Re: Another Crazy Idea: The Monthly Player RMT Report
This is already in place. You report someone. If they get banned, they were breaking the ToS. If not, they weren't (at least not in any way SE employees can detect or do anything about).
The only functional difference at all between the current situation and what you propose is inter-player communication. Which doesn't need to involve SE at all. And as someone stated, that's been tried before. It will have the same outcome now: people will post names, other people will talk about those names as well as posting their own, other people will complain about the list's existence, massive arguments will ensue. Eventually, some of those names will be banned (assuming people are reporting them, as they should be now). Some will not.
Anyone who was convinced PlayerX was RMT will take it as validation of their judgment when PlayerX gets banned. They will assume SE is ineffectual or not doing their job when PlayerY does not get banned. Others will take it as proof of an unreasonable witch-hunt.
And that would occur even with explicit statements from SE. PlayerY not getting banned is exactly the same as PlayerY not getting banned and SE saying explicitly "We did not ban PlayerY." The statement isn't going to convince anyone, one way or the other, who couldn't be convinced through simple deduction.
Originally posted by Hyrist
View Post
The only functional difference at all between the current situation and what you propose is inter-player communication. Which doesn't need to involve SE at all. And as someone stated, that's been tried before. It will have the same outcome now: people will post names, other people will talk about those names as well as posting their own, other people will complain about the list's existence, massive arguments will ensue. Eventually, some of those names will be banned (assuming people are reporting them, as they should be now). Some will not.
Anyone who was convinced PlayerX was RMT will take it as validation of their judgment when PlayerX gets banned. They will assume SE is ineffectual or not doing their job when PlayerY does not get banned. Others will take it as proof of an unreasonable witch-hunt.
And that would occur even with explicit statements from SE. PlayerY not getting banned is exactly the same as PlayerY not getting banned and SE saying explicitly "We did not ban PlayerY." The statement isn't going to convince anyone, one way or the other, who couldn't be convinced through simple deduction.
Comment