Forest

Well, I've seen people joining the server, going guard, taking warden, saying the first order correctly like "When the cell doors open, crouch walk immediately to the yellow line" then starts shooting everyone and laughing and leaves, those people are fun killers and should be banned, IMO, even a week ban will be enough, because I don't think someone who mass-freekilled on purpose will save the server address and check if he's unbanned or not, for accidental mass, I suggest that the rules breaker gets just banned from CT, as you all said, accidents are different, misclicks, crits, or just not knowing the rules, Joe should get CT banned for an hour and asked to read the rules attentively in all chat, if the accident happens again, well it's not an accident anymore

Division:

Counter-Strike In-Game Name:

Magic Ryo ™ Offender's Steam ID:

Steam Community :: Magic Ryo ™ Rules Broken:

Freekill (Mass I think) Ban Type:

Team Ban Evidence:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KByr_B8ZK9E

TF2 Server list has been updated:
>[xG] Payload changed to [xG] Ballooon Race

Alterations:
>Payload <216.52.148.46:27015> changed to Balloon Race <216.52.148.46:27015>

Current Server List
(Click Here for our Game Server hub)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


 


Counter-Strike: Global Offensive
> JailBreak <216.52.148.30:27015>
> RPG Surf DM <192.223.30.197:27015>
> Minigames <72.5.195.149:27015>
> Skill Surf <64.74.97.157:27015>
> 24/7 Nipperhouse <104.153.108.107:27015>
 
 
 

Garry's Mod
> Morbus NA <192.223.30.49:27015>
 
 

Team Fortress 2
> Jailbreak <216.52.143.29:27015>
> Mann vs Machine MvM <216.52.143.129:27015>
> Pokemon Trade Center <64.74.97.68:27015>
> Trade Gaming History <64.74.97.69:27015>
> Deathrun <72.5.195.37:27015>
> Saxton Hale <74.91.122.80:27015>
> Surf <192.223.26.26:27015>
> Zombie Fortress <74.91.125.25:27015>
> TF2Ware <74.91.119.153:27015>
 
 

Nuclear Dawn
> Bootcamp UK | Rookie Friendly <82.163.79.241:27017>
> Redstone | London (UK) <82.163.79.241:27025>
 
 

Minecraft
> Towny | Hunger Games <mc.xenogamers.com>



 
 
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 
 
I would ask that, if possible, the Division Leaders (and/or Division Managers) of each respective Division please mark this thread as a Watched Thread so that you will receive a notification regarding any new additions to the Server List. I would also like to ask that you post any additions or alterations to the Server list here for others to see. This will also allow an easier time for the Steam Group to be updated with any changes so that it is kept up-to-date.
 
At the same time, if a Community Leader (or other Higher-Up) could regularly update this [OP] particular post with any new changes (assuming I will not be able to) posted in this thread itself, this would make things a lot easier; if a Division Leader is adding a new addition (and a CL is not making any alterations), I would ask that you please post it in the thread as well as edit the OP to reflect the change. This allows for a time-stamp to be created for when the addition was made. Also be sure to include the Server's IP as well as the complete name of the Server itself.
 
This thread will also serve as a general Server List for (convenience) players who do not have immediate access to our Steam Group or if they do not want to have to sift through our bans.xenogamers.com page for a particular Server IP. Tagging Division Leaders/Community Leaders (please tag whomever you believe should be aware as well as I can only tag so many users): @Bleed @Rejects @Stickz @Hidingmaster @Scootaloo @Rhododendron @kbraszzz @Nomulous
 
*Note - Please only submit Public Servers. The Server List should not include any of the following; Event Servers, Scrim Servers, etc.

