Change 5.4 to perm ban

[rowdyw]

Did not mean the normal 5.4, i ment 'Reselling SRC without permissions'

Recently my SRC got re-sold of my Anti-Cheat by PlayStxtion
He only received 20 warning points but..

He also blackmails me to give credit or he sells
Giving credit was never in the deal
He only wanted credit after the recode of the whole anticheat

I made a ticket for this and they said all they can do is 20 warning points and that stands.
There was a riot in the shoutbox because the guy didnt get banned. We need this changed.

I rather receive a ban then get another SRC leaked of mine.

Proof: https://prnt.sc/vo2a0w​

 

[Geek]

5.4 isn't exclusive to reselling of user resources though. Are you meaning that reselling of user resources should be a perm ban instead regardless of other factors?

 

[rowdyw]

5.4 isn't exclusive to reselling of user resources though. Are you meaning that reselling of user resources should be a perm ban instead?

Oh yeah that is what i ment. Reselling SRC without permissions

 

[Geek]

Oh yeah that is what i ment. Reselling SRC without permissions

I will gladly agree to this then, but I will not agree to 5.4 being changed to 75 warning points.

 

[Jasmine]

5.4 should not be a full on ban as you can get hit with this if you accidentally sell a premium plugin in your setup. I think FoundYourFlow got this warning.

 

[rowdyw]

Guys i ment to reselling SRC without permissions!! Not the full 5.4

 

[Justis]

It is not uncommon for users to accidentally sell something they don’t have the rights to sell, or to redistribute it for free without realizing that they lack the right to do so. It’s also possible that they accidentally include unowned content within a larger product that they do own rights to.

In these scenarios, we need a punishment to issue, because accident or not, they have still violated the rights of another content owner. However, a permanent ban from our website on any user, regardless of whether or not they have an otherwise spotless record, would do more harm to this community than good. You’re not giving anyone the chance to learn from their mistakes and right their wrongs by instantly blacklisting them. Mistakes do happen.

That said…

5.4 violations are currently met with a 20 point warning in any instance where a user redistributes a product on our website without right. Unless I’m presented a convincing argument for otherwise, I am in favor of altering our policies to always permanently ban anyone who knowingly and intentionally resells or redistributes someone else’s content without right, be it on or off our site, which is what seems to have occurred here. Although, I have not looked into your situation at all. This is speaking generally.

Thank you for making this suggestion thread so that this can be discussed and considered.

 

[rowdyw]

It is not uncommon for users to accidentally sell something they don’t have the rights to sell, or to redistribute it for free without realizing that they lack the right to do so. It’s also possible that they accidentally include unowned content within a larger product that they do own rights to.

In these scenarios, we need a punishment to issue, because accident or not, they have still violated the rights of another content owner. However, a permanent ban from our website on any user, regardless of whether or not they have an otherwise spotless record, would do more harm to this community than good. You’re not giving anyone the chance to learn from their mistakes and right their wrongs by instantly blacklisting them. Mistakes do happen.

That said…

5.4 violations are currently met with a 20 point warning in any instance where a user redistributes a product on our website without right. Unless I’m presented a convincing argument for otherwise, I am in favor of altering our policies to always permanently ban anyone who knowingly and intentionally resells or redistributes someone else’s content without right, be it on or off our site, which is what seems to have occurred here. Although, I have not looked into your situation at all. This is speaking generally.

Thank you for making this suggestion thread so that this can be discussed and considered.

Are you able to look into this so we can get this person banned?
The issue is this is 100% not an accident and he knows what he is doing if you check the screenshot shown on the thread.
I really hope you are able to ban the person.

 

[Diz]

It is not uncommon for users to accidentally sell something they don’t have the rights to sell, or to redistribute it for free without realizing that they lack the right to do so. It’s also possible that they accidentally include unowned content within a larger product that they do own rights to.

In these scenarios, we need a punishment to issue, because accident or not, they have still violated the rights of another content owner. However, a permanent ban from our website on any user, regardless of whether or not they have an otherwise spotless record, would do more harm to this community than good. You’re not giving anyone the chance to learn from their mistakes and right their wrongs by instantly blacklisting them. Mistakes do happen.

That said…

5.4 violations are currently met with a 20 point warning in any instance where a user redistributes a product on our website without right. Unless I’m presented a convincing argument for otherwise, I am in favor of altering our policies to always permanently ban anyone who knowingly and intentionally resells or redistributes someone else’s content without right, be it on or off our site, which is what seems to have occurred here. Although, I have not looked into your situation at all. This is speaking generally.

Thank you for making this suggestion thread so that this can be discussed and considered.

"However, a permanent ban from our website on any user, regardless of whether or not they have an otherwise spotless record, would do more harm to this community than good. You’re not giving anyone the chance to learn from their mistakes and right their wrongs by instantly blacklisting them. Mistakes do happen."

I thought you were the ine preaching no tolerance to Beer on his ban...

 

[Justis]

"However, a permanent ban from our website on any user, regardless of whether or not they have an otherwise spotless record, would do more harm to this community than good. You’re not giving anyone the chance to learn from their mistakes and right their wrongs by instantly blacklisting them. Mistakes do happen."

I thought you were the ine preaching no tolerance to Beer on his ban...

Beer intentionally utilized a backdoor to access someone’s server and cause damage to their data.
We have zero tolerance for intentional and malicious use of malware.
Keep the comparisons fair at least. Nothing about his case was an accident.

