Proposal to dismiss BAN sharing agreement

Anubhav

After so huge discussion, 1945 cleared that they can't remove the people who are banned since they're their core member of Team. We in GFL understand that and would like to propose NO BAN SHARING Agreement.

In it, No league would be obliged to Disallow people in their clans. That said, There won't be any objections of keeping such players as staffs

Shavy

1945 is ready for it. We will do our best to solve the issue as soon as possible so all leagues can work together as strengths.

MaMere

The reason I put a “like “ on this is this: the vast majority of all the source problems originated with the only group that isn’t participating with this group. The hunting / stalking etc.., though I know little to nothing about that world, all of it seems to flow from one source, and if we are honest, we know the source.

The other conflicts that have emerged are actually personal in nature, it seems. We can eliminate all of the problems by making bans specific to the alliance in all cases.

kuilin

MaMere I don't see how your first point follows at all to demonstrate that bans shouldn't be shared, even assuming it is true.

And for your second point - Personal problems are personal, and affect a very small minority of bans. I don't think how we treat these high-profile bans speaks strongly positively or negatively for whether we should keep ban sharing in general.

Regarding the other argument - People are upset at 1945 admins publicly supporting sync stalking in their personal activities, sometime in the past. This would be the case even if those 1945 admins are not banned, or if we didn't have ban sharing.

kuilin

kuilin People are upset at 1945 admins publicly supporting sync stalking in their personal activities, sometime in the past. This would be the case even if those 1945 admins are not banned, or if we didn't have ban sharing.

^ this point is what I want to stress. Is this true. If ban sharing was not an issue, would everyone here be okay with 1945 having people publicly in favor of sync stalking in their staff list?

MaMere

I believe they support, if indeed they do support, the hunters, because of personal heartburn with admins in other alliances. I don’t know the specifics; I don’t follow such nonsense. From my point of view, such behavior is ridiculous. That is what I mean about it being a personal matter.

Any support whatsoever for hunting is beyond my understanding, but I do and always have understood why there are those who have turned to that path. The level of frustration some have endured, the outright dishonesty of the interactions of the leadership of past….. yeah. I can understand. People wanted to retaliate since there was no legitimate path open for negotiations. All the powers resided in a central place and there was zero transparency when dealing with the central power structure.

This new and improved body is an attempt to correct that, I believe , and allowing us to speak about it, even in couched terms , is a marvelous step forward.

If each alliance placed their own bans, and they were visible, and could be honored but the ban was not one that was compelled to be honored by other alliances, ( at the risk of the other alliance of course) I believe we could manage this conundrum.

But that would require rewriting a portion of the policy, I believe?

katharynehlmanrcw58

It's funny how the person who were friends with villain and co-admin in his band claims that they have no idea about stalking. Just because AFW says they don't stalk 1945 and GFL because they're "fair" doesn't mean that's the truth. If they can't be believed when they say Jashan is a stalker then why should you believe that?

Aurora

If 1945 is not going to remove those Staffs either leave the system, then better we should reject the ban sharing agreement.

@kuilin

kuilin

kuilin I'm not saying this to be contrarian, I genuinely believe that the ban sharing agreement has come under fire only because it is being used to justify 1945 not removing staff members who are banned but people are unhappy about that not solely because of ban sharing. If this is the case, then 1945's banned admins should have nothing to do with this proposal

MaMere

In the future, each alliance can issue bans that pertain to their own alliance, but can be seen by all the other alliances. This will allow the others to either honor the ban, or proceed with due caution, by never allowing that player to have access to sync info, for instance, or to hold a leadership position where they could kick a whole clan.

With the dwindling of coc player numbers, this is a wise move, I believe. We can allow those who are reformed a chance to prove that, where they have no power at all, while helping clans who desperately need players.

Perhaps after a year or more of perfect behavior, the ban can be revisited.

kuilin

I'm not sure how you found a consensus here without any response to my concerns above

Anubhav

kuilin

Our side has been clear. Ban people shouldn't be allowed as staff if we don't allow BAN players in the clan. We had discussion but there was no outcome, 1945 said they will keep those people as staffs and you ignored whole discussion.

Of someone isn't ready to remove the staff, we can't force them. You as CC creator should be the one to do that…We as league admins have to think about maintaining understanding to have peace talks for future matches.

If there is BAN sharing, BAN staffs must not be allowed otherwise the BAN SHARING agreement should be terminated.

Everyone is ready to terminate BAN SHARING agreement and apparently your vote doesn't count in any discussion. So since everyone was ready about terminating BAN SHARING, the discussion was locked.

Either you should ask EVERYONE to properly follow BAN SHARING or just let BAN SHARING be dismissed, as decided mutually by all leagues here….. Having discussion has no point because we have said what we wanted and 1945 said what they wanted to.

All that requires is decision.

Someoneclean765

Kuilin this message verifies I'm the owner of this account. I want my account deleted and gone

kuilin

Anubhav Ban people shouldn't be allowed as staff if we don't allow BAN players in the clan.

I really think this doesn't make any sense. What do the two have to do with each other at all? People are upset at 1945 for having sync stalkers as admins because sync stalking is bad not because of the ban sharing agreement.

Any one person can prevent a consensus, and I'm doing so, because I think this reasoning is nonsensical. If you would like to call a vote and override me, go ahead, but currently, I still believe this will not solve the greater issue, and 1945 will come under fire again for something else, and threaten to leave again, and we will be back at square one. The root problem, after all, is unresolved - that 1945 has past sync stalkers in its administration, and that people dislike that.

Also, consider carefully when I say that most of my motivation for working on the tech stuff is unity between leagues against sync stalkers and people of bad repute. If this motion passes, then what else will be shared between us? Just a technical problem where there is only one system, retrofitted to divide information on league lines?

Anubhav

kuilin

Your argument is nonsensical.

I vote for dismissing Ban sharing agreement

Aurora

kuilin If 1945 is not going to remove those STAFFS either leave the system,

then better we should REJECT THE BAN SHARING AGREEMENT.

ShiningKnight

I agree with Anubhav .

Ban sharing agreement should be removed.

Tarek

I also vote for removal of ban sharing agreement