Helping population - a moderate approach to permabans

[Dullah]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Rebuilding and attracting new players should take priority over lessening punishment for players that are willing to bend or break rules.

You need to rethink this, because you're kidding yourself. Tomorrow morning JoeEQhardcore notices theres a classic server of his favorite old game. He doesn't decide whether not to play because of staff policy on permafucking people boxing, he plays because theres people online in a group oriented game.

Furthermore, this isnt about the pros or cons of boxing. Simply about what will help a server thats looking like it will inevitably die.

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Dullah [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You need to rethink this, because you're kidding yourself.

I'd be willing to listen to an argument that could sway my thinking. Let me pose a question.

Other than making play more viable for a small, static population...explain to me how making grouping less viable for incoming new players, while increasing problems elsewhere in the game (camps, healbots, pocket chanters for buffs, etc.) is going to stimulate sustained growth?

Edit: I'm asking this because a more lenient approach to banning boxers certainly is not going to discourage it. It will encourage it to a point where policing it would be a ridiculous task.

[karsten]

lawl slave talking about teams up in this thread