Board Thread:Community Voting/@comment-26127871-20150731092125/@comment-26127871-20150803185517

Slicer Vorzakh wrote: ShadowOfOblivion7119 wrote: Avalair wrote: ShadowOfOblivion7119 wrote: LilCaSh15 wrote:

ShadowOfOblivion7119 wrote:

LilCaSh15 wrote:

ShadowOfOblivion7119 wrote:

Nightfall395 wrote: ShadowOfOblivion7119 wrote: Goggles99 wrote: B.

If we don't use solid proof to determine if someone is a dupe and should be banned....then... what do we use?? A hunch? A slight suspicion? I can't see how this could be fair or feasible at all... We don't need the dupes to say "Oh hey guys, I'm" and something. We can determine based on their behavior, username and more. We don't need them to just shout "HEY WORLD, I AM" or something. Something like this happened in chat, so I wanted a vote. once again can you acknowledge the existence of cu for once

They are so little, and we don't always have enough time for a CU because they leave before they can be checked! Well then, if they're not causing trouble, you can wait for a CU to come back on. If they are causing trouble, they'll likely be banned anyways. They can cause trouble without directly violating the rules. Then the mods can use the common sense policy to ban them Apparently not, otherwise the problem that sparked this vote wouldn't have happened What problem? :P You weren't on chat. There were a couple dupes that the CM team online couldn't ban because they didn't technically violate any rules officially, and we couldn't 150% prove they were dupes. If you're talking about the incident with me and another mod a few nights ago, we could not have banned them because of the common sense policy. The common sense policy isn't used for excuses to ban people but for excuses not to ban people (or so I'm told). Because we were only 99% sure who he was we couldn't ban him. He was clearly trolling, that should've been enough. Btw, you suggested we made a vote outta this :P