[ATTACH=full]24366[/ATTACH]
It is Time



On a more serious note, I'm looking forward to these changes and seeing how this all fares out. Welcome back bud @Aegean

[ATTACH=full]24366[/ATTACH]
It is Time



On a more serious note, I'm looking forward to these changes and seeing how this all fares out. Welcome back bud @Aegean

CS:GO Server List has been updated:
- Addition of the new Minigames Server
- Removal of Skill Surf
 
Additions/Alterations*
> Minigames <72.5.195.149:27015>
Removed > Skill Surf <192.223.26.160:27015>

One of the reasons I introduced this concept is to pull away from the [varying] ban times that I've seen players being given, or at least to have it set in stone what the actual procedure should be. Call me old fashioned, but having something to refer to in terms of specifics for ban times just makes it so much easier on Staff; especially when there are instances in which some players are let off with a warning while others aren't (this is assuming their ban histories are similar). I just never really was a fan of ban times being up to the discretion of the Staff (no offense to Staff at all, I just prefer static punishments) since it involved varying ban times for offenders.
 
That being said, I can't speak for the Staff and if it really isn't that big of an issue (if it ain't broke, don't fix it) then this whole thing can be disregarded, though I would still like to see what other Staff have to say on the matter; including Staff from other Divisions :coffee:

Having a history of "berating and insulting members of the server" should not be used as a means of justifying a player's CT ban. This sort of judgement would better suit a Member Protest since it does not really have a direct correlation to being on the CT side.
 
That being said, intentional or not, OP should take this time to review the MotD rules as there seems to be a lack of judgement on his/her part; especially considering this ban was dealt today and the player has a history of freekilling (found Here). I'd recommend that the offending player remain permanently banned indefinitely until he/she can demonstrate a clear improvement in his/her knowledge of the MotD rules :coffee:

Having a history of "berating and insulting members of the server" should not be used as a means of justifying a player's CT ban. This sort of judgement would better suit a Member Protest since it does not really have a direct correlation to being on the CT side.
 
That being said, intentional or not, OP should take this time to review the MotD rules as there seems to be a lack of judgement on his/her part; especially considering this ban was dealt today and the player has a history of freekilling (found Here). I'd recommend that the offending player remain permanently banned indefinitely until he/she can demonstrate a clear improvement in his/her knowledge of the MotD rules :coffee:

Having a history of "berating and insulting members of the server" should not be used as a means of justifying a player's CT ban. This sort of judgement would better suit a Member Protest since it does not really have a direct correlation to being on the CT side.
 
That being said, intentional or not, OP should take this time to review the MotD rules as there seems to be a lack of judgement on his/her part; especially considering this ban was dealt today and the player has a history of freekilling (found Here). I'd recommend that the offending player remain permanently banned indefinitely until he/she can demonstrate a clear improvement in his/her knowledge of the MotD rules :coffee:

Welcome back to our colourful community

Hey guys, so this idea just occurred to me and I was wondering what everyone else's thoughts were on the matter. I will warn you now though, this whole thing revolves around the willingness of the Higher-Ups to cooperate and take the time to actually quiz each instance.
 
... The post is also really long, so there's that too.
 
:coffee: Alright, let's get started.
 
So, say we have someone who mass free-kills. Now let's say that this particular individual, whom I will now call Joe for the duration of this post, has just posted a Ban Protest stating that it was accidental. Now, all that Staff have to go on is the instance in which Joe mass free-killed in determining whether it was accidental or not. Aside from that, Staff can also do a background check on Joe to determine if he has a past history of free-killing. For the sake of this example, let's just assume that Joe has a clean record; no free-kills or bans dealt otherwise. That leaves Staff with an idea of whether it was accidental or intentional (which I still think should be labelled as such when banning: IE. acc mfk, int mfk), not including situations where it's blatantly intentional. Anyway, let's say that the Staff are unclear and that it appeared to be an accidental slip-up on Joe's part. Should Joe be unbanned on the spot? Should he receive a shorter ban time? It's quite the dilemma as "permanent" bans are becoming notoriously easy to get out of (not including that damn Mona Pizza challenge b/s)
 
