two that bug me the most that haven't been discussed yet:

1. This favors rich kids. You say that people need "monetary punishment" before they realize what a punishment is? Let me remind you that economic inequality exist, and nowhere is it more vocal than in kids of our community's age demographic. In the same group of friends, you'll have a kid who'll ask for a discount on a $10 iron rank because he's a poor kid who has to save the lunch money his parents give him for school, and then the other kid of a similar age who has 5 alternate accounts, 3 of which have legitimately-purchased Diamond ranks (having parents with poor financial responsibility helps kids buy what they don't possibly need). If we ban kid #1, he can't afford another account, so he's gone without much chance of getting an alt. to come back. But if we ban kid #2, he'll just jump onto one of his 5 other alts. and play on as if nothing ever happened. This policy intrinsically favors the rich who have the resources to gain a systemic advantage over the poor.

This reason also applies to the pay-to-be-unbanned policy that other MC communities take on these days. In fact, this whole suggestion is a modified version of paying to be unbanned.

2. We're not trying to stop the accounts; we're trying to stop the players. We adopted the "One Account, One User" policy because it simplified how we could deal with players and all things associated with them on our servers. Accounts on their own will not break rules; there's nothing inherent in a specific account that determines whether it behaves well or not. What break rules are the players behind those accounts, and those are the people we're trying to stop. When we ban an account for hacking, we do so with the expectation that the user behind the account voluntarily broke our rules, and would willingly do so if he had access to an alternate account (I could probably do some research on how many actually do, but I'm confident it's more common than not). But by allowing alternate accounts to be used, we're merely delaying the user's punishment by having them legally side-step our attempts to punish them. And how can you possibly justify that to the staff giving the punishment and the community whom expects rulebreakers to be punished?

There are players with 20+ alternate accounts out there in this community, and they will gladly use them all to circumvent our rules and continue getting away with offenses. If someone is willing to break our rules, and they're willing to side-step their punishment by using an alt. account, I'd be willing to bet that they're the type of person who'd be willing to break our rules again.
(For those of you who remember that R word I taught you in a previous feature suggestion about 8 months ago, I applaud you)

 

[Edog]

I love this thread. I'm rather opposed to the suggestion, but I think it's probably one of the most creative alternatives to existing policies to date.

Here are the two biggest issue I have with this. I have plenty of others, but these are the two that bug me the most that haven't been discussed yet:

1. This favors rich kids. You say that people need "monetary punishment" before they realize what a punishment is? Let me remind you that economic inequality exist, and nowhere is it more vocal than in kids of our community's age demographic. In the same group of friends, you'll have a kid who'll ask for a discount on a $10 iron rank because he's a poor kid who has to save the lunch money his parents give him for school, and then the other kid of a similar age who has 5 alternate accounts, 3 of which have legitimately-purchased Diamond ranks (having parents with poor financial responsibility helps kids buy what they don't possibly need). If we ban kid #1, he can't afford another account, so he's gone without much chance of getting an alt. to come back. But if we ban kid #2, he'll just jump onto one of his 5 other alts. and play on as if nothing ever happened. This policy intrinsically favors the rich who have the resources to gain a systemic advantage over the poor.

This reason also applies to the pay-to-be-unbanned policy that other MC communities take on these days. In fact, this whole suggestion is a modified version of paying to be unbanned.

2. We're not trying to stop the accounts; we're trying to stop the players. We adopted the "One Account, One User" policy because it simplified how we could deal with players and all things associated with them on our servers. Accounts on their own will not break rules; there's nothing inherent in a specific account that determines whether it behaves well or not. What break rules are the players behind those accounts, and those are the people we're trying to stop. When we ban an account for hacking, we do so with the expectation that the user behind the account voluntarily broke our rules, and would willingly do so if he had access to an alternate account (I could probably do some research on how many actually do, but I'm confident it's more common than not). But by allowing alternate accounts to be used, we're merely delaying the user's punishment by having them legally side-step our attempts to punish them. And how can you possibly justify that to the staff giving the punishment and the community whom expects rulebreakers to be punished?

