No reason to make it publicly known who is banned from the forums and who is not. And I believe it is against OOO's own policy to talk about punitive actions against players... and a forum ban is a punitive action.

~Gwen

"Using a forum post to protest a support action, such as a ban, may make it necessary for us to discuss the circumstances of your case in public. We strongly recommend submitting your dispute via the Support Email form instead.
Repeated violations of these guidelines may result in a forum ban, as well as in-game penalties, including warnings, tempbans, or permanent bans."

There

but they dont want bans to be public

You can't just take out chunks. It defeats the purpose.

It says that if you discuss Support Action, anything from warnings to bans, on the forums, conditions depending, it MAY have to be publicly discussed.

i.e Complaining you were banned because [insert discriminatory subject]. They would then have to publicly state the reason for the ban and/or discuss any pressing issues arising from the OP. Otherwise OOO will lose face and much player support.

Therefore it advised not to, to both save OOO a lot of grief and from some stuck up players making themselves look like idiots, riling up the community in the process.

Why am I not surprised?

I suppose it was kinda silly of me to expect you of all people to actually consider something someone else said.

I'll spell it out just once, then I'm out of here. If you're not going to listen like a normal person would, then there's no point saying anything else.

"The purpose that you just made up?"

No, the purpose you so clearly do not see: You take away the meaning of the sentence itself by just citing chunks of it.

For arguments sake, a statement about waffles:
-'Burnt waffles are bad.'

Someone cites a chunk instead of whole sentence: 'Waffles are bad.'

The meaning has changed entirely. Instead of the positive response, taking out parts of a sentence or phrase can invert the meaning.

'"It says that if you discuss Support Action, anything from warnings to bans, on the forums, conditions depending, it MAY have to be publicly discussed."
And nothing more."

Seriously? You're just complaining it doesn't say specifically not to mentioned a player is banned? Do I need to spell it out?

Naturally when someone is banned, and it becomes public knowledge, questions are asked. When questions are asked, views are brought up. When views are brought up, conflicting opinions occur, one of them pointing to OOO being supposedly unfair. Such a case arising, OOO will have to explain the reason for the ban to stop a what could eventually become a player riot.

"Oh dear, do you see Valve losing face from having banned people marked with ranks all over their forums?"

Considering I don't look at Valve forums much, I don't.

Also, OOO is a small company. Although supported by Sega, it still operates somewhat independently. SK is still a fairly small and young game, where even with the claim of more than 3mil accounts, a large number are probably abandoned accounts. Also being F2P, OOO can't afford to allow it's playerbase to shrink by large amount or risk losing the game entirely. Loss of the game = loss of money in investments. Loss of player support = crippling of the Game support.

Valve on the other hand is a much larger company, and can afford to just discard smaller thing or even a few mil players at a time I would suppose. It doesn't need to worry about player-level support as much as SK does, so it doesn't bother.

"It also has nothing to do with my suggestion."

It was in response to post #5, and providing an example of why they would NEED to discuss forum bans in public as opposed to allowing it. They don't ALLOW it, they said they MAY have to deal with it personally should you try. Obviously dependent on the situation, noting all other ban-discussing threads being simply asked to send a support email.

"Does not apply to this."

Further development of my point on why they'd prefer players not whine about their bans on the forums. 'Whine' interchangeable with 'make it common knowledge.'

I'd speak further about how you're still being hostile to posters, unless apathetic which still causes irritation to others, but I already know how THAT'LL turn out.

Being now done here, I will simply leave a -1 and be on my way.

If even after all the spelling out I did for you you can't see it, there's really not much at all that I can help you with.

"Using a forum post to protest a support action, such as a ban, may make it necessary for us to discuss the circumstances of your case in public. We strongly recommend submitting your dispute via the Support Email form instead."

Forum post topic: Support action -> May require them to discuss reason in public.

Keyword: 'May'

Key Phrase of second part: 'Strongly recommend'

i.e: They'd rather not involve the public on the matter.

If you can't read between lines, however far apart they're spaced, well...

I'm outta here. Spent too much time trying to spell out the fairly obvious here already. You don't get it, no longer my problem.

