THE BANNED GAME & THE BANNED GAME DEVELOPER.

I was going to reply to everyone individually, but nobody likes quote wars. xD But I'd like you to read my posts again and try to understand what I'm really trying to say (Sorry if I'm not the most eloquent tool in the box. ;P) Because I'm sure there's a way around to all the things you've mentioned, that I've already tried to cover, or we could discuss further, but that still don't invalidate my proposal.

To begin with. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's an actual legal requirement for sites to delete all your stuff if any of the two parties decide to end the "contract"? Because there's little point for it to remain up if you can't no longer have access to it. Most sites hold on to your stuff for a while (for reasons of functionality that I don't really understand or know if they're true) but at the end of the day everything it's deleted automatically. There's usually an e-mail option too, but only if you want your stuff deleted hastily... So, there's that.

Now, to elaborate on that analogy that is floating around. The comparison is actually more accurate than you realize... It goes like this: You take someone else's stuff without their permission (Even if you properly accredit them. That's not the point). You don't know if they would let you using their stuff, but you assume they would because who wouldn't like the extra coverage, right? right? From the two options you could have defaulted to, you have just chosen the wrong one. Because now, if the person doesn't appreciate you taking their stuff, the person has to come to you and let you know that, instead of you going to the person and ask them first, which is the right thing to do.

So, that's all I'm saying. The difference between how things are now and how they should be is minimal. So why the reluctance?

author=alterego
To begin with. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's an actual legal requirement for sites to delete all your stuff if any of the two parties decide to end the "contract"?

This is obviously not actually the case - as you can tell from the fact that your comments don't get deleted the moment you close your browser on websites that don't require an account. And from the fact that news websites and blogs don't remove stories written by people who were fired, and so forth.

However, the terms of service contract doesn't actually end upon the person being banned, anyway. It is perpetual. There is no clause in the RMN terms of service stating that the contract will automatically end upon the user being banned, or under any other circumstances, nor that it can be manually ended by either party.

author=alterego
To begin with. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's an actual legal requirement for sites to delete all your stuff if any of the two parties decide to end the "contract"?

You are wrong. We are not legally required to remove games upon a user being banned.

Because there's little point for it to remain up if you can't no longer have access to it.

This is a different point.

Most sites hold on to your stuff for a while (for reasons of functionality that I don't really understand or know if they're true) but at the end of the day everything it's deleted automatically. There's usually an e-mail option too, but only if you want your stuff deleted hastily... So, there's that.

Which sites do this?

Now, to elaborate on that analogy that is floating around. The comparison is actually more accurate than you realize... It goes like this: You take someone else's stuff without their permission (Even if you properly accredit them. That's not the point).

We haven't taken anyone's stuff. They submit their material of their own volition.

You don't know if they would let you using their stuff, but you assume they would because who wouldn't like the extra coverage, right? right? From the two options you could have defaulted to, you have just chosen the wrong one. Because now, if the person doesn't appreciate you taking their stuff, the person has to come to you and let you know that, instead of you going to the person and ask them first, which is the right thing to do.

We didn't choose the wrong one.
To use your analogy, submitting your game and creating an account are two separate "contracts". A ban is the result of you breaking that second contract. This does not automatically invalidate your game submission contract.

So, that's all I'm saying. The difference between how things are now and how they should be is minimal. So why the reluctance?

Things how they are now are how they should be. So why the persistence?


With regards to principle, two things: bans are rarely permanent, and people can contact me via email if they want to also terminate their gameprofile(s) on RMN.

Imagine if a user gets banned and they have a huge game, maybe one that is featured or currently on the front page. Would Kentona go through all the trouble of removing it if requested?

I think when you submit a game to this website your giving over certain rights to it to the owner of this website. No one forced you to submit it here.

In the case where there is multiple developers I think you would need to have all the developers agree to remove the game. In addition I don't think you can change the users name who developed the game (as someone suggested.) Even if someone is a dick they still have to be recognized for their contribution to that game.

@Kentona: Last time I checked every art site did that; This is very important for many artists, actually. But this line of discussion is probably not worth pursuing at this point anyway... Also, is not so much 'persistence' as it is that I'd like for people to actually entertain the idea, instead of simply reacting to it. But I guess we can't have that on the internet! xD

Btw, you said bans were usually "for forever", but now you say they're not. Probably a typo, I get it now, but that skewed my opinion...

author=Liberty
...only if the lead developer was banned and a complete dick... otherwise it'd stay as it was. As it stands you can't touch the game page at all if you're banned so removing the game isn't possible that way unless you actively plan to get banned and remove it before-hand. The rest of the people on the game can still work on it and update the page.

So if I brought an entire team of people to register on this site, and then if I (the lead dev) got banned the game would face deletion? What if I said it was okay for the other team members to update the games page, and the game itself? Would you need some official word from me, the lead dev?

This is of course breaking the big bad rule, or being a complete bitch or dick.

And so Nouin contacted me and now Konstadin is now "denied"

EDIT:
also alterego edited his post, so my response no longer quite aligns with his. and to clarify, I entertained the idea of denying a user's content after a ban, and then I decided that was not a good idea. (I suppose that by not capitulating immediately it means I didn't consider it. I should be able to make decisions for my site. But I guess we can't have that on the internet! :x)

whoa big typo.

I post too much in too many places. fixed.

E:
the typo is fixed. I am still going to continue posting too much.

E2:
to clarify, most bans are either 1 week or 1 month, depending on the severity of the stupidity of the person earning the ban. 1 year bans are reserved to things that are especially egregious (like abusing your admin powers and changing the featured game to a bad Sonic fangame, for a completely random example). Permabans are for spambots (and demondestiny). Ban evading usually pisses me off and adds a month to your ban.

are you drunk