Ok let's say right now everyone who ever hacked got permabanned. How many active players do you think would be left.. the answer might surprise you.
Let's first go with what I actually proposed. Permaban those who were CAUGHT. That would be those on the ban list, minus those who multi-accounted. I could live with that with no regrets whatsoever.
Clearly the analogy was a little complicated for you so let me explain where I was coming from. See the permaban symbolizes the death penalty because it is an effective killing of the person's dp-life.
Nope, not complicated. Just that the two are not comparable. But let's take your analogy on your terms for a moment.
A. The death penalty is a SEVERE penalty in LIFE. Stealing chips is a relatively MINOR crime in LIFE. Therefore the punishment would not fit the crime.
B. A permanent ban is a SEVERE penalty in DP. Cheating is a SEVERE CRIME in DP as it invalidates the whole game, making it pointless when folks have an unfair advantage over others. Therefore a severe punishment in DP is given out for a severe crime in DP. There is no problem there..
Let's back up to another real world example, this time using posession of drugs and distributing of drugs. Posession of marijuana in most states will get you under a year of jail time or just a fine. distributing of marijuana will get you between 1 and 5 years usually.
Substitute hacks in for drugs and maybe you'll see why your idea makes no sense.
Cheaters kill the game. Those who help cheaters kill the game. We don't need EITHER of them to hang around for one second more than it takes to discover them if we actually value the game. Unlike drug dealing etc. this is not involving jail time or anything of the sort. It is only involving the removal of a privilege.
Flame got banned for hacking before he multi-accounted, should probably check up on that kind of stuff before you tell him what he was and wasn't banned for. And look at him now.. The system worked flawlessly. I see a decent member of the community who is 100% hacks free.
I didn't tell him at all what he was banned for. He raised both scenarios as part of the conversation. I was differentiating between hacking, which my initial proposal addressed, and multi-accounting, which it did not.
As for his reform why would I ever trust him if he twice broke the rules? For all I know he still hacks and hasn't been caught. That would not be a question mark if he were simply banned.
