What Constitues a long time POP Ban...
- Thread starter Kanna Hyouko
- Start date
- Status
Rainbowgym
Active Member
Flaming_Spinach said:
I don't think anybody should be afraid to receive a suspension without a reason.
But I agree the way we (4) people were treated is part of the reason people are afraid.
That's also the reason I tried to talk to Mr Nack in the past about it, to explain to them they created a monster, but I was not heard.
Most people who are on this board and received a suspension by PUI, did understand why they received a suspension.
I say most, not all.
In most cases the banned people did not like the penalty but "rested" in it. Which if for me a sign there is a kind of balance.
I can tell you if you really did nothing wrong and you are punished incorrectly, you will fight, fight, fight.
Unless you can live with an invalid (not justified whatever) suspension.
If you are afraid that fighting will extend an invalid suspension, you don't believe that truth will survive (even if it can take long and is a very tough road to follow)
But in case as in ours (4 persons) when you see a large part of your National community is suffering from incorrect decissions, you are a coward in my book if you don't take action.
I really think that NOBODY inside the USA has to be afraid to be punished without getting an explanation.
Even Martin was called by a POP employee as I understood from his topic, so he knows the reason but did not share it I suppose. And that's what anybody has to respect. Sooner or later he will tell what happened, and if not , that's HIS decission. Nobody should demand him or even has a right to.
And for all people so desperate to find out were you can be suspended for:
Theft: 2 years
Leaking information which you should not have acces to in the first place: 2 years.
Spreading dirty links, masked with PUI brand name: 1 year (and possible legal actions)
Raising you middlefinger in front of a POP cameraman during an event surrounded by kids : 3 years
Collusion 6 months-1year
Cheating 1 year.
These are "known" penalties so you can figur out yourself if they are valid in your opinion.
Rulemaster
New Member
oh, so its a good excuse to for banning them? because its not in their "mission statement?"
yeah, PUI shoudn't want players who buy tons of cards, practice the game religiously, and want the game to live on.
its not even the 15+ age group that is getting banned. its the players that are good...in other words LAFONTE. sucks being pro
You really think this is some sort of 'conspiracy' against Lafonte members? =/
Or is it just that said members are the ones demonstrating the types of behavior one can be banned for?
Chicken/egg?
'mom
Or is it just that said members are the ones demonstrating the types of behavior one can be banned for?
Chicken/egg?
'mom
Last edited:
I'm sure I'll once again get heat for saying this, but it is relevant to the topic. It's been said time and time again: POP made a decision to give out cash prizes, whether or not they are scholarship money, it's still a great incentive to play and win at this game. Since they took over in 2004, they made it a competitive game (as if it wasn't) by adding these prizes. We have no say in these prizes, it was soley their decision and it is their responsibility to their consumers and player base to show respect and fairness. Even if your main source of revenue is from people (kids) who don't even play, but rather collect cards by getting their parents to buy them a random pack a week, the decision of a big focus on Organized Play forces us to look the other way. Without Organized Play, the game will die and the producers will go under.
I'm a big supporter of Martin and what many call "elitists", the game needs them, and I think it is potentially bad for business when you ban the National Champion of your game, but that's their decision. Overall, I'm just trying to say that I think customers and players still deserve an explanation in a timely manner as to why they are banned from a game. I also have to drag back some of the comments I have viewed on other topics, when POP representatives have told players to "go play another game." I don't know any other job in the World that you wouldn't get canned in a second for that kind of comment to a customer, I know I would be. I've worked in the food business before and if I ever told a customer to "go somewhere else", I'd be in a lot of trouble. Some of the stuff us "elitists" might say is viewed as negative for unecessary reasons, and I'm telling you right now what Rulemaster says is correct. We live and breathe with this game, we only want what is best for it, so don't let my post rub you the wrong way, there's a lot of truth there, IMO.