There are players with 20+ alternate accounts out there in this community, and they will gladly use them all to circumvent our rules and continue getting away with offenses. If someone is willing to break our rules, and they're willing to side-step their punishment by using an alt. account, I'd be willing to bet that they're the type of person who'd be willing to break our rules again.
(For those of you who remember that R word I taught you in a previous feature suggestion about 8 months ago, I applaud you)

As a person who's been banned on numerous alternate accounts, I can speak from experience. The people who get banned aren't necessarily going to come back and keep continuing the offense, while that may happen a small percentage of the time, who in their right mind would spend 26.95 just to come back and get banned? Most likely they bought the alternate account not with the idea to circumvent the ban, but to simply play again. Because most people aren't going to keep breaking the rules on another account, that's why very very rarely you find a banned user's alternate account to have kept up their mischief in the community, but since it's a banned user you have to ban them, because rules are rules.

I'm not speaking in opposition nor support of this idea, but I will say that most likely people who "circumvent" the ban will have most likely learnt their lesson and will not do whatever their offense was again, as they've already spent 26.95 on "another chance" if you will. One thing I disagree with is when you said "Accounts on their own will not break rules; there's nothing inherent in a specific account that determines whether it behaves well or not." That in itself is not necessarily true, as a person who has been constantly stereotyped as a person who does not use chat well, and abuses staff, on Edog786. Not on any of my other alt accounts. Why? Because they don't know it's me. They don't know it's "That Edog kid", the one who has a reputation for breaking the rules and abusing staff members. No, they see me as another random in a game that they hope to kill. In no way am I advocating that breaking the rules is ok, rather the polar opposite. But there is something to be said for how much assumption and sterotyping goes on in the MCGamer community.

To be perfectly honest, there isn't really a lot of "rich kids" in the MCGamer community, or at least from what I've seen (and I've been here since the start of this community), but I guess it does favor rich kids in the sense that they could keep buying accounts. Though eventually it will be come practically unethical for the "rich kids" to keep buying accounts, as they've probably already gotten sick of the process of getting rebanned and buying the other accounts. So they probably won't have the energy or commitment to keep buying accounts and keep circumventing bans. Anyways, what about an IP ban? I know that can cause confusion, but if the person really becomes that big of a nuisance, why not just do it? It'll stop them from buying accounts, and at that point you can be fairly certain that it isn't a person on the same internet that keeps buying accounts and getting banned for the same reason over and over.

 

[Lucidictive]

I love this thread. I'm rather opposed to the suggestion, but I think it's probably one of the most creative alternatives to existing policies to date.

Here are the two biggest issue I have with this. I have plenty of others, but these are the two that bug me the most that haven't been discussed yet:

1. This favors rich kids. You say that people need "monetary punishment" before they realize what a punishment is? Let me remind you that economic inequality exist, and nowhere is it more vocal than in kids of our community's age demographic. In the same group of friends, you'll have a kid who'll ask for a discount on a $10 iron rank because he's a poor kid who has to save the lunch money his parents give him for school, and then the other kid of a similar age who has 5 alternate accounts, 3 of which have legitimately-purchased Diamond ranks (having parents with poor financial responsibility helps kids buy what they don't possibly need). If we ban kid #1, he can't afford another account, so he's gone without much chance of getting an alt. to come back. But if we ban kid #2, he'll just jump onto one of his 5 other alts. and play on as if nothing ever happened. This policy intrinsically favors the rich who have the resources to gain a systemic advantage over the poor.

This reason also applies to the pay-to-be-unbanned policy that other MC communities take on these days. In fact, this whole suggestion is a modified version of paying to be unbanned.

I understand this fully, and had this in mind whilst creating the thread. This is why I suggested the 'One Alt' concept, which if you don't remember from the thread, involves an idea based around only having one alternate account, and one chance on that account. Meaning, if they hack again, it's permanent. If they swear again, permanent, and no more accounts, just that ONE. It's basically keeping in mind that some players are more financially guided than others, and if they feel the need to break the rules once again on that account, they'll never be allowed into the servers again.

