'Land Tennant' is also banned lol

The team doesn't hand out details of cases as you well know. If you have any complaints about the way his case was handled please feel free to send an email to [email protected] or to Kestas.

What business is it of yours? If he was banned, there was a reason for it.

To answer jmo, I have sent an email.

To answer abge and jimgov, I am concerned because I think the site's goal is to create a welcoming community for this great boardgame, and to provide a space for interesting discussion about a variety of topics. I think having fair and transparent moderation is an important part of that so I'm curious to why a new player would be harassed and banned. I am particularly concerned about this case because this Landowner guy was PMing me before he got banned and I am curious to know what happened. If he was a multi, I apologize for this thead and congratulate you guys on finding a cheater. If he wasn't a multi, I think the community should get some sort of explanation. I also don't understand the ban message in his profile -- what does "meta / invalid email" mean? how was his email invalid? how can you meta without playing a game?

Jmo, don't you usually indicate whether a player was banned because of multi'ing or something else? I am not asking for your evidence or details of the case.

Yeah, but why do you start by claiming he wasn't a multi when you clearly have no idea if that's true?

@Frank - to answer your question as to what "invalid email" means, in our warning emails, we give people 3 days to respond. In practice, I like to give them a week. If we don't hear a response by then, we have every right to ban the account based on rule number 8. That's simply the label we use for those cases.

Thanks for your quick reply, goldfinger0303. I did not know that not responding to emails in 3 days was a bannable offense. Has anyone been banned for this infraction before? Should I notify you if I ever plan on going without internet access for a long weekend? Thanks for clarifying.

@abge: because his profile message doesn't indicate he's a multi. Usually, when you ban a multi, it will say so. Was he a multi?

@Frank

I have no idea if he was a multi, but neither do you. That's all I was trying to say.

Frank, the mods would only be sending you emails if you were active on the site so "I didn't have internet access" would be a total bullshit excuse.

Also, while not the case here, multis don't have to play. Having two accounts on the site, whether they play or not, is a bannable offense under multi rules.

People get banned here all the time. The mods don't tell us why, they just do it. Why should this case be any different?

Fair enough. I guess I was using hyperbole to get some eyeballs on my thread. I hope that error doesn't distract from my larger point about treatment of new users and moderator transparency. Congrats on the new job!

I would hope that in addition to the email, there is also a PM saying "check your email", right? Because I don't use my normal everyday email for this site, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

But landowner, seriously ... We all kinda knew he was on borrowed time.

Draug, I know multi's dont have to play. If you had read my original post, you might have seen that I said he couldn't be a meta because he didn't play. Interesting point about only emailing active players -- except that this user wasn't playing any games so why should he be expected to check the site email address regularly?

Why do you say that, Philcore?

Why are you so concerned? I mean, really. Why? If this is another mod collusion thread.....grrrrrrrr

+1 philcore

I answered your question in my second post in the thread, jimgov. Thanks!

@frank, did you see the tyranny thread? look it ip, probably on the previous page by now. I won't repeat what I said there, as I'm still on parole for it, but go back and read it and you'll see why I say that.

Before I say anything else, I want a mod to answer a question for me. I think I've got the whole cheating thing down. Not me personally. Just how people get banned for it. Lets say, for instance, that someone knows that someone is performing a bannable offense. Admits to knowing it. But they did not have anything to do with it. Is that person in any way running afoul of site rules?

@Frank,philcore - we do not PM them. As it says on our profiles, we do not handle mod business via PM, so asking every player via PM to check their email would invite them to protest their case via PM - taking away from our ability to enjoy this site. We are players here too, you know. Also, it would be cumbersome. Some emails are to over 30 users at a time, so you would imagine what a pain that would be to contact each one via PM as well? And we have many, many cases open.

And yes, Frank, we have banned others with that as well.

@Phil: Yes, I saw that thread. It featured a new player express his concerns in a thoughtful and articulate way (although with an unfortunate and hyperbolic thread title), followed by a bunch of veterans acting in a very unwelcoming manner and ironically breaking site rules themselves.

@jim - no, you are not running afoul of site rules if you are aware of cheating but do not report it. We would hope you do the right thing and report it though :)

Thanks for the information, goldfinger0303. If the player then responds to your email and explains his tardiness, is he then automatically unbanned? Or is a failure to answer an email (due tolack of internet access, "real life" concerns, etc) a permanent exclusion from the website?

Not necessarily. They must satisfactorily answer our questions in order to be unbanned. But if you look at the profile of the player who started the Egypt moves thread, you'll see its possible to be reinstated for being tardy.

Cool. Thanks for all the explanations, Goldfinger0303. I hope Landowner's negative initial experience will not deter him from returning to the website -- it appeared that he had the potential to be a valuable contributor to the webdip community.

@frank, well whether you agree with the veterans or not, you at least know why I said what I said here (which you just asked about), because I said it there.