I'm a big supporter of Martin and what many call "elitists", the game needs them, and I think it is potentially bad for business when you ban the National Champion of your game, but that's their decision. Overall, I'm just trying to say that I think customers and players still deserve an explanation in a timely manner as to why they are banned from a game. I also have to drag back some of the comments I have viewed on other topics, when POP representatives have told players to "go play another game." I don't know any other job in the World that you wouldn't get canned in a second for that kind of comment to a customer, I know I would be. I've worked in the food business before and if I ever told a customer to "go somewhere else", I'd be in a lot of trouble. Some of the stuff us "elitists" might say is viewed as negative for unecessary reasons, and I'm telling you right now what Rulemaster says is correct. We live and breathe with this game, we only want what is best for it, so don't let my post rub you the wrong way, there's a lot of truth there, IMO.
PSYCO829
New Member
people get banned when POP decides that they are no longer representing what they feel pokemon players should be doing
playing under POP is not a guarunteed right
if you can find where in the constitution it says otherwise, i will mail you my liver
you can still play pokemon, just not in POP sanctioned tournoments
playing under POP is not a guarunteed right
if you can find where in the constitution it says otherwise, i will mail you my liver
you can still play pokemon, just not in POP sanctioned tournoments
BigChuck01
Member
Agreed with Chad!
Flaming_Spinach
Feature Editor
PokePop said:
True. But I think one could also imply that common sense says PUI can't/shouldn't ban people for the personal choices they make.
One could also make the exact opposite point and say that common sense says that PUI can ban you for ANY choice you make in your life.
Putting things up to common sense only allows for misinterpretation.
Lia said:
The verbiage they use says it is possible.
On another note...
I agree 100% with Scizor and Rulemaster. Go back and re-read their posts if you skimmed them.
More later.
Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:
SD PokéMom said:
Since I can observe only the deactivated TOs list, and you have to be 15+ to be a TO, my guess would be....
...
lol
If I could see the full banned list, I would guess that the 15+ has the most players on it obviously. But there are, of course, many reasons for this. The oldest age group has the most coverage and participants. Also, anything an older player does has more of an impact on the game than something a 10- player does. Let's say 2 players are caught cheating, doing the same thing. If one is 10-, and the other is 15+, which do you think will get more attention?
Last edited:
Absolution
New Member
While I think this post may be somewhat straying from what the person who started this thread was talking about, I think it's important and should be posted:
When someone as huge as our national champion is banned, the player base is obviously going to have a LOT of questions as to why it happened. This should be no surprise to POP, and I'm fairly sure they took that into consideration when issuing the ban. However, I do think it opened a can of worms so to speak.
More and more attention is being drawn to banning in general; the banning process, the length of bans and the notable players who are getting banned. We, as players and supporters of this game, feel we should have a right to know what people can be banned so as to avoid making those mistakes ourselves! Martin, almost undoubtedly unaware that whatever he was doing was considered a bannable offense, would almost certainly have used better judgment at Worlds had he had that knowledge. The same could be said for other players (Pablo, etc.)
A guideline system to issuing bans should really be drawn up, IMO. Many of my friends are in the "elitist" crowd, and in my opinion they make the game better immeasurably, regardless of any of their personal shortcomings. And I hate to see it when a good player gets banned from the game for x amount of years, simply because they are helplessly ignorant to what is considered a bannable offense.
I also think some sort of rehabilitation/community service initiative would serve the game greatly! While not everyone banned should receive this kind of opportunity (another point of contention), some sort of ban reduction program where a player is given the opportunity to still be around the game they love, and serve POP as need be (possibly through helping running tournaments, judging) would be greatly beneficial to the player base. Not only would it keep players from remaining bitter and angry over bans, but Spirit of the Game would further be upheld on POP's part. And of course anyone who were to violate their probationary/rehabilitation period would be stuck with the ban for good.
I just think that overall, the players are getting discouraged and frustrated. POP should take a proactive approach and address these issues, and make it public knowledge as to what you could be banned for.
-Absolution
When someone as huge as our national champion is banned, the player base is obviously going to have a LOT of questions as to why it happened. This should be no surprise to POP, and I'm fairly sure they took that into consideration when issuing the ban. However, I do think it opened a can of worms so to speak.
