Ban Request Format

[TimmyTheTauren]

Regards requests such as viewtopic.php?f=8&t=18627

I already know the outcome of the suggestion, you guys are bias to your format and won't bother to listen to reason regarding it. I'll proceed regardless, as I just seem to be repeatedly warned for including the same information in a different, easier, more clear adaptation.

I ask that the format be regarded as a guideline rather than a demand. Still include it automatically, whatever you want to do, just don't warn and auto deny users for using a slightly different rendition that includes the same information.

I'll include the conversation before the topic or posts gets deleted.
[spoiler=]

@TimmyTheTauren fix your post or I'll deny it. We have those fields for a reason, I'll spell those out to you if you really want me to.

(edit) To clarify, passive-agressive insulting in ban requested is not accepted. Revise it if you want the request to be taken seriously.

Not sure you deleted my post when you offered to spell it out for me.

I'll accept that offer, please spell out why those fields are so crucial.

I did not delete your post, arty did, and he did it because he wanted you to PM it. But since this is directly related to the topic, I will post this explanation here, since more need to see it than just you (and also since I made my first offer publicly).

Your WarCraft III username is good because we need it so we can know not to ban that username if we find something that you did wrong ingame. Some people have their WC3 name and forum name the same, but a lot of users do not. We should not have to do any research to find out what your ingame name is.

Violator's username is good because many people do not write it in title, or there are so many violators that not all of them can be listed. Also some people put unrelated stuff like "ban this dude plz" in the title instead of the username of violator.

Game name is not really necessary for most requests, but a lot of people are unable to find stats page or misinterpret the stat-page link section and link a user's statpage or something, so if a user is actually trying to fill out the format well and can't do statspage, we can find it for them with the gamename.

These do not apply to your specific request, but they do apply to requests in general.

Think of it like this: There are some requests that do not need the Time of Incidents section filled out to be processed, but we do not remove Time of Incidents as a section. In the same way, there are some users like you who have the same username as forum account, fill out the title, and know how to find statspages, but we don't remove those three as sections.

It takes, what, a total of three seconds to fill out your username and the violators username? It takes another three seconds to open up the statspage, copy the title, and paste it. It's not that hard. I do it for all of my requests I post, you can too.

Also the passive-agressive flaming of the template in the opening post is annoying. This, imo, is the main problem with your request. Show some respect.

So, fix it please.

Almost all of your explanation is in regards to inexperienced users. My original assessment of the usefulness of the ban request format stated that it works great as an outline, however should not be required to a point where a request will be denied if it is not used, and denied even if all the required info is presented.

This is my complaint, this is my confusion. I simply put all the required information that the format calls for in an easier to read, less cluttered format. If any of your mods cannot understand the information I had put in my previous ban requests, I suggest immediate removal as your moderators have down syndrome.

Yes, it's not difficult to fill out the full thing. However since the whole thing is unnecessary, I have no need to do so, regardless of difficulty. Just because something isn't very hard to do, do you do it?

Think of it as not properly using the English language. Do people often shorten words such as "you" to "u" and phrases such as "away from keyboard" to "afk"? I am merely using the same protocol with your ban request format. I include the point while using less text in a simpler manner.

Perhaps you should start forum warning people for not using proper grammar?
----
Lastly and off topic to what I am trying to prove, I'd like to alert you that this is the internet. I can with 100% confirmation tell you that there are people you will find annoying on the internet, people you do not enjoy. Think of them as a learning experience. Besides, don't act like the staff is a team of players who possess immense amounts of respect. I see many blues, greens, even red's insulting common members on the forum, the chat, as well as in-game. Don't get me wrong, I don't find this unacceptable in any way. Trolling is a natural part of the gaming environment.

I apologize if my "passive-aggressive flaming" has annoyed you, but you should learn to deal with it. Although, I will humor you and make it more to the point.

Either way this is not the place to debate the format. Want to debate the format or the rules? Go to Suggestions.

What you have is better but it's still not fixed. Does it REALLY matter? No, but you just seem to be doing it to cause trouble, as typing "TimmyTheTauren" is shorter than typing "Look to your left", the same with violator's name. As an ex-staff you should be setting a good example etc etc...
Bottom line is fix it or it will be filed in the circular bin

[/spoiler]

[EdgeOfChaos]

How is taking the time to bold three of the section, and then writing longer entries in the other section (Ex: Look to your left instead of TimmyTheTauren) more efficient?

The format's there because it is easy to read and includes all the information to make our job easier. It also gives the ban requests consistency. Getting rid of the format would not be good, some users will be lazy and just write "ban this guy for MH" or something.

It takes 5 seconds to fill out the "unnecessary" (as you call them) fields of the format, and it makes our job easier. I don't get what the big deal is.