Let me ask you this; does the current policy stop these more economically advanced players from avoiding bans in a 100% working fashion? How do you know that I'm not an alternate account of a banned player? How do you know anybody isn't?
With my system, people will be more likely to say 'I'm this player: *banned player*'

2. We're not trying to stop the accounts; we're trying to stop the players. We adopted the "One Account, One User" policy because it simplified how we could deal with players and all things associated with them on our servers. Accounts on their own will not break rules; there's nothing inherent in a specific account that determines whether it behaves well or not. What break rules are the players behind those accounts, and those are the people we're trying to stop. When we ban an account for hacking, we do so with the expectation that the user behind the account voluntarily broke our rules, and would willingly do so if he had access to an alternate account (I could probably do some research on how many actually do, but I'm confident it's more common than not). But by allowing alternate accounts to be used, we're merely delaying the user's punishment by having them legally side-step our attempts to punish them. And how can you possibly justify that to the staff giving the punishment and the community whom expects rulebreakers to be punished?

There are players with 20+ alternate accounts out there in this community, and they will gladly use them all to circumvent our rules and continue getting away with offenses. If someone is willing to break our rules, and they're willing to side-step their punishment by using an alt. account, I'd be willing to bet that they're the type of person who'd be willing to break our rules again.
(For those of you who remember that R word I taught you in a previous feature suggestion about 8 months ago, I applaud you)

Yes, but, the players on alternate accounts rarely ever get banned for breaking rules BESIDES being an alternate account. That has to show something, honestly. Yes, I think quite a bit of people in the community might not change their ways, but otherwise I'm sure that a high percentage of banned players will see this more as an opportunity to change their ways, not as a way to 'haha i'm allowed 1 alt i'm going to go hack on mcsg again.'

 

[Spaiu]

If you are smart about it you can succesfully make an alt and play without detection. the hard part is not telling anyone. I would know first hand. Now now.. I'm not saying you SHOULD go out and get an alt. It's deceitful and completely dis-obedient.

I would know first hand as I've done said things ^

The smart thing to do:
1) Don't get banned.. duh
2) Try appealing. Once appon a time, I was a hacker. Not out of the thought of boosting wins and becoming the best, more or less to feel accepted as a good player. works until you start using Aimbot/Forcefield and Forcecrits altogether

3) Just Deal with it. After being banned on my alt for a slip in speach on my part, I have completely given up. I may appeal on a later date but alts aren't the way for me to go. I've gained respect for confessing (see my page for link to it) and I want to keep it that way. Me going on an alt is the least of my concerns.



But I digress.. seeing as this relates to me, thought I might mention

Adios.

 

[Cartercraft99]

I have an idea that will solve this problem. How about everyone plays by the rules, and then we won't have to worry about it

 

[Ceroria]

This is exactly why one alt should be allowed. Drama is caused by people on alts which aren't allowed all the time. And think about it, those alts only get banned FOR being alts. They are more careful once they have paid for another account.

There are websites where you can get alts for less than a dollar. People will go through anything.


Edit. If a player was unfairly banned they should be able to provide sufficient counter evidence to show that they did not deserve their punishment (I.e. Chat logs, minecraft files, etc)

 

[Cherise]

So what your saying is if stupid people get banned, they have to use money to play more. It's like saying, "If you have money, you can evade bans!"

 

[xExterminate]

So, you're saying that a hacker with money can hack, get banned, buy a new account and hack again?

 

[Quisey21]

If you IP ban someone they can get a new IP; account.. I don't really see the purpose in IP banning.. If someone buys a vpn they can just keep going on the server with different accounts, no one knowing who they are. I like this because it gives players a chance to prove that "Once a hacker, always a hacker" is not totally true. #UnbanLeafy2014

 

[ThisJKid]

So what your saying is if stupid people get banned, they have to use money to play more. It's like saying, "If you have money, you can evade bans!"

If you have money, you CAN evade bans. Buy a new account, get a new IP or just use a VPN.

 

[Binct]

I think the thing people don't understand is when most people get banned and actually enjoy MCSG a lot, they are going to come back anyways. You cannot stop it, there are VPNs and cheap alts accounts going around. With the addition of this rule, it would NOT favor rich kids. The current system favors wealthier kids way more than this would. Anyone, with enough money, can buy a VPN and alt accounts and play on mcsg. Not to mention, in the addition of this rule, there would be less work for moderators while the community can expand even more. Sorry for bad grammar, not the best at writing.