Read it quite well mate. Also read the part where you said 'Any in game mail from a staff member must be adequately responded to within 24 hour, else the account's access to the server be suspended until such time as a response is given and accepted via forums account'. I don't think that's right.

'You there! Yes you! You are banned for not speaking to me! You may not join back till you speak to me!'

That sort of suggestion is what's actually quite laughable. What a way to disincentivize players.

 

That's exactly what I thought. Especially due to the fact that there are players who don't speak any english, which I've mentioned before.

 

Maybe try reading the original post again where I stated the type of account for which this might be necessary.
And I mean account and not player, because they don’t play they just stand there loading chunks and cannot be contacted.
Such as the account that is right this very second standing at Economy spawn just as he has been doing so for the last two days. Doing absolutely nothing, still automatically reconnecting to do nothing other than load chunks.
And with a play time of 165 days, he's likely generated huge extra income for the player who owns that farm that it usually AFK's at. And that's just one of at least two accounts with similar days of play time.
Go and have a chat with that account and see how much of a response you get from them.

The only reason this account is now at spawn and not at his island loading some ones farm, is because the player who's income that graph represents, has now taken back ownership of that island and deleted the farm that was there. And now this account that has been doing nothing at all but loading chunks, has no island to automatically go back to.

Tell me you don't think it's suspicious that that account continually reconnects to now do nothing other than to stand at spawn with the entire cropper farm that he's been doing exactly that at for a very long time has ben completely deleted. Tell me if you were a moderator trying to get an answer from this account, which is clearly very suspicious, you would need to take some action, to get a response?

It really doesn't take much for moderators to see who's actually playing, they move, they talk, they build, their balance changes. They are 'players', and whether they speak English or not, they are not the reason for this suggestion and it's highly unlikely that they will ever be affected by it. Even if they do little more than AFK a friends farm, and playing every now and then, it’s not hard to discern them from, what are essentially just ‘bots’

 

Couldn't care less. Doesn't affect me. Definitely wouldn't ban them for not answering.

You have embedded a report inside of a suggestion. It's not 'all okay' because his username is redacted. Ask staff to investigate, not subtly create a stir within a suggestion.

Of course you can take some action Drogo. But forcing a reply doesn't solve anything. Mods have lots of other powers that can help them get to the bottom of these kinds of problems that don't require an interrogation.

 

Might not affect you, but this isn’t about you. And who said anything about banning them? You have no clue what I’ve even suggested, do you?
Where is the report? Where the accusation of wrongdoing?

Apparently not. If you’d read this thread as you claimed you have, you would have read that staff have said there is nothing they can do.

 

I don't think Drogo was unclear, but - the suggestion isn't to have staff systemically and regularly force players to reply to them. This would only be used in extenuating circumstances where an investigation into suspected rulebreaking leads staff to reasonably believe that specific, identifiable accounts, are accounts with a sole purpose of bypassing the account limit. (Or I guess whatever the rulebreaking in question is)

Your reply presumes staff will be regularly making everyone reply to them for no discernible reason; which is not what Drogo is suggesting at all.

 

Feels like you're diehard supporting this thread, but all of the arguments/replies you make just seem to prove the reasons for no support? Instead of responding to the concerns brought up in the post you replied to you validated his other point of this being an indirect report on one individual player... The way you explain it in this one message, saying that this would be the obvious general message you'd get if you read every other point in this suggestion, is that this would only be used on the one individual player Drogo is talking about. The one single player Drogo could point out in this thread is the only guy this suggestion should be used on based on this response? How is this suggestion not just a report? If staff say they can't do anything or have already investigated let him be until you can actually get proof of wrongdoing.

Also, his reply doesn't presume staff will regularly make everyone reply to them, even if the staff only ever do this once (perhaps to the one player indirectly reported via this "suggestion") his reply is still correct.

 

Exactly, and they wouldn't be doing it as a punishment as such but as they only means with which to get the attention of the account owner in order to investigate. Accounts like the one that has been standing at spawn for 3 days now.

Everyone is correct in saying staff "can" do it anyway, but wouldn't it be better if they had a way to do it that agreed with the terms of service?

If staff did that, then they wouldn't do it to an active player, because they know an active player would get back to them in time. Or they could likely get them on Discord or forums. They would do it to the account that is doing nothing but autologging and standing there

 

I've actually said multiple times both in this thread and elsewhere that I feel like this suggestion is superfluous - I'm pretty sure mods already have the ability to do this - which I support - but that spelling it out feels unnecessary. If anything, I'm diehard on challenging lines of thinking that I think are flawed.

To be clear, I also share the opinion that this suggestion is less about the...contents of the suggestion and more about asking mods to take action. I said this in my first post in this thread. (Refer to the underline section below)

I disagree.

Both of the bolded segments would be examples of staff requiring player interaction in order to continue playing on the server. They're functionally equivalent. The only reason to believe one is inherently worse is to believe the implementation by staff would be worse.

 

I can understand how people might think that, but I'd already been down that route and was advised that there was nothing they could do and I was fine with that. There were no logs and they were not able to contact the accounts in question.
Yes, we all know that they could have banned them to try and force a response but that would not be in line with Skyblock's terms of service.
Having been banned myself in the past in a manner that violated the terms of service, I respect that fact that they did not do that this time.

So no, this wasn't a report, because that had already been done. But to me, it highlighted a need for staff to be able to force a response from accounts that are nothing more than bots. Hence the suggestion.

 

I'm in support of drogos suggestion. Comunication with staff is key when maintaining a healthy server environment. Lack of contact is what causes issues. But tbh overall lately staff Contact has been severely lacking. So idk. Good suggestion tho