Again: the rule says that public conversations have to be held in english, not that understanding english is a requirement to play skyblock. Players should be punished when there is evidence that they have broken rules. Like chat logs. But not just because they don't reply to a mail.

 

How could that currently happen?

 

See Sky’s last post on this thread.

 

Who's post? Skycloud? Skylandia?

 

The one that has posted on this thread obviously.

 

Oh, I thought you said 'on his thread', my bad. Damn, seems to be like that scenario actually is a thing already D: I take back what I said then, I don't think this is a good way to handle things though. But I don't understand what your suggestion is then, if staff members already have the right to ban people for not responding or not cooperating with them already.

 

Banning someone is quite extreme if it's just someone who failed to reply because they have been afk for a few days.
It's essentially a lesser punishment that doesn't require a ban appeal and doesn't go on ones record.

 

So what you’re suggesting is that the player MUST respond to a staff no matter what? That’s not fair. You can’t force players to respond to anybody. If it’s illegal, it can be investigated in another way.

What if they have an auto rejoin mod (legal) and they’re afk farming for a few days? That is allowed and using your logic, since they wouldn’t reply in 24 hours they get ‘suspended’ which sounds like a fancy term for ‘temporary ban’.

Also all eco players know exactly who you’re on about and this seems like a report embedded in a suggestion.

 

Reading this thread will answer your questions.

 

Just make a report and let staff investigate. Also touch grass because tracking another players income like that is next level sweat

 

As always, your comments are off topic and useless

 

Everything I said was on topic and quite useful as the issue you are having here could simply be resolved with a report instead of a new rule. Just because you don't like what someone says doesn't mean they are "off topic and useless" I don't see much else to contribute here. I've stated my piece and it seems sky has thoroughly called you out and destroyed any "valid" points you had. This is a silly little post and you should consider deleting it.

 

Not at all, he like yourself failed in that.
I’ve provided data supporting the suggestion. Nothing more.

 

Ill judge if this was a failure for myself when this suggestion fails to be implemented. Guess what I would consider a fail or win?

 

If you’re able to convince yourself that you could be responsible for that then you’re kidding yourself. That’s quite laughable really.

 

My doing or not ill be smiling when it does flop. Just like when ur last suggestion failed.

 

Staff have advised me that they are not able to do anything to combat the scenario I described in the opening post due to their limited resources.
This suggestion gives them greater resources/tools.

Since my making this suggestion, suspicious islands and their cropper farms have been deleted entirely so I'd say it's already been successful.

And my last suggestion hasn’t failed so it seems you’re confused.

 

Unless you're of the opinion that staff shouldn't be able to enforce any punishments whatsoever, I'll reiterate that I don't agree with your line of thinking.
If the hypothetical of someone getting wrongfully punished is enough for you to not support mods having the power to do something, then why should mods have any power at all?

Again - mods currently have the ability to ban people but this doesn't mean that everyone gets banned. They use the tools (like banning) that they have at their disposal to resolve issues. What Drogo is suggesting is simply another tool to add to the toolbelt - it's on the mods to use it properly. If you don't trust the mods to exercise caution and good judgement when using these tools then I've got bad news for you....

With that said, I'm convinced mods already have this capability in their toolbelt, which is why I consider the suggestion to be superfluous, but I digress.

 

I fail to see why that's not fair. Seems like it would be expected behavior that if a Staff Member asks you to provide something (in this case - literally any interaction at all), and you fail to provide it, there might be some follow up required.

Why not? If we can "force players" to change inappropriate usernames or skins, we can "force" them to confirm with mods that they're not a bot. Playing on the server is a privilege, not a right.

 

'You must speak to me or else you're getting banned!' is a lot worse than 'you must change your name which is innappropriate for a server with literal kids who play!'