More and more attention is being drawn to banning in general; the banning process, the length of bans and the notable players who are getting banned. We, as players and supporters of this game, feel we should have a right to know what people can be banned so as to avoid making those mistakes ourselves! Martin, almost undoubtedly unaware that whatever he was doing was considered a bannable offense, would almost certainly have used better judgment at Worlds had he had that knowledge. The same could be said for other players (Pablo, etc.)
A guideline system to issuing bans should really be drawn up, IMO. Many of my friends are in the "elitist" crowd, and in my opinion they make the game better immeasurably, regardless of any of their personal shortcomings. And I hate to see it when a good player gets banned from the game for x amount of years, simply because they are helplessly ignorant to what is considered a bannable offense.
I also think some sort of rehabilitation/community service initiative would serve the game greatly! While not everyone banned should receive this kind of opportunity (another point of contention), some sort of ban reduction program where a player is given the opportunity to still be around the game they love, and serve POP as need be (possibly through helping running tournaments, judging) would be greatly beneficial to the player base. Not only would it keep players from remaining bitter and angry over bans, but Spirit of the Game would further be upheld on POP's part. And of course anyone who were to violate their probationary/rehabilitation period would be stuck with the ban for good.
I just think that overall, the players are getting discouraged and frustrated. POP should take a proactive approach and address these issues, and make it public knowledge as to what you could be banned for.
-Absolution
A life-sentence-without-parole is different than life-with-the-possibility-of-parole. I doubt POP would ever impose a lengthy ban without the possibility of parole. And, 50-100 year bans are a bit ridiculous, IMO, unless the guy killed or ***** his opponent.
Mr Cook, from your posts, I suspect you're one of those "my way or the highway" kind of guys -- not very willing to listen to the other side of reason. You seem to have a problem with players who take views that don't agree with POP. Rather facist, if you ask me.
And, I highly doubt POP banned Martin soley for drinking under-age in his hotel room. I'll bet there are extenuating circumstances.
Mr Cook, from your posts, I suspect you're one of those "my way or the highway" kind of guys -- not very willing to listen to the other side of reason. You seem to have a problem with players who take views that don't agree with POP. Rather facist, if you ask me.
And, I highly doubt POP banned Martin soley for drinking under-age in his hotel room. I'll bet there are extenuating circumstances.
THE FT. LAUD. LOUD MOUTH
New Member
Can't we all just get along and stop debateing and agree the what PUI does is best for game.
If you have a problem with it, go find a myspace to cry on.
If you have a problem with it, go find a myspace to cry on.
FS asks about the possibility of being banned as regards a grocery list of mostly ridiculous possible infractions; specifically, FS asks about being banned if someone doesn't like his hair cut or T-shirt.
An excerpt from a 2006 NV Gym report:
Let us not forget the Little Darlings strip club shirts. Oh yes I'm not going to leave that out of my report.
Several I'd say up to 5 people were wearing strip club shirts with an almost completely nude woman on them. Judges were told after a parent with two little kids one in the 10- and one in the 11-14 expressed concern to me who in turn having a little sister told the judges. Was anything done? No
FS - I guess you can wear the most offensive attire to a children's event, but you might end up on a short leash afterwards. It is even forseeable that your disregard for the game, and spirit of the game, will be noted. If you follow up this, within, oh, I don't know, say about 6 months, with a bout of underage, illegal, consumption of alcohol in a room provided for you by POP/PUI, you just might get a 5 year ban.
An excerpt from a 2006 NV Gym report:
Let us not forget the Little Darlings strip club shirts. Oh yes I'm not going to leave that out of my report.
Several I'd say up to 5 people were wearing strip club shirts with an almost completely nude woman on them. Judges were told after a parent with two little kids one in the 10- and one in the 11-14 expressed concern to me who in turn having a little sister told the judges. Was anything done? No
FS - I guess you can wear the most offensive attire to a children's event, but you might end up on a short leash afterwards. It is even forseeable that your disregard for the game, and spirit of the game, will be noted. If you follow up this, within, oh, I don't know, say about 6 months, with a bout of underage, illegal, consumption of alcohol in a room provided for you by POP/PUI, you just might get a 5 year ban.
ninetales1234
<a href="http://pokegym.net/gallery/browseimages.p
It would be a very bad business decision to give such a ban though...Flaming_Spinach said:
In a way, PUI's power is not infinite. You are right, but there is a limit to what they can get away with.