Staff will typically butt heads on this matter, and it isn't hard to see why. It's difficult to determine whether a mass free-kill was done with a malicious intent or if it was accidental, and herein lies the problem. So, my suggestion (or theory, whichever floats your boat) is that any player who pleas "accidental" (provided that Staff are unsure) can be given a [minimum(?)] week (or less) to brush up on the MotD rules. Once the week(?) has come to an end, the player will then be tested by the Division Manager/Leader(s) (the Ban Protest will remain open) with a pre-determined amount of questions that will [more or less] cover each and every section of the MotD rules. This set of questions will obviously vary for each Division, and should differ from test to test to prevent any "cheat sheets" from being made. After being tested, the DM/DLs will compile the player's percentage of answers correct and will then determine how long the player should be banned for based on their percentage (IE. 0-40% is a permanent ban, 40-50% is a month ban, 50-60% is a two week ban, 70-80%+ is a week ban [% to time is subject to change, discretion of Higher-Ups]).
 
Now, this does seem like a lot of work, but do keep in mind that this sort of testing will only go into effect if an offender pleads "accidental" mass free-kill that is otherwise not 100% clear on the Staff's part, which is already somewhat rare to begin with. Moreover, this "defense" can only ever be used once at any given time by each offender.
 
The implementation of such a task introduces a few pros that I believe are pretty beneficial:
 
First and foremost, it gives the whole "permanent" ban for "accidental" free-kills a lot more validity (Think "he should be unbanned because this guy was" argument). It's entirely up to the offender to take matters into their own hands by brushing up on the MotD rules, or risk being permanently banned unless he/she chooses to undergo the 'challenges'. That is to say, instead of taking up the Staff's time, it'll take up the offender's time. If they aren't willing to put the time in, then they obviously aren't interested enough in playing on the Servers.
 
Secondly, it allows DM/DLs to more accurately determine a proper punishment befitting of each particular individual; that is to say, there won't be this "bias" air floating around Ban Protests (not implying there is, but better safe than sorry) against supposed accidental free-kills. Again, the ban time will solely depend on the offender's diligence in brushing up on MotD rules.
 
Third, it can increase efficiency and reduce any wasted-time of our Staff. It can potentially save Staff time from having to actively monitor a particular individual to determine whether or not improvements have been made in the long run and frees up their time on the Servers to do what they do best: moderating.
 
Alright, so before you start saying "but Forest, these offenders could just as easily take a gander at the MotD rules during the time of testing and bull sh*t their way through it!", just hear me out. Even if this is the case, the offender will inadvertently retain some of the information they are reading up on in the MotD whether they like it or not, even if it is their intention to cheat. Besides, even provided that they bull sh*t their way through the test, what is there really to lose? If Joe happens to mass-freekill again and comes back here to bitch and moan "but it was accidental, I swear!" Staff can wash their hands of it since he was already given the opportunity to better himself, right? At this point, Joe has dug his own grave with a shovel of ignorance/arrogance and is now sitting up sh*t creek without a paddle.
 
Obviously this whole thing is far from full-proof, but that is exactly why I've brought it up here. Think of it as a proof of concept more than anything. I'd honestly like to hear what others have to say, whether you agree or disagree, or whether you think it's just stupid as hell and that Staff have enough on their plate as it is.
 
As always, comment, berate, give your opinion, or what-have-you down below. I'm not sorry for this long-ass post.
 
- Dat guy, Forest

I think we should start a call of duty division.Being that call of duty is a major game I think people would enjoy more console game's.

While I think that there needs to be some sort of reform for this sort of thing, I don't think a test like you were talking about would work because of the blatant cheating issue. Even if they do see the MoTD using a cheat sheet doesn't usually get any knowledge absorbed into the brain of the cheater. Anyone could deem their mfk "accidental" and while the staff would have to prove it I think it would help to be able to deem it accidental only if there was any sort of proof to make it 100% certain that it was accidental because people are never perfect, and it could be seen as an easy way to get out of a permanent ban. Just my $0.02 :coffee:

My opinion:
Generally people should not be banned for accidently mass-freekilling.
The definition of an accdiental freekill can vary, a few examples are an obvious misclick, an unexpected crit [in TF2] or in general something else that was obviously not intentional.
Staff members are the ones to determine whether it was accidental or intentional and then take the appropriate action.
I do agree with @Owl.
 
