TheFierceOwl wrote:
Micky wrote:
To be fair I feel the punishments given for rules do need to be stricter, would literally lower the amount of rule breaks from active and long standing member of the SSRP server. From what I've seen in the past, a player deserving of a long ban for the things they've done would sometimes have the ban reduced due to it being too long.
Makes 0 sense in my opinion, if staff don't want players breaking rules, then they just have to be stricter but within the guidelines, or a whole rework of how a staff member handles a player breaking rules should be handled altogether.
problem is that if you for example rdm for whatever reason do you want to get banned? Nope. They just watch these cunts that are bored to fuck that they just enter any server and fuck around till they get banned its OK and in like 10 or 15 mins they get banned for constant mass rdm .
You're massively missing the point, there is a difference between banning a player with no recents for a singular RDM case and allowing players with over 8 active warnings play on the server whilst breaking rules and get simply awarded a verbal or
warning rather than a ban.
As for myself, I only dispute warnings that I feel is undeserved or unfair from my POV. If the idea of stricter staff members were to be implemented, I'd have 0 problems with the warnings or bans given to me as long as I feel that they're deserved.
A prime example of leniency is a situation that happened a while back where I ended up mass rdming and getting away with a verbal punishment. I had over 50 kills worth of RDM in the space of 5 minutes, my friend which had 0 recents I believe
RDM'd 10 people and got a perm ban. Where is the logic in this?
If people want the rate of rule breaks to lower then all they have to do is be more strict when it comes to rules. Give longer more needed bans to players that deserve it going off of their recent and rules that're being actively broken.