I think it would be nice to know what the banned people did to get themselves banned- it could lead to less bans overall; people would point at the banned people and say, "See what they did? Don't do that." But, as PUI said a few days ago, its legal department won't allow them to make a list of offenses worthy of ban- they won't publish any info related to bans.
PSYCO829
New Member
why not simply hug a badger, it makes me feel betterthe ft. laud. loud mounth said:
here, hug the badger
SteveP said:
California coming to defend Texas; not that Cook needs it, I'm sure he'll find his way in to respond.
SteveP,
Painting a person a fascist is huge.
Fascist is a powerfully charged word whose connotation is greater than it's denotation. Strictly speaking, Fascism is a political system or philosophy of an ultra conservative nature; and the Republican party could fairly be described as fascist - but they aren't, ever, period. The most bitter Democratic rival in the most heated political race would never call his Republican opponent fascist. The connotation of oppression and misery is too powerful; this is a word that should not be hurled at someone.
I agree with Cook, if you don't want a ban then don't do something that might earn a ban. I am amazed at the number of 15+ players who can't figure out, without a document chiseled in stone, how to behave. Hint: try to behave more like the 10 and under players, they seem to have it figured out.
SteveP, your bet that Martin may have done more than under-age (illegal) drinking in his (POP/PUI paid for) room just might be right; see the T-shirt post above. Might there be more? Don't know, don't care. Seen/Heard more than enough.
I am most saddened that people would rather cry, complain, name call, be obtuse and obstructionist over something that will likely affect rather few, and something that need never have happened but couldn't and shouldn't be ignored, than take responsibility for their own actions and look to what can make the game and the environment it is played in better.
I'm not a professor like you, but I think dropping the fascistbomb in your post is shameful.
EeveeLover
Member Services Administrator
Not to be a smarty pants, but read these if you want a list of things that you can get in trouble for.
http://op.pokemon-tcg.com/tournaments/rules_n_resources.asp
As for the rest - common sense is a must.
Here's some more:
Theft - Ban
Drinking - Ban
Assault - Ban
Drugs - Ban
Cheating - Ban
Assumed Name - ReBan
Verbally abusive - Ban
Arguing W/ Staff - Ban
Toenails - NoBan
I'm positive there is more, but those came to mind.
PS: I agree with PokeDad, names are not the answer here.
http://op.pokemon-tcg.com/tournaments/rules_n_resources.asp
As for the rest - common sense is a must.
Here's some more:
Theft - Ban
Drinking - Ban
Assault - Ban
Drugs - Ban
Cheating - Ban
Assumed Name - ReBan
Verbally abusive - Ban
Arguing W/ Staff - Ban
Toenails - NoBan
I'm positive there is more, but those came to mind.
PS: I agree with PokeDad, names are not the answer here.
Maybe autocratic would be a better term since fascism connotates racial superiority.PokeDad said:
I have no problem with bannings. I do have a problem with authority figures that state it's okay to slap a 50-100 year ban on someone and merely state "they deserved it!"
Some kind of penal code seems only fair. It's absurd to say "I'll ban you at my pleasure and impose what penalty I consider proper."
Although POP shouldn't publically discuss bannings, they can certainly do what WOTC does -- post the general reason why the ban was given.
Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:
Good start Wayne, though arguing with staff sounds autocratic. :tongue:EeveeLover said:
Also, I think the penal code should also list how far outside the tournament arena you can be penalized. For example:
- If PUI is paying your way, then jurisdiction extends to transportation rides to/from and motel stays at events.
- Jurisdiction extends before/after hours in the tournament event area.
Last edited:
Hasn't either Dave or Mike stated previously that _their_ corporate legal department will NOT allow this?SteveP said:
'mom
- Status