I can't really comment on who should get what ban duration since I haven't kept track of everyone's roles in this, but other than that I agree with what Pelargir has said. For those intentionally disrupting, I feel a 48h ban was lenient, but it doesn't seem to be all that clear who was doing what.

The behaviour of some people involved in this is just ridiculous. However the current staff may feel about it, Trademark's original ban isn't going to be changed or reapplied; it would set a ridiculous precedent. So the people making a huge deal out of it and intentionally disrupting gathers will have no effect other than to fuck things up for everyone else.

The only way anything will actually happen is if Trademark does something ban-worthy again. Speaking as a gather player and not an admin, I don't believe Trademark has cheated in any gathers I've played with/against him since his ban. If it turned out he had been, or starts to, of course I would want him banned but I wouldn't be fucking up everyone else's gather experience in the meantime. Hell if it was just chams, I'd keep playing those gathers because I'd want the extra difficulty to be a better player.

Gathers are of no consequence, just for fun and practice. To the people intentionally disrupting, stop being so utterly childish and wasting everyone's time.

@ inmate IT WAS SIMPLE WHO GAVE OUT THE BANS NOT LOME, start thinking rationally ffs

and skyice, you're just randomly bashing admins again without even knowing what was happening, everyone in the gather was pissed of because izo and dean KNOWINGLY signed up and refused to play afterwards... they KNEW the last gather wouldn't happen and they KNEW trademark would join the next gather too, why else would izo have joined up if not to provoke this whole situation.....?

At least izo was in ts with lydda and inmate if i remember correctly, and it should have been pretty clear for him that they're refusing to play, which should (in case of existing brain) lead to the conclusion that signing up for the next gather will result in the same situation for him as for lydda and inmate. And I acutally have to say that i expect izo to have a brain even though some might doubt it by now. Unfortunately this means that he intentionally trolled the gather after having calculated what would happen if he signs up.......

Its funny that some ppl especially bauer is thinking the ban is the point to complain. Its the duration... and the person who called the bans in this way... who were involved by personal relationship...

Imo an admin is a person in authority who should acting with the rules and not with his own perception which happenend.

Good job pelargir. Holding the rules.

@ bauer... column admin will be interesting for you

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IFne5Q4JX5GvNdnpwD0ACeBiiAFj8EFLzaw6Cgsp3_Y/edit?pli=1#gid=0

If the situation was EvilBot or Eissfeldt I would have done the same thing. Hell even if it were a protest against ADHD I would have done the same thing. I've already explained why the 48 hour ban decision was made and how we got there. Your own teammate was the one that banned you in the first place inmate/LyDDa. I would have done the same thing had it been Lucky Chams players causing the problem.

Ok. still dont change the thing that you re an admin. In that spot you have to decide what the rules allow you.

simple gaves us a ban for 1 day. Im fine with the decision. deserved? everyone can decide this for himself... But when i hear that you put one day more on it im starting to lower my trust in your spot and decisions.

IT WAS SIMPLE WHO GAVE OUT THE BANS NOT LOME, start thinking rationally ffs
IT WAS SIMPLE WHO GAVE OUT THE BANS NOT LOME, start thinking rationally ffs
IT WAS SIMPLE WHO GAVE OUT THE BANS NOT LOME, start thinking rationally ffs
IT WAS SIMPLE WHO GAVE OUT THE BANS NOT LOME, start thinking rationally ffs

concerning the 1 day extension.... everyone in gather ts was mad at the 4 people fucking up the gather night, and everyone was happy to see the 48 hour ban later on... the feeling of justice, you know... i don't know what actually happened, i personally only saw the 48 hour ban but i would have definitely insisted on extending a 24 hour ban for this kind of behavior

Pelargir says

A thief caught in the act for instance, you'll punish him for robbing stuff that didn't belong to him, right? You do it to protect the community, right? You do it to make sure he won't do it again and hurt the community?

In three people community, among zombie apocalypse, i will not "protect" the community by punishing thief, i just ask him, why he did it, and could i help him without theft, because it is a matter of survival.

Pelargir says

They're free to do whatever they want to. What isn't acceptable is to join a gather, notice that Trademark jumped in at the very last minute to get the slot and the possibility to play and then 3 or 4 people over 12 who decide to quit. It breaks the rules and prevents the other players who were supposedly here to play and have fun, to do so. So yes, it aims to protect the community. Are we supposed to defend those who were wrong or those who did nothing, who just meant to play? Or just leave it be and too bad, you joined the wrong gather.

