Battle Server Support (NOT FOR BAN APPEALS; PM senior staff)
View Single Post
May 21st, 2013 (10:24 AM). Edited May 21st, 2013 by flight.
Join Date: Apr 2005
In general my opinion on this is enforce some sort of limit on alts but also not get too strict/harsh in the process if that makes sense. Anyway that's just my opinion- but I could probably be convinced that this whole limiting alts thing is a bad idea, if someone provided good reasons with evidence to back it up.
Here's what I can gather from looking at this thread so far:
It is possible that, perhaps, some might find recognizing who people are via alts. I'll give you that much: sometimes it is. Sometimes it can be difficult to recognize who a user is unless they specifically tell you. I echo a lot of the users in this thread who say that yeah, you can
tell who people are by how they type, but not always. But here's why doing anything about it would be bad:
We, as staff of the server, are put in a difficult position when it comes to enforcing new rules. Generally, we don't, and a discussion has never really come up (aside from one, but that's a different discussion altogether) about any kind of rule changing whatsoever, and when it's done, we know for a fact that people are going to feel uncomfortable with whatever rule changes. That's pretty much a given, seeing as how it's pretty much happened before.
Now, we do have an option. We can tell people to just deal with it, but that wouldn't really be a professional way to go about with things, wouldn't it? It would also make us look..."bad", in a sense. Inconsiderate to others emotions about the issue, things of that nature. Therefore, whenever something does get implemented, we do get criticized for it, and end up having to bend over for the userbase.
Now, what does this have to do with alts? Let me explain.
Alts are something that's pretty much invaluable (from my observations, I can be wrong) at our server. From the top of my head, a good 2/3rds of the server uses them (arguably 3/4s, but leaving it at a reasonable number). The problem being that when your dedicated server regulars complain about a rule they're not happy with, especially something that they take seriously like alternate accounts, we're in a hard position to decide on "which side to take", in other words, or what decision to make. No one is going to be entirely pleased with the outcome because alts will always exist, they will always be made, and people are going to be confused regardless.
...Let me reiterate that: Again, they're
always going to be made
. Limits or not. Even my "one alt a month" plan. For those of you who are a bit lost on that, let me explain.
My proposal is that...say, with the alts I just created (Dragonite/Waterfalls), I would have to keep those for at least a month before changing them again. Though to be truthful, It's very possible that I can still confuse people by changing to another alt each and every month. It's just something that happens. Even though it's a worst case scenario (and something that I try to avoid doing, being honest here), a lot of our userbase take alts seriously to the point where this is possible, although chances of this happening are rather slim seeing as that they try not to be too terrible with them. In fact, when new alts are made, I notice people tend to stick with them as their mains for quite a bit, so maybe this could work, who knows?
The point being: When people change to a new name, it's natural reaction to be confused at first. /alts and /whois doesn't exactly explain everything all the time, and that's the sad fact about it. Unless you directly ask who they are, you're going to have to either figure it out yourself or from another person. Asking is a
, yes, but then again, the majority of going through life is a hassle, so I think asking a question is very minor consequence in comparison.
Also, I do agree that this is arguing over quite a minor issue. u__u;;;
Also Known As:
View Public Profile
Send a private message to flight
Find all posts by flight
Find threads started by flight