- Staff
- #1
- Oct 20, 2016
- 2,002
- 2,429
Because of a situation that happened last night the source update will be delayed while we remove the ability for guild members to take over a guild from the guild leader. This feature is mostly meant for when the guild leader is not active and not for if you have a person vendetta or just because you think it is a funny thing to do. Aside from the removal of this feature, we are also doing a few minor things to further secure the client.
Also due to Lang wanting to make this a public situation, I will have to remark on it, which is something I was not planning to do.
I was contacted at 9PM PST by SaintBeast, telling me that Lang took over Systematic and that he had booted all the members. Lang was banned temporarily to prevent any further escalation, and I contacted Vipera who is a friend of both of ours to tell him to message me about the situation.
He was given the choice of a permanent ban, or compromising and giving back the guild and creating a new one which I later then offered to level to 50, which would have been the most neutral choice to everyone involved. Rather than taking this offer he chose to spend the next 3 hours wasting my time and telling me to just ignore SaintBeast, which is something I do not do to any players even if I hate dealing with them on a personal level due to them either creating drama, or them asking a million questions that have already been answered.
He has raised the argument that he ‘broke no rules’, but not every action that gets you banned will have a specific rule. This is because players will get creative and try to skirt rules and try to bypass any punishment regardless of their intent. In this particular instance it was pretty obvious that this was done maliciously, and was meant to be a form of childish punishment towards SaintBeast, and regardless of whether he deserves it or not it was an abuse of an in-game system to create a situation that affected more than just a single person. He then ultimately decided to delete the guild, which cemented the decision to remain permanently banned.
In the situation that SaintBeast had been inactive, or I had been made aware of him scamming other players (with evidence documenting everything) the situation would have been handled differently. It is also different from the situation of Bloodygenesis and Loriail, where Loriail gave the guild to Bloody who decided against giving it back.
Similar situations will be treated the same way in the future at least until the source update; if the person who takes the guild decides to not give the guild back, and it was done for a malicious purpose then they will be banned.
In the case of Lang, he has been permanently banned from the game, the site and the Discord, and I have also blocked him as I do not have time to waste on children. He has had any purchases he has made refunded for the last 30 days, as is the policy of the network when we ban someone.
Also due to Lang wanting to make this a public situation, I will have to remark on it, which is something I was not planning to do.
I was contacted at 9PM PST by SaintBeast, telling me that Lang took over Systematic and that he had booted all the members. Lang was banned temporarily to prevent any further escalation, and I contacted Vipera who is a friend of both of ours to tell him to message me about the situation.
He was given the choice of a permanent ban, or compromising and giving back the guild and creating a new one which I later then offered to level to 50, which would have been the most neutral choice to everyone involved. Rather than taking this offer he chose to spend the next 3 hours wasting my time and telling me to just ignore SaintBeast, which is something I do not do to any players even if I hate dealing with them on a personal level due to them either creating drama, or them asking a million questions that have already been answered.
He has raised the argument that he ‘broke no rules’, but not every action that gets you banned will have a specific rule. This is because players will get creative and try to skirt rules and try to bypass any punishment regardless of their intent. In this particular instance it was pretty obvious that this was done maliciously, and was meant to be a form of childish punishment towards SaintBeast, and regardless of whether he deserves it or not it was an abuse of an in-game system to create a situation that affected more than just a single person. He then ultimately decided to delete the guild, which cemented the decision to remain permanently banned.
In the situation that SaintBeast had been inactive, or I had been made aware of him scamming other players (with evidence documenting everything) the situation would have been handled differently. It is also different from the situation of Bloodygenesis and Loriail, where Loriail gave the guild to Bloody who decided against giving it back.
Similar situations will be treated the same way in the future at least until the source update; if the person who takes the guild decides to not give the guild back, and it was done for a malicious purpose then they will be banned.
In the case of Lang, he has been permanently banned from the game, the site and the Discord, and I have also blocked him as I do not have time to waste on children. He has had any purchases he has made refunded for the last 30 days, as is the policy of the network when we ban someone.