Quote:
Originally Posted by ac on
Like, some spammer posts a bunch of malware on 2+2. He is banned not because we want to punish him, but because we want him to stop posting malware on 2+2. His banning works to this end by impeding his ability to post on 2+2, and as a side effect one could consider it punishment because it may teach the spammer to spam less malware or something. But the goal is to protect the site, not punish the spammer.
So then what is wrong with banning Nemo from playing this player again? It prevents him from harassing this player as before. It prevents him from doing the same to another.
What's the counter solution here? They aren't taking his money away or refunding the guy that legitimately won/lost vs Nemo. If you're just arguing he should've had a reduced penalty like another warning, fine, but you sound like you're arguing the actual issue of him not being able to play this player.
I just don't find that valid unless it applies to situations much less extreme than what it sounds like Nemo was doing to this guy.
And I don't mean to sound like Nemo deserves any of this or that I sympathize with the player he sat. I don't at all, I'm just looking at it from FTP's stand point. The player bitching sounds pretty pathetic to me as described. I'm sure he said something in chat that forced Nemo's over reaction, nobody ever stalks this crazily without the reg having talked some **** and lost control at one point. Does that justify whatever Nemo may have done? Probably not, but it doesn't make Nemo purely evil and the reg innocent. I would just as soon have FTP say "look, you told the guy he was an ******* here, you told him he sucks here, you reap what you sew, you make money at this game, you talked crap, he can sit you, don't play those levels if it's a major issue" but if I worked for FTP I'm not sure that's a superior solution than what they did here.