 

[rowdyw]

Beer intentionally utilized a backdoor to access someone’s server and cause damage to their data.
We have zero tolerance for intentional and malicious use of malware.
Keep the comparisons fair at least. Nothing about his case was an accident.

Tell me if you did ban the guy please, i really need to get this over with.

 

[Justis]

Tell me if you did ban the guy please, i really need to get this over with.

This suggestion thread is for discussing a future change to a policy. It’s not for handling a specific case.
That will need to be handled within your ticket. Do feel free to request that it is escalated to me, and I’ll keep it open until a decision on this is made. We will be unable to issue anything harsher than the warning which was already issued until a point comes where the community has voted to permanently ban intentional redistribution without right (which I believe they should), and Mick accepts the suggestion thread.

 

[Diz]

Beer intentionally utilized a backdoor to access someone’s server and cause damage to their data.
We have zero tolerance for intentional and malicious use of malware.
Keep the comparisons fair at least. Nothing about his case was an accident.

How is this case not showing malicious intent?

How when I made a ticket for people sending my source around was I told it's not leaking because it wasn't public but again the intent was proven to be clearly malicious.

https://gyazo.com/cc3bccd17c4c4925fd19ed887207e648

This site is anything from fair, I have given up.

 

[Justis]

How is this case not showing malicious intent?

How when I made a ticket for people sending my source around was I told it's not leaking because it wasn't public but again the intent was proven to be clearly malicious.

https://gyazo.com/cc3bccd17c4c4925fd19ed887207e648

This site is anything from fair, I have given up.

I believe I specifically stated that I believe malicious intent was shown in the example he gave, and that it would result in a ban if we alter the policies as I’ve suggested in my response. I’m not sure why you would be claiming that I suggested otherwise.

You were given that response because our leaking ban requires that the content be made accessible to the public.
Privately sharing something with someone doesn’t meet that criteria, and so a leaking ban could not be placed.
This thread is suggesting that we permanently ban anyone who violates 5.4 with malicious intent, in other words, we would be able to ban not just for leaking, but for redistributing something without right as well.

This thread was made because the OP was dissatisfied with our current policies and took the initiative to suggest a change to them. Had you done the same, I likely would have responded in the exact same way that I’ve responded to him. Favorably, and with a solution that, if implemented, would have ensured that no malicious redistribution without right could be punished with anything less than a ban.

Changes to policies don’t happen within tickets or reports. That is a place where current policies are merely enforced. No staff member can spontaneously decide to start doing things different than how they are instructed to.
Suggestion threads are where everyone can contribute their ideas and wishes for the site’s future, and where change begins.
Every user is welcome to create one if they see room for improvement in our enforcement. I’ve made many. I will continue to make many. But I can’t make them all.

 

[rowdyw]

I believe I specifically stated that I believe malicious intent was shown in the example he gave, and that it would result in a ban if we alter the policies as I’ve suggested in my response. I’m not sure why you would be claiming that I suggested otherwise.

You were given that response because our leaking ban requires that the content be made accessible to the public.
Privately sharing something with someone doesn’t meet that criteria, and so a leaking ban could not be placed.
This thread is suggesting that we permanently ban anyone who violates 5.4 with malicious intent, in other words, we would be able to ban not just for leaking, but for redistributing something without right as well.

This thread was made because the OP was dissatisfied with our current policies and took the initiative to suggest a change to them. Had you done the same, I likely would have responded in the exact same way that I’ve responded to him. Favorably, and with a solution that, if implemented, would have ensured that no malicious redistribution without right could be punished with anything less than a ban.

Changes to policies don’t happen within tickets or reports. That is a place where current policies are merely enforced. No staff member can spontaneously decide to start doing things different than how they are instructed to.
Suggestion threads are where everyone can contribute their ideas and wishes for the site’s future, and where change begins.
Every user is welcome to create one if they see room for improvement in our enforcement. I’ve made many. I will continue to make many. But I can’t make them all.

Any update on this ban?

 

[Justis]

We’ve gone ahead and rolled out an update to our current enforcement policies for violations of rule 5.4 to require permanent bans be issued whenever the violator knowingly sells or redistributes something without right.

The previous enforcement of 20 warning points will only apply in cases where there is no conclusive evidence that the violator was aware that they were selling or redistributing something without right.

Read here for an explanation as to why we’ve made these adjustments:

It is not uncommon for users to accidentally sell something they don’t have the rights to sell, or to redistribute it for free without realizing that they lack the right to do so. It’s also possible that they accidentally include unowned content within a larger product that they do own rights to.

In these scenarios, we need a punishment to issue, because accident or not, they have still violated the rights of another content owner. However, a permanent ban from our website on any user, regardless of whether or not they have an otherwise spotless record, would do more harm to this community than good. You’re not giving anyone the chance to learn from their mistakes and right their wrongs by instantly blacklisting them. Mistakes do happen.

That said…

5.4 violations are currently met with a 20 point warning in any instance where a user redistributes a product on our website without right. Unless I’m presented a convincing argument for otherwise, I am in favor of altering our policies to always permanently ban anyone who knowingly and intentionally resells or redistributes someone else’s content without right, be it on or off our site, which is what seems to have occurred here. Although, I have not looked into your situation at all. This is speaking generally.

Thank you for making this suggestion thread so that this can be discussed and considered.

This change is effective immediately and will apply to any currently ongoing cases but not retroactively to closed ones.
Since this was merely an enforcement adjustment on our side, the rules have remained unchanged.

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll move this to accepted.