Board Thread:Suggestions/@comment-31248264-20160930140909/@comment-26849106-20160930205840

CrystaltheCool wrote: "Staff cannot ban an user because they wanted them banned, unless it's a sockpuppet."

This quote is the rule Igor's suggesting, copy-pasted, word-for-word. Let's analyze it, shall we?

"Staff cannot ban a user"

This part states that staff members can't ban a user.

"because they wanted them banned,"

This part continues off the first part, stating that they can't ban a user because of wanting them banned. It ignores the fact that bans... Happen for a reason. For example, staff might want a user banned for breaking a rule too many times and ignoring the warnings.

"unless it's a sockpuppet."

This part continues off the other two, stating that the only exception is that the staff wanted the user banned for being a sock. This part indicates that staff want people banned for reasons, and states that this is the only valid reason for banning someone.

There's nothing else in the rule that says "just because they feel like it" is what the second part indicated, just what you think.

If "just because they feel like it" was what Igor meant, he should've used better wording. Here's an example of better wording:

"Staff can't ban a user just because they feel like it. The ban must have three warnings (three warnings and a kick in chat) come before it, and only if the user in question has broken rules and ignored the warnings."

Bad wording of a new rule can result in bad shit. Igor worded this poorly, so I see where you are coming from.

"Staff can't ban a user just because they feel like it. The ban must have three warnings (three warnings and a kick in chat) come before it, and only if the user in question has broken rules and ignored the warnings."

This is how it should have been worded and actually what I have been thinking this rule was. I see where you're coming from. This small conversation was due to poor wording.