If Trademark jumped in at the very last minute, they had no choise to leave without breaking rules, so, of course, we must ban them? Is it really right decision? Because you call it "stupid behavior"? Or maybe better give them opportunity to leave, if they don't want to play with some players? If gather have 12 people, why anybody SHOULD play, if they see some players, with whom unacceptable to play? Maybe would be better and more "respectful", as you said, ask everyone, do he accept this gather or not? Before game starts. But no, you wanna ban them, because you call it "stupid behavior", and you want "respectful" game, but you disrespect theirs desire not to play with someone. If you see a solution of this conflict only by punishment, so it's your childish behavior. Childs solve conflicts in this way. So maybe better let people leave gather, before it starts? Doesn't matter, have gather 12 people or 11, if game not started. It would be respectful to everyone. But no, you make a decision to ban them, without trying to find other ways to solve the problem. Do you really think that's smart decision? Ok, let you to make this community stronger and unified your way.

First, simple isnt gather admin. so he should not have the power for that. But im totally with this decision because its done with the rules.
In this special case lome is standing on the list who was excuting the bans. So its official and that counts imo.

Second, admins are/should be a tool to represent and execute the rules. In the most countries on the worlds stand nobody over the rules/laws! That should be hold for everything dont matter how big or small it is.



Sry for offtopic and for an agressivly post against someone which i try to avoid as often i can.

bauer did you really read this thread? dean was not complaining about the decision, he was complaining about the penalty he get.

next point. since when is it social accepted that a person who saying he is acting "rational" writing the same text four times capitalsied as "rational"? I know this behaviour of childs... and child dont know what "rational" is!

Really... start complaining like a grown person. stop insullting people for example "superhitler 2015" and people might listen to your "opinion" about justified penalties.



For the very last. These people who were banned said immediatley after gather started they will not play. Without these people the gather would not had started. There were no point to start another gather immediatly. Not like another player was doing before joining a gather and let ppl wait for 10 minutes until he get a penalty.
And still... penalties were deserved... no question

Ns2, where there is more drama than Jersey Shore! : ) Like watching 2 blondes arguing about who got the biggest badonka donkas around!

LyDDa says

Second, admins are/should be a tool to represent and execute the rules. In the most countries on the worlds stand nobody over the rules/laws! That should be hold for everything dont matter how big or small it is.

Rules/laws created for represent and consider most opinions. They are created for the general benefit. If they are bad or not perfect, they should be changed. Or do you accept ANY rule no matter how much it is good or bad?
We have a joke in Russia, showing lack of political will of the majority of people: if Putin tomorrow will change the law so every Saturday, every citizen must be f*cked in the ass by policeman, most people would ask for leave from job earlier on Friday to fulfill the law and Saturday will be free, instead of trying to change the law.
It so easy, just change the rule so it will consider rights and opinion of everyone, without doing special harm. People should have the right to refuse the game if they do not like something, before it starts. Maybe just add button "Accept game" clicking on that game starts. Dont accept - click "leave gather" and wait for other people. No matter 12, 11 or 5 people in the gather. So easy. And everybody will be happy. Why most prefer and accept punishment instead of trying to find other way - i don't know. Maybe they like to be f*cked in the ass, have no idea.
I finished. Bye.

I do not. But if there is small party which is not agreeing with rules its not the majority at all...

The rules were discussed some time ago and if i would have smth against i had let you know. be sure to that. Now, the rules are there and should be executed like they are.

to the thing it is possible to leave before that. trademark was leaving gather and waiting to join up again until the players who dont want to play with him were joined up. But this is offtopic... the question and thread was is if the penalty was justified. And if the person who executed it did the right...

@Myx - you are really misunderstanding the whole thread. You have no clue how things went neither why those people acted this way. Have a look again at this thread and tell me what other possibility did the admins have? You really seem to have a serious problem in regard to punishments which does not concern us at all. You truly think everything can be solved without punishments? I'd rather not talk about history there but that would be quite relevant in my opinion.

Myx says

In three people community, among zombie apocalypse, i will not "protect" the community by punishing thief, i just ask him, why he did it, and could i help him without theft, because it is a matter of survival.

Why is this even relevant? We are not in a such situation, are we? But I can also take your example though - You would try to help him, that's nice and righteous, but what if the guy did it on purpose, would do it again if such opportunity shows up? What if the thief, right after his treachery does it again? You'll try to help him until what? It's not like the punishment was given without valid reasons, without the approval of those admins who were online at that time, and neither like it was surprising and we didn't expect people to act this way. Not like if they decided to join the second gather deliberately although they knew Trademark will sign in too. If so, what would happen to your thief in a such world? I personally bet that he will die soon enough if he is ever caught by the others. Anyway, don't drift too much, you might lose the point of the comparison.

