• Home
  • Index
  • Search
  • Download
  • Server Rules
  • House Roleplay Laws
  • Player Utilities
  • Player Help
  • Forum Utilities
  • Returning Player?
  • Toggle Sidebar
Interactive Nav-Map
Tutorials
New Wiki
ID reference
Restart reference
Players Online
Player Activity
Faction Activity
Player Base Status
Discord Help Channel
DarkStat
Server public configs
POB Administration
Missing Powerplant
Stuck in Connecticut
Account Banned
Lost Ship/Account
POB Restoration
Disconnected
Member List
Forum Stats
Show Team
View New Posts
View Today's Posts
Calendar
Help
Archive Mode




Hi there Guest,  
Existing user?   Sign in    Create account
Login
Username:
Password: Lost Password?
 
  Discovery Gaming Community Rules & Requests Rules Faction Rules Faction Review and Feedback Archived Feedback Threads
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Admin Feedback Thread (Archived)

Server Time (24h)

Players Online

Active Events - Scoreboard

Latest activity

Thread Closed 
Admin Feedback Thread (Archived)
Offline Wildkins
09-26-2016, 01:53 AM,
#987
Freeport 3
Posts: 1,943
Threads: 175
Joined: Feb 2013

I can understand, to a reasonable extent, why the exception was made, given why Laz was banned. (And fair enough if the ships weren't activity wiped, it seemed to me as if that was the case but regardless).

I don't want the status quo to change. That's why I made this whole post to begin with - it seemed to me like the admin stance on the issue had changed. From the post itself:

"Let me reiterate something that was said during our little conversation. An indef-banned member has to wait a minimum of 6 months before they can appeal, because it also activity-wipes all of their assets. Once a member is indef-banned, their personal ships and funds are forfeit - the only exceptions are shared ships."

I was specifically taking issue with this, and I similarly take issue with the green statement you've posted above. That's the opposite of what I want. I was simply inquiring as to the origin of this stated precedent - one that I've never heard of prior - and if it was going to be the norm for all admin decisions in the future. I was also secondarily asking that the decision involving Kalhmera being reversed, although I had little hope of that happening, and an understanding that there's only so much that can be done when stolen accounts are put in the mix.

I suppose, in a better sense, I wanted to clarify what the current admin stance on the issue was. There are many people - other than @Karst - who have been or are currently banned and have given ships to others for safe-keeping or as a parting gift. If what was posted to Kalh's request is to be believed and taken whole-heartedly, this is in violation. I don't want it to be, but I'm clarifying for all those who are concerned about it, since this post is definitely a departure from the way things have been handled in the past. I don't want an authoritarian system to come to these requests, I just want to know whether or not people are going to get in trouble in the future for being in possession of or using banned players' assets. That's what's in contention here, at least for me.

RP Feedback
Thread Closed 


Messages In This Thread
Admin Feedback Thread (Archived) - by Garrett Jax - 04-05-2015, 06:58 AM

  • View a Printable Version
  • Subscribe to this thread


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)



Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2026 MyBB Group. Theme © 2014 iAndrew & DiscoveryGC
  • Contact Us
  •  Lite mode
Linear Mode
Threaded Mode