Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   

Post edit history

Contesting smurf ban

To display differences between versions, select one or more edits in the list using checkboxes and click "diff selected"
Post edit history
Date Editor Before After
6/4/2015 10:59:53 AMEErankAdminAnarchid before revert after revert
Before After
1 - It is not feasible to monitor whether the 'benign' smurf follows their resolution. 1 - It is not feasible to monitor whether the 'benign' smurf follows their playstyle resolutions.
2 \n 2 \n
3 - It is not feasible to ascertain where those resolutions are legitimate in the first place vs when they are a "plausible deniability" cover, except by evaluating trust levels against the individual, which creates perception of lawlessness. 3 - It is not feasible to ascertain where those resolutions are legitimate in the first place vs when they are a "plausible deniability" cover, except by evaluating trust levels against the individual, which creates perception of lawlessness.
4 \n 4 \n
5 - A wide mass of these being tolerated would significantly undermine the accuracy of the balancer, which might be very undesirable given small community size. 5 - A wide mass of these being tolerated would significantly undermine the accuracy of the balancer, which might be very undesirable given small community size.
6 \n 6 \n
7 - [i]It will likely become unfeasible to monitor and exterminate all non-malicious smurf accounts if player count increases significantly[/i] 7 - [i]It will likely become unfeasible to monitor and exterminate all non-malicious smurf accounts if player count increases significantly[/i]
8 \n
9 \n 8 \n
9 Suggested course of action: sit on the rivershore, and wait for the corpse of the dominant paradigm to float by.