EDIT: Fixed dem grammar :^)

Personally I think we should just stop perming first time offenders who mass on accident, unless they have a history of way too many accidental fks / other reasons. Permanent bans should given to people who are intentionally trying to ruin the experience for others on the server and/or those who simply are unable to properly play CT (also making it unfun for the rest of the players).

Hey guys, so this idea just occurred to me and I was wondering what everyone else's thoughts were on the matter. I will warn you now though, this whole thing revolves around the willingness of the Higher-Ups to cooperate and take the time to actually quiz each instance.
 
... The post is also really long, so there's that too.
 
:coffee: Alright, let's get started.
 
So, say we have someone who mass free-kills. Now let's say that this particular individual, whom I will now call Joe for the duration of this post, has just posted a Ban Protest stating that it was accidental. Now, all that Staff have to go on is the instance in which Joe mass free-killed in determining whether it was accidental or not. Aside from that, Staff can also do a background check on Joe to determine if he has a past history of free-killing. For the sake of this example, let's just assume that Joe has a clean record; no free-kills or bans dealt otherwise. That leaves Staff with an idea of whether it was accidental or intentional (which I still think should be labelled as such when banning: IE. acc mfk, int mfk), not including situations where it's blatantly intentional. Anyway, let's say that the Staff are unclear and that it appeared to be an accidental slip-up on Joe's part. Should Joe be unbanned on the spot? Should he receive a shorter ban time? It's quite the dilemma as "permanent" bans are becoming notoriously easy to get out of (not including that damn Mona Pizza challenge b/s)
 
Staff will typically butt heads on this matter, and it isn't hard to see why. It's difficult to determine whether a mass free-kill was done with a malicious intent or if it was accidental, and herein lies the problem. So, my suggestion (or theory, whichever floats your boat) is that any player who pleas "accidental" (provided that Staff are unsure) can be given a [minimum(?)] week (or less) to brush up on the MotD rules. Once the week(?) has come to an end, the player will then be tested by the Division Manager/Leader(s) (the Ban Protest will remain open) with a pre-determined amount of questions that will [more or less] cover each and every section of the MotD rules. This set of questions will obviously vary for each Division, and should differ from test to test to prevent any "cheat sheets" from being made. After being tested, the DM/DLs will compile the player's percentage of answers correct and will then determine how long the player should be banned for based on their percentage (IE. 0-40% is a permanent ban, 40-50% is a month ban, 50-60% is a two week ban, 70-80%+ is a week ban [% to time is subject to change, discretion of Higher-Ups]).
 
Now, this does seem like a lot of work, but do keep in mind that this sort of testing will only go into effect if an offender pleads "accidental" mass free-kill that is otherwise not 100% clear on the Staff's part, which is already somewhat rare to begin with. Moreover, this "defense" can only ever be used once at any given time by each offender.
 
The implementation of such a task introduces a few pros that I believe are pretty beneficial:
 
First and foremost, it gives the whole "permanent" ban for "accidental" free-kills a lot more validity (Think "he should be unbanned because this guy was" argument). It's entirely up to the offender to take matters into their own hands by brushing up on the MotD rules, or risk being permanently banned unless he/she chooses to undergo the 'challenges'. That is to say, instead of taking up the Staff's time, it'll take up the offender's time. If they aren't willing to put the time in, then they obviously aren't interested enough in playing on the Servers.
 
Secondly, it allows DM/DLs to more accurately determine a proper punishment befitting of each particular individual; that is to say, there won't be this "bias" air floating around Ban Protests (not implying there is, but better safe than sorry) against supposed accidental free-kills. Again, the ban time will solely depend on the offender's diligence in brushing up on MotD rules.
 