"Naturally when someone is banned, and it becomes public knowledge, questions are asked. When questions are asked, views are brought up. When views are brought up, conflicting opinions occur, one of them pointing to OOO being supposedly unfair. Such a case arising, OOO will have to explain the reason for the ban to stop a what could eventually become a player riot."

Ambiguities:
Assurance of questions being asked: people want to know what happened. Such is the curse of curiosity.
Assurance that people will bring in their views: People naturally attempt to justify/negate arguments with their ideas/values. It would be foolish to assume they won't.
Assurance ideas will conflict: Not everyone will agree on the same thing to the same extent unless they're all being brainwashed.
Assurance someone will blame OOO: Someone always does. With the variety of opinions on the forums, it's inevitable.
Assurance of OOO stepping in to quell the protest: Pre-explained in previous posts. Not my fault if you didn't read it.

Logic.

Now that I'm finally DONE, I'm not going to bother post here anymore. Because what you're going to say will either be something you already said, or some snarky comment about my 'supposed logic' or something of the like.

Third time's a charm, Goodbye.

Arguing over semantics is really just dodging the issue.

I really don't see this as having any positive impact at all. A forum community should be one that's friendly and helpful, not one that revels in the misfortune of others, self-inflicted or not.

Though I will probably get personally attack instead of my idea being attacked I might regret posting my personal opinion here.

I tend to think of these things like this:

Say your back in primary school and you did something that landed you in time-out like stole a cookie before snack time. And someone suggested to the teacher about making a list of people who got time-out this week and what for.

Do you want everyone knowing your business that is none of their business.
Do you want want your whole classroom judging you thinking that one screw up is what you are.

So... yeah I think it's none of our business of who is banned and what they are banned for.

Define string up stuff.

Psycho and Frocus were being nice and gave a valid point.
What did you do?
Completely disregard them -_-

Seriously, you treat anybody that doesn't like your idea like they're stupid.
Hey, how about we have a reasonable discussion for once? :D

Thanks.

We can.
You first.
Apologize.

This is what Paweau wants to do.

This is why the current thread is void.

This is a picture of a baby owl.

Kiddies want to be able to get away with harassing others without having it happen to them while others are punished for their misbehavior. Their world revolves around them while everyone else exists only to serve them.

We need an active administrator around here.

Covering for the fact you don't have anything to prove? Face it, your arguments aside from ones about me being hostile in retaliation are groundless.

That thread was a venting thread for people that were frustrated over particular posters who refuse to listen for whatever reason. 'Forum idiot' being the general naming term. Names were not mentioned, yet a GM disapproved. So a thread like that won't be coming from me again.

Also 'thread'. Singular.

It's funny how you keep calling me the troll, when you reply along the lines of 'argument invalid' to anyone who doesn't support your idea. Also, you threatened to sue me at one point in the thread you hadn't posted in prior to my post. When asked on what grounds, you said something about mocking your 'writings'. Although you had not posted on the thread before I did, you refused to clarify further.

Like I said, you don't have to prove anything because there's nothing to PROVE. Your arguments are all gross exaggerations.

Also: This coming from the guy who believed the suggestions forum was not supposed to discuss ideas, and picked a fight with anyone that said otherwise.

Unless you come up with something worthwhile to argue about, I'm out of here. (Again) All you do is moan about how I keep 'harassing' you, when clearly you just interpret posts how you see fit. Other opinions can go to hell as far as you're concerned.

Poker face? I don't do apathy expression-wise.

"I haven't seen anyone else who is so malicious."

Geez, look in a mirror before you speak will you? You're still the one who gets annoyed and aggressive at other people who think 'non-Paweu-approved' thoughts, no matter where else you point the finger.

You aren't even arguing points anymore, you're just keeping up the 'Psycho's an evil forum monster who's out to get me' routine. It's not funny. It's not even real. Like everything else you've got against me, it's all in your head, twisted out of proportion by your need for some argument to justify your hostility to me.

I believe the baby owl is the only thing productive on this thread. O yeah and all the arguments as to why this is a bad idea.

Final note: it seems to me that these forums aren't as user friendly as some others. I do not claim any knowledge with Drupal or programming but going by the current features I doubt this is possible without the higher ups changing users names.