[TimmyTheTauren]

The bolding, and remarks regarding clicking and or looking was to show that the current format has a lot of unneeded fields, it is not something I mean by my previous ban requests. viewtopic.php?f=24&t=17773

Do you read?

Still include it automatically, whatever you want to do, just don't warn and auto deny users for using a slightly different rendition that includes the same information.

The deal is I'd rather not fill in information twice as well as information I don't have to.

[Yondaime]

Your Warcraft III Username: (You answer: Look to the left) This is so we know who is posting, you say look to the left but my name is Yondaime, my wc3 username is Yondaime_4th... it could be different for alot of other people. We have their WC3 username to make sure that they are in the game and with the violator.

Violator's Warcraft III Username: (You answer: Information is in the topic title) This is just so we know who you are reporting, also it is much easier to just type it out, or copy and paste it rather than saying "The information is in the topic title. That is just pure sass too the moderator doing the job. Your an ex mod, you know that format is important.

Game name or map name: (You answered click the link) What would happen if it was the wrong link, we then would have to go into your games and check, that is why we also have the other 2 things. Without all the pieces we cannot complete it. If I say click the stats link and it give you NWU -sdsm #46, but it was the wrong game. Then were just not going to bother. With that extra piece of information if you say, game was NWU -sdsm #53, then we can easily search it. Its more of something to back you up if you accidentally make a mistake.

The other two you had in bold, yes those are important.

Any further thoughts: This helps us if you want to be nice and explain the situation more thoroughly , or ask any other questions. It could be reworded perhaps but otherwise I believe it is ok.

[EdgeOfChaos]

So make a request to change the template (like I did here viewtopic.php?f=43&t=13380)

Your "slightly different rendition" was not good.
1) The first ones you posted, with no format at all and one sentence, did not include all the info that is currently asked for.
2) The second one was used just to annoy us.

To be honest, you're just doing this to annoy us. You know we like the format so you intentionally do your own thing. Just stop that, you don't have to always stir up unnecessary drama.

BTW, yondaime definitely has a point. Read that ^^^^.

[Yondaime]

Also, take this for example, why do we have the Users Warcraft III username in the topic title as well? Perhaps there are more than one request for him about the same game, or if he has done more violations it helps us with getting things done fast and efficient. I have seen 3 requests before on the same person for the same game, I processed two of them and did one of them. Bang 2 requests gone basically because I could sort them out easily.

[TimmyTheTauren]

Your Warcraft III Username: (You answer: Look to the left) This is so we know who is posting, you say look to the left but my name is Yondaime, my wc3 username is Yondaime_4th... it could be different for alot of other people. We have their WC3 username to make sure that they are in the game and with the violator.Again, guideline, if you fall under this category - by all means include your name. Why your forum name is different than in-game is beyond me, but hey that's up to you.

Violator's Warcraft III Username: (You answer: Information is in the topic title) This is just so we know who you are reporting, also it is much easier to just type it out, or copy and paste it rather than saying "The information is in the topic title. That is just pure sass too the moderator doing the job. Your an ex mod, you know that format is important.If they included the stats link, violator name, and time of offense, I don't care what format they use. The information is in the topic title, I don't see why I have to type it again in the topic body text.

Game name or map name: (You answered click the link) What would happen if it was the wrong link, we then would have to go into your games and check, that is why we also have the other 2 things. Without all the pieces we cannot complete it. If I say click the stats link and it give you NWU -sdsm #46, but it was the wrong game. Then were just not going to bother. With that extra piece of information if you say, game was NWU -sdsm #53, then we can easily search it. Its more of something to back you up if you accidentally make a mistake.I won't give the wrong link?

The other two you had in bold, yes those are important.

Any further thoughts: This helps us if you want to be nice and explain the situation more thoroughly , or ask any other questions. It could be reworded perhaps but otherwise I believe it is ok.Yes, if the occasion calls for further thoughts, by all means include them.

All of these fall under scenario based situations, not concrete information every request needs. Again I reiterate the format as a guideline, with these extra fields added on a case to case basis.

[Yondaime]

Scenario based, then why not just have it for every scenario, you are talking about a possible 30 seconds of extra typing, that is it. It is not that hard so I do not see why your are whining about it.

[TimmyTheTauren]

Um Yondy pls show some respect - Edge

Because it's unnecessary. That's the only reason I need.

[Yondaime]

Well the only reason you have is not good enough at all.

There is no point, it is necessary to have it, if you even bothered to read my post for where it shows an explanation in red you will see why. We like to have efficient requests. A requester may make 1 request that day along with others but it is still only 1. A moderator has to do up to 5 requests or as many as they want but it is more then 1 person requests. Unless you are doing every single request then you can suck it up and take the extra 30 seconds to type a little extra information for us it is not that hard.

Archived.