Third, it can increase efficiency and reduce any wasted-time of our Staff. It can potentially save Staff time from having to actively monitor a particular individual to determine whether or not improvements have been made in the long run and frees up their time on the Servers to do what they do best: moderating.
 
Alright, so before you start saying "but Forest, these offenders could just as easily take a gander at the MotD rules during the time of testing and bull sh*t their way through it!", just hear me out. Even if this is the case, the offender will inadvertently retain some of the information they are reading up on in the MotD whether they like it or not, even if it is their intention to cheat. Besides, even provided that they bull sh*t their way through the test, what is there really to lose? If Joe happens to mass-freekill again and comes back here to bitch and moan "but it was accidental, I swear!" Staff can wash their hands of it since he was already given the opportunity to better himself, right? At this point, Joe has dug his own grave with a shovel of ignorance/arrogance and is now sitting up sh*t creek without a paddle.
 
Obviously this whole thing is far from full-proof, but that is exactly why I've brought it up here. Think of it as a proof of concept more than anything. I'd honestly like to hear what others have to say, whether you agree or disagree, or whether you think it's just stupid as hell and that Staff have enough on their plate as it is.
 
As always, comment, berate, give your opinion, or what-have-you down below. I'm not sorry for this long-ass post.
 
- Dat guy, Forest

Having a history of "berating and insulting members of the server" should not be used as a means of justifying a player's CT ban. This sort of judgement would better suit a Member Protest since it does not really have a direct correlation to being on the CT side.
 
That being said, intentional or not, OP should take this time to review the MotD rules as there seems to be a lack of judgement on his/her part; especially considering this ban was dealt today and the player has a history of freekilling (found Here). I'd recommend that the offending player remain permanently banned indefinitely until he/she can demonstrate a clear improvement in his/her knowledge of the MotD rules :coffee:

Hey guys, so this idea just occurred to me and I was wondering what everyone else's thoughts were on the matter. I will warn you now though, this whole thing revolves around the willingness of the Higher-Ups to cooperate and take the time to actually quiz each instance.
 
... The post is also really long, so there's that too.
 
:coffee: Alright, let's get started.
 
So, say we have someone who mass free-kills. Now let's say that this particular individual, whom I will now call Joe for the duration of this post, has just posted a Ban Protest stating that it was accidental. Now, all that Staff have to go on is the instance in which Joe mass free-killed in determining whether it was accidental or not. Aside from that, Staff can also do a background check on Joe to determine if he has a past history of free-killing. For the sake of this example, let's just assume that Joe has a clean record; no free-kills or bans dealt otherwise. That leaves Staff with an idea of whether it was accidental or intentional (which I still think should be labelled as such when banning: IE. acc mfk, int mfk), not including situations where it's blatantly intentional. Anyway, let's say that the Staff are unclear and that it appeared to be an accidental slip-up on Joe's part. Should Joe be unbanned on the spot? Should he receive a shorter ban time? It's quite the dilemma as "permanent" bans are becoming notoriously easy to get out of (not including that damn Mona Pizza challenge b/s)
 
Staff will typically butt heads on this matter, and it isn't hard to see why. It's difficult to determine whether a mass free-kill was done with a malicious intent or if it was accidental, and herein lies the problem. So, my suggestion (or theory, whichever floats your boat) is that any player who pleas "accidental" (provided that Staff are unsure) can be given a [minimum(?)] week (or less) to brush up on the MotD rules. Once the week(?) has come to an end, the player will then be tested by the Division Manager/Leader(s) (the Ban Protest will remain open) with a pre-determined amount of questions that will [more or less] cover each and every section of the MotD rules. This set of questions will obviously vary for each Division, and should differ from test to test to prevent any "cheat sheets" from being made. After being tested, the DM/DLs will compile the player's percentage of answers correct and will then determine how long the player should be banned for based on their percentage (IE. 0-40% is a permanent ban, 40-50% is a month ban, 50-60% is a two week ban, 70-80%+ is a week ban [% to time is subject to change, discretion of Higher-Ups]).
 
