Denied Remove bans for Staff/Content creator impersonation

[stupxd]

Minecraft Username:

clutchboy14​

What is the suggestion about?

Remove bans for Staff/Content creator impersonation / Clarify which cases will lead to a ban instead of expecting a "common sense" to be used​

Description:

As some of you might know, recently impersonation rule has been updated:​

​

Now if you /nick OR have username similar to staff or creator, you can get yourself temporarily banned (or permanently in second case).​

Here's an example:​

I think it's a very unfair rule. Just because you have name similar to them, doesn't make you impersonator.​

When you start talking in chat, claiming that you are that staff or content creator, only then you should get punished. And punishment must not be a ban or permanent ban. Thats just ridiculous to ban for joking about being staff/youtuber, while discrimination and death threats have mute as max punishment (and those are very rarely jokes). ​

Obviously, if you have nick/username similar to staff and try to convience player into giving sensitive information while pretending to be a staff member, ban will be a justified punishment, but nicking as "Gunf1re" and saying in chat "guys I'm owner" is a completely different thing and should be a mute at most.​

You can't just keep rules like that and expect for "common sense" to be used when giving out punishments, because some people miss this ability and there always will be a chance of misunderstanding. Moments like this just ruin all fun for people.​

How can this idea help to improve JartexNetwork?

^​

Extra Information:

TL;DR: Make impersonation rule more clear. You can't ban left and right just for username similar to a staff member.​

 

[Nirahz]

I don't see the point of registering an IGN that's similar to an existing staff member.

that's not something players consciously choose all the time though, players don't check the list of staff members before they join a server and go "hmm I will take these IGNs!". a player can come up with a name similar to a staff member's name accidentally. for example, if I were called Flaxer, I'd be stupefied if I got banned for impersonating without even knowing there's a staff member with a similar name. It's a rule that has so many flaws.

One would be luring players that are new.

I cannot stress this enough, you can't lure people just by existing. you would need to talk in-game, at which point if you're acting like a staff member you deserve to get punished for impersonating. Just having a name and not doing anything with it is NOT impersonating. telling players you're someone you're not is.

 

[ATMOSHPHERE]

Neutral as the reasons stated by

There are always new players joining JartexNetwork on a daily basis. You can't expect each and every player to know which member is part of the staff team or not. For example, people have been using our staff names on Discord to hack other players, luring them into giving items, accounts, etc. That's the reason we ban a user who has similar IGN's to our staff team members, to prevent further such cases. Whether the player has or hasn't claimed to be part of the staff team or a staff member, it's best to be safe than sorry.
Players often get excited without knowing if the player is actually a staff member or just an imposter. Trust me, I've experienced this before and I do not want any other player to go through this again.

And I agree that the rule should be clarified in a better way so that players understand what they shouldn't be doing.

 

[stupxd]

Damn ok also Imma vote neutral because there are equal amounts of bad points in this and good points

Neutral
The reasons stated above by Flexier

I'm Neutral for this, Flexier stated a clear reason.

I am also gonna be Neutral , I'll wait to see others' opinions first.

Hello ,

I am going with neutral, there are tons of good and bad points here, Maybe making an acc ban not an ip ban on a player with similar username (unnicked) to Staff member would help? and if there still are 3-4 accounts on that ip with Staff-like username, perm ip-ban them

Have a good day
Kind Regards,
~PizzaLover13

Neutral as the reasons stated by

Moderator has said this, so now its my opinion too
Thats why I'm never going to suggest anything on forums, yall should stop looking for an ass to stick your nose to and just make your own opinion instead of just copying others.

People shouldn't get banned just for having similar username/nickname to staff. "Better safe than sorry" policy doesnt work:
- Imagine if you got banned for reach just for landing 1-2 weird hits. Because better safe than sorry, we dont want cheaters on our server!
- You dont take kb? Idk what's butterfly, thats clearly velocity, you should be banned because better safe than sorry!
- You're good at pvp? Thats clearly killaura! etc. etc.
And as flexier said, they can always appeal XD!

So in the end, if we apply this to any other rule, you most likely won't be fine with it, but for this one specific rule, we should allow banning everybody.

Just because this rule would never touch you, doesn't mean we should allow it.

 

[PizzaLover13]

Moderator has said this, so now its my opinion too
Thats why I'm never going to suggest anything on forums, yall should stop looking for an ass to stick your nose to and just make your own opinion instead of just copying others.

