Kotaku: banning

Kotaku's New Tool: The Straight Razor of Disemvoweling

Brian Crecente — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 10:00:00 MDT

I think it's fair to assume that everyone on Kotaku is very familiar with the Banhammer, wielded now with force by Shiraz. But I've never been totally happy that our only options for comment management is to either do nothing or ban someone. In fact for months, maybe years, I've been asking tech to whip something up that would allow us to warn users that they are tip-toeing into banhammer country, traipsing into the cave of the angry comment moderator.

My suggestion was that we create an opposite to that fancy star you get for being an exceptionally insightful commenter. Maybe a grey dunce hat or an exclamation point. Well, neither have come to fruition (yet). But I still have hopes.

Yesterday afternoon there was a knock at the front gate of Kotaku Tower. When I opened the doors I discovered a small box sitting on the splintering doorstep. Inside, a straight razor. And not just any straight razor, but a straight razor of disemvoweling. With a flick of the wrist troublesome commenters have all of the vowels of a post sliced free. Consider it a warning, because there aren't too many people who can survive more than one dance with the razor.

How Not To Get Banned: A Primer [Kotaku]

Teachers Still Demanding Bully Ban

Mike Fahey — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 08:20:31 MST

Haven't we been over this already? A year and a half after the release of the original game, a coalition of teachers' unions in the U.S., Canada, Britain, Australia, South Korea and the Caribbean are urging retailers to ban Bully: Scholarship Edition from store shelves.

"We're asking retailers to be responsible," Emily Noble, president of the Canadian Teachers' Federation, said yesterday. "Yes, they can sell it and make a buck out of this, but is this the kind of marketing that they want to be [doing], selling games that glorify violence?"

I'd daresay that's exactly the sort of marketing that video game retailers want to be doing. This reborn ban Bully movement is possibly a result of the huge outbreak of violent bullying that completely failed to occur after the release of the original game, despite prognostication of doom, gloom, and wet-willies.

Teachers demand ban on bullying video game [globeandmail.com]

Microsoft: No One Gets Banned For Halo 3

Mike Fahey — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:40:35 MDT

Please make it stop already. First Pro-G says a Microsoft rep told them Xbox Live accounts would be banned for playing Halo 3 early. Then another rep told them that was only Microsoft employees. Finally an official statement has shown up on the site, backed up by our own communications, stating that no one is getting banned at all.

"We can confirm that Microsoft is not taking any action (such as banning Xbox Live accounts) against gamers who are playing Halo 3 before the official street date. Any rumours or speculation to the contrary are false," reads the statement issued by Microsoft this evening.

This concludes our news - less news - no news hat trick. We now return you to your regularly schedule program.

Microsoft issues official statement over Halo 3 banning [Pro-G]

Halo 3 Ban Only For MS Employees

Mike Fahey — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:20:57 MDT

Earlier we reported that UK gaming site Pro-G had been in touch with Microsoft who had told them flat out that playing Halo 3 before launch day would get users banned from Xbox Live, whether or not they play the game while connected to the service. Pro-G has since been contacted by another Microsoft representative, who clarified to the site that the ban only applied to Microsoft employees who played the game early. It seems odd that a representative of the company would make such a huge mistake when talking to a popular gaming news site, doesn't it? I'm suspecting that this might have been a policy that quickly proved so unpopular that it changed in a rapid fashion. Either way, unless you work for Microsoft, game on!

Microsoft backtracks on Halo 3 LIVE ban threat [Pro-G - Thanks msane]

Xbox 360: Banning Consoles Not the Way to Go

Maggie Greene — Sun, 20 May 2007 14:30:12 MDT

The banning of consoles rather than accounts on modded 360s has been a hot topic as of very recently, and PlayNoEvil has their own take - it's going to be a PR nightmare.

I tend to argue strongly against banning. It is directly expensive and can have "highly entertaining" unforeseen consequences ....
What should Microsoft do?

That is at least a 3 beer question.

Perhaps so - I guess we'll find out. Maggie Greene

Xbox 360 Exploit Crackdown via Xbox Live - Good Idea or Not?

Blizzard's Tough Love

Brian Crecente — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 14:00:04 MDT

CNet has an interesting story up about the difficulty in striking a fair balance between banning too many people and not banning enough in a massively multiplayer online game.

In this case, they're talking World of Warcraft.

On the one had you have gamers like 14-year-old "Zak" who claims he was banned for being too good. Blizzard suspected him of power leveling with cheats and banned him, but he claims he's just good at the game.

Then you have other players who tell CNet they think Blizzard is doing a fine job. In between you have Blizzard who says they are very careful about their use of the ban stick.

"For any account that is suspected of breaking the (terms of service) and/or the (end-user license agreement), we conduct a very thorough investigation before the actual ban takes place," Shon Damron, a Blizzard spokesman, wrote in an e-mail to CNET News.com. "In order to ensure that no ban is made without good reason, this system has been extensively refined and contains numerous safeguards."
Blizzard keeps "thorough records of any account-related actions, and we don't show any unusual recent banning-related activity," Damon added.

It points to what I would think is one of the most difficult problems developers must face when creating and maintaining an MMO: The players. Brian Crecente

'World of Warcraft' bans raise players' ire [CNet]

A Public Commentor Execution

Brian Crecente — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 09:28:37 MST

As you may or may not know, many of Gawker's other sites do public executions, ripping away a person's commenting access publically while also shaming them with jibes about their family ancestory, currently living arrangements and, if necessary, their general appearance.

I've never been one to like such things. I love our readers and when, on that infrequent occasion, one of them happens to go astray by, for instance, posting "this isn't news" or "I slept with your wife" I typically send out our silent but deadly brood of Ninja monkeys to dispatch them with speed and effeciency. Few, besides the poster, ever know what happened.

But today we have a special case. A spammer. A lackey. A sycophant. (Actually, I don't even know what that means, but I like the sound of it.)

And for this one occasion we've decided to cage up the monkeys and bring out the pirates. Yes, it's time for a someone to walk the plank... I considered dropping him off on the shores of IGN and sailing into the sun, but I'm not a cruel man.

For the crimes of:

Spamming Kotaku and really pissing off the readers, singing the praises of a really, really shitty game, not bothering to try and at least disguise his spam as something suitable for the stories he's posting in, begging people to play Left Behind, pretending that Left Behind is anything but the bible-thumping creation of a bunch of Croatian sweat shop coders, being a ultra super douche lord

I sentence SJR to have his commenting tongue plucked from his screaming mouth and his still writhing body to be tossed from the side of the Goodship Kotaku.

May God have mercy on his soul.