Not Planned CS JB Blacklisting Repeated Offending CTs

Spencer

Spencer

Poster
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
204
We all know or have had experiences with CTs who deliberately disrupt the server and break the rules. I suggest we add a 3-strikes policy. If you are CT banned three times (3 strikes is arbitrary. Possibly more bans should be permitted before you are blacklisted or if you break certain rules multiple times you are blacklisted) you are automatically blacklisted from CT side until you make an appeal for your ban, which will have to be accepted. Other Jailbreak servers do this and my experience with CTs is much more positive overall due to the rotation of CTs.

Maybe we don't want a more positive experience though. Jailbreak is about being in a prison. It's more like juvie with weeaboos, though.
 
Upvote 3
+1. Without going into how admins are directed to enforce the rules; I think this is a good tool to have in the tool belt. I believe this really would be useful.
 
Good suggestion , only thing instead of applying on forums (because there will be so much of that) , maybe they get 3 or 7 or 10 days CTban :D
 
If there's a consistent amount of server disruption via a CT, I fail to see why we don't just ban him from the server outright.
 
kuantum said:
If there's a consistent amount of server disruption via a CT, I fail to see why we don't just ban him from the server outright.
Click to expand...
This issue is that these disruptive CTs do one of two things.
1. They break rules repeatedly that don't quite constitute for a clean ban. It's much more tricky to ban someone for being toxic when it is never specified in the rules to not be toxic.
2. They do not get banned for their punishments
 
Spencer said:
This issue is that these disruptive CTs do one of two things.
1. They break rules repeatedly that don't quite constitute for a clean ban. It's much more tricky to ban someone for being toxic when it is never specified in the rules to not be toxic.
2. They do not get banned for their punishments
Click to expand...

Key word: disruptive.

We ban people who are constantly disrupting the server.
 
kuantum said:
If there's a consistent amount of server disruption via a CT, I fail to see why we don't just ban him from the server outright.
Click to expand...

Simon said:
Key word: disruptive.

We ban people who are constantly disrupting the server.
Click to expand...

What if the player in question ONLY is problematic with that specific team?
I mean yeah bans are still justified. But what if they were just not allowed to be that team/role. User is punished but not outright blocked from the community. I can think of a couple of instances where this might be preferable than a ban from every server. It definitely is a tool for a niche amount of players, but I feel this could be added to the CTBan System probably relatively easily.
 
4g0tt3nSou1 said:
What if the player in question ONLY is problematic with that specific team?
I mean yeah bans are still justified. But what if they were just not allowed to be that team/role. User is punished but not outright blocked from the community. I can think of a couple of instances where this might be preferable than a ban from every server. It definitely is a tool for a niche amount of players, but I feel this could be added to the CTBan System probably relatively easily.
Click to expand...

They have the option to only play as T. They have to queue for CT. If it was forced, then sure, I would agree, but queueing for CT to sluff the rules off consistently isn't exactly prime eGO material.
 
Big +1

We used to have a CT Blacklist on the old server. There are people that will typically tread on the ice, and often times admins will fear the backlash from the server if they plain ban them
 
WaSe said:
often times admins will fear the backlash from the server if they plain ban them
Click to expand...
>be admin
>ban player for server disruption
>server gets rowdy
>sm_mute @all
437-4370721_61-kb-png-pepe-giving-thumbs-up-transparent.png
 
WaSe said:
Big +1

We used to have a CT Blacklist on the old server. There are people that will typically tread on the ice, and often times admins will fear the backlash from the server if they plain ban them
Click to expand...
I think it's important to understand these rules won't apply to most CTs, just the toxic ones who like you said, tread on ice. These people are outright disruptive and ruin the experience and this allows staff members to do less work and not fear making the wrong move.
 
Spencer Spencer

To be more transparent with what is currently being reviewed, CS LE is considering bringing back longer CT bans. This is still just being deliberated and there are no guarantees that it will be added in the future.

Nekkk said:
+1 but it sounds like this suggestion I did and they are not going to do such thing :/
Click to expand...
Your previous suggestion was mainly denied because of it being solely permanent CT bans. Personally, I think increasing CT ban length would be beneficial to this community, however, many others have brought very valid counter-arguments as to why we shouldn't allow longer CT bans. Stay Tuned™ ;)
 
+1,

I wouldn't even consider what we do right now a CT ban, more like a CT timeout lol. Most players that get CT bans are repeat-offenders that often complain/DC the moment they get issued one anyways. The problem with the current system is that it's not taken seriously enough to the point where it deters bad player action on the CT team (mainly because of how short the CT bans are), and most assume they will only get server banned for big offenses (MFK for example). Considering how most of the damage to the game mode is done as a CT that decides to not follow the rules, and that CTs can end a round for some1 with the click of a button, it should honestly be looked at as more of an easily revoked privilege than a right to be on that team. Seen so many rounds/rebels get ruined for things like gun plant and out of sight CTs, and I doubt it would happen as much if players knew their access to !g could be suspended long-term because of it. My idea for the strike system would be something along the lines of 15/60/1 week/indefinitely + appealable (for repeat-offenses by the same player in a specific period of time) in conjunction with admin discretion for the one handling the situation.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top