Is a FINAL WARNING truly final?

Q u o t e:
My primary question is: Does a FINAL WARNING mean that absolutely any violation will result in permaban? Or only major ones?

Yes, and no.

The application of a Final Warning does not guarantee that one will suffer an immediate closure should an account accrue any form of additional penalty, be it minor or patently severe; it does, however, suggest that any future infraction brought to our attention--again, be it minor or not--will be heavily scrutinized and can, given proper criteria, lead to a permanent suspension.

While our rule sets are ostensibly quite rigid, they do allow for the inclusion of context. As always, we treat these situations on a case-by-case basis, considering all contributing factors before weighing any sort of final decision. Regardless, those who find themselves on Final Warning would be best served by treading carefully.

Q u o t e:
I'm also curious if warnings are eventually removed off of accounts after an extended period of good behavior, and if they are not, I would like to suggest that Blizzard set up a system to remove warnings after 6 months or so.

We are not an unreasonable department, Schnibblet, nor do we possess any notable desire to disallow those who wish to learn from their mistakes the opportunity to do so. As such, we will frequently recognize "good behavior" and permit certain leniencies when and where the application of stacking penalties may be concerned. This said, one's actions will remain evident on an account's history, as we do expect our player base to accept--at the very least--baseline responsibility for previous infractions; however, if one were to consistently display a firm adherence to active policy for a fairly substantial period of time after the fact, there is no reason why such a player could not earn his or herself a veritable "second chance."

To note: The advent of good behavior--no matter how vehemently pursued--will not absolve one of Final Warning status, as the actions indicative of such a penalty are egregious enough to merit such an absolute.

Q u o t e:
I have only recently found out that intentionally losing in arena can lead to bans.

Exploiting any system within this game to gain an advantage not otherwise alloted is, yes, against policy. It's matter of context.

Q u o t e:
I also found out that killing npcs is actionable as "zone disruption".

No. Killing NPCs repeatedly with the intent to completely impair the progress of a particular zone is considered a violation of policy. Again, a matter of context.

Q u o t e:
I also read something about an intentionally non-specific way of selling items on the ah that's actionable.

I truthfully do not know what you're referencing herein. The Auction House, by and large, is a free market economy, largely un-policed. Should you be hinting at automation software which eases the transaction process? Well, then yes. That, too, would be against policy. Once more, a matter of context.

Q u o t e:
Apparently logging out with a certain totem (I think if I'm more specific, it may be actionable, lol) was actionable for a while there.

Yes. A big yes on this one. The previous exploit—which allowed same-faction griefing—was aptly-named and was against policy. Simply using a totem is not. Context is always key.




All of these situations can be found within our policies. Not directly, no. Because we cannot predict the future or what crazy, little things our players will derive. Our policies are flexible and can grow with the community. It's really all a matter of common sense.

Good tip: If you're unsure about a particular practice, ask before you do it. It's that simple.

Q u o t e:
Are you hinting that Auctioneer is against policy? Thanks.

The word automation is key. Is the AddOn automating your game play?

Not unless your Auctioneer automatically selects an item from your inventory, lists its price, and then presses the appropriate button to create the auction. Or conversely, goes beyond its normal scanning and feedback and actually purchases the items for you.

We've broken undesirable AddOn mechanisms. Auctioneer is presently functioning.

http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=11381215&sid=1 (post 5 and 6)

Q u o t e:
Exploit seems to me a subjective word.

Those who Win-Trade know specifically what the goal is—to gain an inflated rating beyond what normal interaction would allow. How is that not perceived or understood as an exploit? (I ask this genuinely.)

Q u o t e:
I believe intent, or rather, motivation, is unknowable to the gm staff. I've solo farmed lowbie instances just to do it, just out of boredom. I might have killed alliance npcs for the same reason.

Those who neglect or chose to ignore our policies—as publicly stated (noted below)—cannot claim absolution. Why would anyone repeatedly kill a quest giver or otherwise notable NPC if not for some ill-purpose ("ill" here meaning that of disruption or cessation of normal activity)?

Check it:

Zone/Area Disruption

This category includes language and/or actions intended to disturb groups of players or areas of the world, such as:

* Disruption of player sponsored events or gatherings
* Excessive use of in-game sounds or visuals
* Excessively casting spells with noticeable effects in crowded areas
* Impeding or blocking access to an NPC, doodad, doorway, or any other area of the world that a player would normally be able to access

It's right there: "Impeding or blocking access to an NPC, doodad, doorway, or any other area of the world that a player would normally be able to access."

One cannot access an NPC if said NPC is dead for 20...30...40 minutes. Running by and slashing a few scurvy Alliance is fine; standing in a particular area and continually killing such NPCs as they spawn is not. This is where context comes into play.

(And, no, Zuzu. It's not a roll of the dice. There are actually specific things we check for, time and level of NPCs being killed being only two of them—in this particular instance.)

Q u o t e:
There was this thread, which I read earlier: http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=6757866725&pageNo=1&sid=1#11

Now, that may have been referring to gold selling methods or something, I'm really not sure, because the post wasn't specific.

The hinted interaction was not referencing normal bidding processes, but rather using it as a guise to achieve more unscrupulous goals.

Q u o t e:
Again, this could simply happen. I could have it on an easy to hit hot key, or for whatever other reason put it down, and then log out. I mean, someone had to find out innocently the first time. Now, how you respond to this is of course important. If you tell the player, the next time they log in "hey, don't do this thing, it may have been an accident, but it causes this", that's a reasonable response.

Which is why we always warn people first. To have it "simply happen" a second time is a bit unlikely.





The more innocuous, less-obvious violations will always be met first with a warning, as their contrariness may not always be known. That said, though, more egregious infractions, ones which carry a notable reputation and are very, very difficult to mistake as an allowable practice, will likely witness severe penalties right out of the gate.

Zuzupetals is a particular breed of both cynic and advocate, one intuitive and intelligent enough that issued statements to the contrary aren't necessarily unwelcome.

He's definitely entitled to his opinion, just as I am equally entitled to contradict it. :)

Q u o t e:
I adhere and obey oh great and powerful darter!

Oh, hey. You're entitled to contradict his opinion, too. Don't let my statement dissuade you, specifically if you feel there's something worth noting.

My intent was just to help make it known that, aye, I recognize Zuzu's cynicism, but don't always necessarily find it voiced in a manner that's inappropriate for this forum.

You don't always have to support our ways to be welcome herein. :)

Q u o t e:
I honestly thought it was simply a clever work around of the system. One person sees exploit, another sees clever tactic.

Aye. And we clarified our stance at the closure of Season 2. All queries placed herein and through in-game petition since would have yielded the same response: "Yes, win trading is actionable offense." I apologize that the information wasn't more easily accessed.


To be honest: I think you're being purposefully obtuse (as you're a clever individual). To what end, I do not know. As I stated before, though, if you think anything may be objectionable, please ask—in this forum, if you wish. We'll be happy to respond.


Edit:

Q u o t e:
But vague rules mixed with heavy handed punishment (mass bannings and the like) are a bad combination.

If you're referencing the most recent wave of closures, then your statement doesn't apply. We have always made it clearly known that using automation software can definitely yield unfavorable results.

Folks, this thread is listed within the Customer Service Compendium. It's not necessarily a cardinal sin to "bump" it. :)

Hey there Antipode, would you mind starting a new thread? It'll be easier to assist you; that way the information here doesn't get cluttered and confusing. =)