Now, this does seem like a lot of work, but do keep in mind that this sort of testing will only go into effect if an offender pleads "accidental" mass free-kill that is otherwise not 100% clear on the Staff's part, which is already somewhat rare to begin with. Moreover, this "defense" can only ever be used once at any given time by each offender.
 
The implementation of such a task introduces a few pros that I believe are pretty beneficial:
 
First and foremost, it gives the whole "permanent" ban for "accidental" free-kills a lot more validity (Think "he should be unbanned because this guy was" argument). It's entirely up to the offender to take matters into their own hands by brushing up on the MotD rules, or risk being permanently banned unless he/she chooses to undergo the 'challenges'. That is to say, instead of taking up the Staff's time, it'll take up the offender's time. If they aren't willing to put the time in, then they obviously aren't interested enough in playing on the Servers.
 
Secondly, it allows DM/DLs to more accurately determine a proper punishment befitting of each particular individual; that is to say, there won't be this "bias" air floating around Ban Protests (not implying there is, but better safe than sorry) against supposed accidental free-kills. Again, the ban time will solely depend on the offender's diligence in brushing up on MotD rules.
 
Third, it can increase efficiency and reduce any wasted-time of our Staff. It can potentially save Staff time from having to actively monitor a particular individual to determine whether or not improvements have been made in the long run and frees up their time on the Servers to do what they do best: moderating.
 
Alright, so before you start saying "but Forest, these offenders could just as easily take a gander at the MotD rules during the time of testing and bull sh*t their way through it!", just hear me out. Even if this is the case, the offender will inadvertently retain some of the information they are reading up on in the MotD whether they like it or not, even if it is their intention to cheat. Besides, even provided that they bull sh*t their way through the test, what is there really to lose? If Joe happens to mass-freekill again and comes back here to bitch and moan "but it was accidental, I swear!" Staff can wash their hands of it since he was already given the opportunity to better himself, right? At this point, Joe has dug his own grave with a shovel of ignorance/arrogance and is now sitting up sh*t creek without a paddle.
 
Obviously this whole thing is far from full-proof, but that is exactly why I've brought it up here. Think of it as a proof of concept more than anything. I'd honestly like to hear what others have to say, whether you agree or disagree, or whether you think it's just stupid as hell and that Staff have enough on their plate as it is.
 
As always, comment, berate, give your opinion, or what-have-you down below. I'm not sorry for this long-ass post.
 
- Dat guy, Forest

In-Game Name:

♔CaptainTeemo♔ Active Division:

Counter-Strike Previously a Member in xG:

No Steam ID:

STEAM_0:1:112113600 Banned:

No Active on Teamspeak:

Yes Time Active on Servers:

like 2-5 hours a day Age:

15 Reasons for Joining:

I want to jion because i am a big fan of the xG JB servers and it is very fun usally i like be on ct for warden and mostly just want to be member cause the servers are fun like the surf servers too. I play on the servers alot and the people on it are nice.

Hey guys, so this idea just occurred to me and I was wondering what everyone else's thoughts were on the matter. I will warn you now though, this whole thing revolves around the willingness of the Higher-Ups to cooperate and take the time to actually quiz each instance.
 
... The post is also really long, so there's that too.
 
:coffee: Alright, let's get started.
 
So, say we have someone who mass free-kills. Now let's say that this particular individual, whom I will now call Joe for the duration of this post, has just posted a Ban Protest stating that it was accidental. Now, all that Staff have to go on is the instance in which Joe mass free-killed in determining whether it was accidental or not. Aside from that, Staff can also do a background check on Joe to determine if he has a past history of free-killing. For the sake of this example, let's just assume that Joe has a clean record; no free-kills or bans dealt otherwise. That leaves Staff with an idea of whether it was accidental or intentional (which I still think should be labelled as such when banning: IE. acc mfk, int mfk), not including situations where it's blatantly intentional. Anyway, let's say that the Staff are unclear and that it appeared to be an accidental slip-up on Joe's part. Should Joe be unbanned on the spot? Should he receive a shorter ban time? It's quite the dilemma as "permanent" bans are becoming notoriously easy to get out of (not including that damn Mona Pizza challenge b/s)
 