Myx says

If Trademark jumped in at the very last minute, they had no choise to leave without breaking rules, so, of course, we must ban them? Is it really right decision? Because you call it "stupid behavior"? Or maybe better give them opportunity to leave, if they don't want to play with some players? If gather have 12 people, why anybody SHOULD play, if they see some players, with whom unacceptable to play? Maybe would be better and more "respectful", as you said, ask everyone, do he accept this gather or not? Before game starts. But no, you wanna ban them, because you call it "stupid behavior", and you want "respectful" game, but you disrespect theirs desire not to play with someone. If you see a solution of this conflict only by punishment, so it's your childish behavior. Childs solve conflicts in this way. So maybe better let people leave gather, before it starts? Doesn't matter, have gather 12 people or 11, if game not started. It would be respectful to everyone. But no, you make a decision to ban them, without trying to find other ways to solve the problem. Do you really think that's smart decision? Ok, let you to make this community stronger and unified your way.

They indeed had no choice, although he joined before the gather starts, two players were missing, they yet had time to leave. Another detail you missed is that those players also join the following gather, no one is stupid and can't ignore Trademark will jump in too. Just because he was looking for a game to play. How do you defend this point then? Stupid behavior or not, we will never ban someone for being stupid or for acting stupidly - bans would flow if so. I wont go any further, you've missed the thread and there no point in talking with people who don't know the whole story.

Just to conclude, do you honestly think we ENJOY providing bans? You know, how many times we've been lenient towards people who should have been banned, get a longer duration or simply be banned forever. This thread is a proof, people complain because Trademark wasn't banned permanently. Things would have been different then but if we follow your opinion, that would mean less bans, more drama, and a worse community. Today is an example, if Trademark wasn't banned when he was caught cheating, same for EvilBot, or even those regular gather bans for a day or so. Think about it and tell me, the NSL community would have been better? Those are complaining right now about their bans duration, they don't necessarily bitch about the simple existence of the ban but more their duration.

You keep claiming that punishments aren't a solution. Oh, of course, it's not. Some people tend to change their mind, get better without any form of punishments. Some other get better and figure it out once their ban lifted, they just think about what they did and decide to not do it again. But there are also stubborn and immoral people who won't change, being banned or just warned. I can quote a few cases on the NSL to prove this. Same works in real life man. Remove the prisons, remove the police, and so forth, if you think the world will be better, you are really disillusioned. Rules are here for a very good reason and admins must apply them. Sometimes, yeah, a rule doesn't cover the situation or many factors force us to not apply it but that's only a few rare cases.

So again, punishments won't solve anything but we are definitely not in those situations.

Myx says

Maybe just add button "Accept game" clicking on that game starts. Dont accept - click "leave gather" and wait for other people.

This would be the best solution imo. All 12 having to accept or leave the game when it's full, right before voting captains. If anyone denies/leaves the gather goes back to the signups waiting for 12 players again.

Justified ban, follow the rules or face the consequences.

Jeah, I really like the accept idea. Would also solve the "Fuck I forgot the pcw and I´m still in the gather" moments when the music starts :)

Ok, a little bit more phrases.
Pelargir says

Why is this even relevant? We are not in a such situation, are we?

Why is this even relevant? Because you compare leaving gather and theft, lol.
Pelargir says

What if the thief, right after his treachery does it again? You'll try to help him until what?

Need to understand his motivation. Theft it only a consequence, the reason can be in something another. Satisfy his motivation, theft will disappear with a high probability. Maybe not, maybe yes, but better try instead immediately beat him in the face.
Pelargir says

I wont go any further, you've missed the thread and there no point in talking with people who don't know the whole story.

I'm agree, maybe i misunderstand situation. I really don't know, my bad english could well contribute to this. But i tell you, how i understood it: some people said, that they won't play with Trademark. He joined - they left gather. He leave gather, they join. After that Trademark start to troll by joining-leaving. Did those guys said or had the intention to stay in gather with Trademark, until it fill up, and then leave it? If yes, probably i misunderstood. But in my opinion they wanted to see, maybe join latest not Trademark. And they could play. And in my opinion they absolutely have the right to do it. Do you agree or not? They shouldn't "know", will trademark join latest or not, they had to have chance to leave, if filled gather not satisfied them.
Pelargir says

Same works in real life man. Remove the prisons, remove the police, and so forth, if you think the world will be better, you are really disillusioned. Rules are here for a very good reason and admins must apply them. Sometimes, yeah, a rule doesn't cover the situation or many factors force us to not apply it but that's only a few rare cases.

I don't said that we should remove any rules and punishments. I just wanna say, that we should so avoid punishment, as far as possible. Especially in so little community like this. I believe, were ways to avoid punishment in this situation. And make it so that there was no mess, anarchy, etc.
But Dean0 said he done with gather. Trademark said he done with ns2. Izo done with ensl. And it's make me really sad. Maybe it's just words, and they will return soon, but it doesnt matter. I just think we should avoid this as far as possible. You can agree with me or not, but it's mine main thought, that i wanna say.

@Myx The current rules say that if you are in the gather when it fills; you play or get a ban for disrupting the gathers.
To avoid the ban however, you can find a replacement for yourself(at about the same skill as yourself) and you are free to leave the gather with no consequences, as you are no longer disrupting it.
You can't just leave if the gather doesn't satisfy you, we need to follow the current rules to prevent gathers being disrupted. We have to work with what we currently have until someone can make such an accept button/system.

Myx says

Ok, a little bit more phrases.
Pelargir says

Why is this even relevant? We are not in a such situation, are we?

Why is this even relevant? Because you compare leaving gather and theft, lol.
Pelargir says

What if the thief, right after his treachery does it again? You'll try to help him until what?

Need to understand his motivation. Theft it only a consequence, the reason can be in something another. Satisfy his motivation, theft will disappear with a high probability. Maybe not, maybe yes, but better try instead immediately beat him in the face.
Pelargir says

I wont go any further, you've missed the thread and there no point in talking with people who don't know the whole story.

I'm agree, maybe i misunderstand situation. I really don't know, my bad english could well contribute to this. But i tell you, how i understood it: some people said, that they won't play with Trademark. He joined - they left gather. He leave gather, they join. After that Trademark start to troll by joining-leaving. Did those guys said or had the intention to stay in gather with Trademark, until it fill up, and then leave it? If yes, probably i misunderstood. But in my opinion they wanted to see, maybe join latest not Trademark. And they could play. And in my opinion they absolutely have the right to do it. Do you agree or not? They shouldn't "know", will trademark join latest or not, they had to have chance to leave, if filled gather not satisfied them.
Pelargir says

Same works in real life man. Remove the prisons, remove the police, and so forth, if you think the world will be better, you are really disillusioned. Rules are here for a very good reason and admins must apply them. Sometimes, yeah, a rule doesn't cover the situation or many factors force us to not apply it but that's only a few rare cases.

I don't said that we should remove any rules and punishments. I just wanna say, that we should so avoid punishment, as far as possible. Especially in so little community like this. I believe, were ways to avoid punishment in this situation. And make it so that there was no mess, anarchy, etc.
But Dean0 said he done with gather. Trademark said he done with ns2. Izo done with ensl. And it's make me really sad. Maybe it's just words, and they will return soon, but it doesnt matter. I just think we should avoid this as far as possible. You can agree with me or not, but it's mine main thought, that i wanna say.

Easy fix, If you think i will be in a gather dont play? on the note of joining at the last minute it wasnt on purpose but it was done because the guys in ts with me were yelling to join so i could play !


Thanks boys :)

Trademark says

Myx says

Ok, a little bit more phrases.
Pelargir says

Why is this even relevant? We are not in a such situation, are we?

Why is this even relevant? Because you compare leaving gather and theft, lol.
Pelargir says

What if the thief, right after his treachery does it again? You'll try to help him until what?

Need to understand his motivation. Theft it only a consequence, the reason can be in something another. Satisfy his motivation, theft will disappear with a high probability. Maybe not, maybe yes, but better try instead immediately beat him in the face.
Pelargir says

I wont go any further, you've missed the thread and there no point in talking with people who don't know the whole story.

I'm agree, maybe i misunderstand situation. I really don't know, my bad english could well contribute to this. But i tell you, how i understood it: some people said, that they won't play with Trademark. He joined - they left gather. He leave gather, they join. After that Trademark start to troll by joining-leaving. Did those guys said or had the intention to stay in gather with Trademark, until it fill up, and then leave it? If yes, probably i misunderstood. But in my opinion they wanted to see, maybe join latest not Trademark. And they could play. And in my opinion they absolutely have the right to do it. Do you agree or not? They shouldn't "know", will trademark join latest or not, they had to have chance to leave, if filled gather not satisfied them.
Pelargir says

Same works in real life man. Remove the prisons, remove the police, and so forth, if you think the world will be better, you are really disillusioned. Rules are here for a very good reason and admins must apply them. Sometimes, yeah, a rule doesn't cover the situation or many factors force us to not apply it but that's only a few rare cases.

I don't said that we should remove any rules and punishments. I just wanna say, that we should so avoid punishment, as far as possible. Especially in so little community like this. I believe, were ways to avoid punishment in this situation. And make it so that there was no mess, anarchy, etc.
But Dean0 said he done with gather. Trademark said he done with ns2. Izo done with ensl. And it's make me really sad. Maybe it's just words, and they will return soon, but it doesnt matter. I just think we should avoid this as far as possible. You can agree with me or not, but it's mine main thought, that i wanna say.

Easy fix, If you think i will be in a gather dont play? on the note of joining at the last minute it wasnt on purpose but it was done because the guys in ts with me were yelling to join so i could play !


Thanks boys :)

lol it was on purpose and it was funny lol

Side note: Trade was last to join in the 2nd gather with izO and DeanO according to the logs simple looked at. He was not the last to join in the one with LyDDa and inmate.