People shouldn't get banned just for having similar username/nickname to staff. "Better safe than sorry" policy doesnt work:
- Imagine if you got banned for reach just for landing 1-2 weird hits. Because better safe than sorry, we dont want cheaters on our server!
- You dont take kb? Idk what's butterfly, thats clearly velocity, you should be banned because better safe than sorry!
- You're good at pvp? Thats clearly killaura! etc. etc.
And as flexier said, they can always appeal XD!

So in the end, if we apply this to any other rule, you most likely won't be fine with it, but for this one specific rule, we should allow banning everybody.

Just because this rule would never touch you, doesn't mean we should allow it.

well the thing is the you CANT GET 3+ blocks REach, it only looks like that if the person is LAGGING and then we can clearly see the lag, noone asked you to make a suggestion as this, we just gave our opinion. stop acting like an immature kid and just chill
[EDIT: I would have given a +1 if you only had suggested to clarify the cases]

 

[SimplifyT]

I am giving this a neutral reasons stated above by Flexier

 

[Yuu]

well the thing is the you CANT GET 3+ blocks REach, it only looks like that if the person is LAGGING and then we can clearly see the lag

The person would still be banned, cuz it looks like reach and is unfair towards the player. I myself have gotten players banned like this.

we just gave our opinion.

You didn't. Y'all are blindly agreeing with the moderator, not giving your opinion.

[EDIT: I would have given a +1 if you only had suggested to clarify the cases]

Cases are clear enough, its you who hasn't understood them which is clearly visible from your first point above.

 

[PizzaLover13]

The person would still be banned, cuz it looks like reach and is unfair towards the player. I myself have gotten players banned like this.

You didn't. Y'all are blindly agreeing with the moderator, not giving your opinion.

Cases are clear enough, its you who hasn't understood them which is clearly visible from your first point above.

1.look, Flexier made some good points, the suggestion ALSO has many good points THATS why we all gave neutral.that is our opinion
2.what I am saying is that there is always an option to add more details, removing or changing punishments is not always good
3.personally these are MY opinions, and my opinions in no shape and form have changed or shaped the opinions of other people
4.I am not saying that if a person looks like they have reach and are lagging,they dont look sus or can get banned, what I mean is sometimes when lagging it MIGHT look like hacks, in which case the evidence can be reexamined, its my fault if I couldnt get the point across for this particular sentence
5.that message where he quoted all the neutral posts and rudely replied to them was another offputer

 

[Nirahz]

5.that message where he quoted all the neutral posts and rudely replied to them was another offputer

okay but you disliking the actions of a person shouldn't influence your vote lol

 

[stupxd]

well the thing is the you CANT GET 3+ blocks REach, it only looks like that if the person is LAGGING and then we can clearly see the lag, noone asked you to make a suggestion as this, we just gave our opinion. stop acting like an immature kid and just chill
[EDIT: I would have given a +1 if you only had suggested to clarify the cases]

You clearly have some vision problems, because this hasnt been edited ever since I created this thread


Also thats the thing, most people didnt give THEIR opinion, just read all the "neutral" replies here, most of them dont show any sign of own opinion.


I just feel like you barely read my suggestion, because I explained that the rule should be clarified several times. As of right now even Flexier said that you are not allowed to have similar name because he doesnt see the reason why!
Because all the staff obviously have most original names and if ur name is similar, you can only be filthy impersonator!

 

[PizzaLover13]

You clearly have some vision problems, because this hasnt been edited ever since I created this thread
View attachment 16936

Also thats the thing, most people didnt give THEIR opinion, just read all the "neutral" replies here, most of them dont show any sign of own opinion.
View attachment 16937

I just feel like you barely read my suggestion, because I explained that the rule should be clarified several times. As of right now even Flexier said that you are not allowed to have similar name because he doesnt see the reason why!
Because all the staff obviously have most original names and if ur name is similar, you can only be filthy impersonator!

okay first of all, I didnt say that it was edited, i said I would have definetely gave a +1 if only that would have been suggested
Second, it IS our opinion to give neutral, Like me and other sthat voted neutral have said, your suggestion has tons of good points and so does Flexiers response, just bcs someone sade "reasons said above by xyzperson" doesnt mean they are just copying