Staff will typically butt heads on this matter, and it isn't hard to see why. It's difficult to determine whether a mass free-kill was done with a malicious intent or if it was accidental, and herein lies the problem. So, my suggestion (or theory, whichever floats your boat) is that any player who pleas "accidental" (provided that Staff are unsure) can be given a [minimum(?)] week (or less) to brush up on the MotD rules. Once the week(?) has come to an end, the player will then be tested by the Division Manager/Leader(s) (the Ban Protest will remain open) with a pre-determined amount of questions that will [more or less] cover each and every section of the MotD rules. This set of questions will obviously vary for each Division, and should differ from test to test to prevent any "cheat sheets" from being made. After being tested, the DM/DLs will compile the player's percentage of answers correct and will then determine how long the player should be banned for based on their percentage (IE. 0-40% is a permanent ban, 40-50% is a month ban, 50-60% is a two week ban, 70-80%+ is a week ban [% to time is subject to change, discretion of Higher-Ups]).
 
Now, this does seem like a lot of work, but do keep in mind that this sort of testing will only go into effect if an offender pleads "accidental" mass free-kill that is otherwise not 100% clear on the Staff's part, which is already somewhat rare to begin with. Moreover, this "defense" can only ever be used once at any given time by each offender.
 
The implementation of such a task introduces a few pros that I believe are pretty beneficial:
 
First and foremost, it gives the whole "permanent" ban for "accidental" free-kills a lot more validity (Think "he should be unbanned because this guy was" argument). It's entirely up to the offender to take matters into their own hands by brushing up on the MotD rules, or risk being permanently banned unless he/she chooses to undergo the 'challenges'. That is to say, instead of taking up the Staff's time, it'll take up the offender's time. If they aren't willing to put the time in, then they obviously aren't interested enough in playing on the Servers.
 
Secondly, it allows DM/DLs to more accurately determine a proper punishment befitting of each particular individual; that is to say, there won't be this "bias" air floating around Ban Protests (not implying there is, but better safe than sorry) against supposed accidental free-kills. Again, the ban time will solely depend on the offender's diligence in brushing up on MotD rules.
 
Third, it can increase efficiency and reduce any wasted-time of our Staff. It can potentially save Staff time from having to actively monitor a particular individual to determine whether or not improvements have been made in the long run and frees up their time on the Servers to do what they do best: moderating.
 
Alright, so before you start saying "but Forest, these offenders could just as easily take a gander at the MotD rules during the time of testing and bull sh*t their way through it!", just hear me out. Even if this is the case, the offender will inadvertently retain some of the information they are reading up on in the MotD whether they like it or not, even if it is their intention to cheat. Besides, even provided that they bull sh*t their way through the test, what is there really to lose? If Joe happens to mass-freekill again and comes back here to bitch and moan "but it was accidental, I swear!" Staff can wash their hands of it since he was already given the opportunity to better himself, right? At this point, Joe has dug his own grave with a shovel of ignorance/arrogance and is now sitting up sh*t creek without a paddle.
 
Obviously this whole thing is far from full-proof, but that is exactly why I've brought it up here. Think of it as a proof of concept more than anything. I'd honestly like to hear what others have to say, whether you agree or disagree, or whether you think it's just stupid as hell and that Staff have enough on their plate as it is.
 
As always, comment, berate, give your opinion, or what-have-you down below. I'm not sorry for this long-ass post.
 
- Dat guy, Forest

Should have been done earlier. Not only is it highly illegal, it promotes underage gambling and attracts scummy people.

Welcome to Xeno Gamers' forums m8, hope you enjoy your stay in our rather colourful community :coffee: