New Terms of Service

[DustyPorViva]

Originally Posted by Fulg0reSama

That's two different scenarios.

Rick was protecting the actual server's stability. Which yes is the same goal as UN's, but I'm certain that the scenario of why it had been allowed could have changed whether a warning was necessary or not.

These rules are merely dictations of punishment for committing them, They appear to say that they don't need to warn you AT ALL, no matter the situation.

No it's not different. They would ban without warning if needed. It doesn't matter if it's for server stability, it's still the point that they would ban someone without warning them. UN is simply telling players that it can happen if it needs to happen. This is important because not every situation is the same. Massing porn for example. Maybe massing goatse would qualify to let them off with a warning, MAYBE(and that's being lenient). But massing CP? Does that mean because the rules say you're allowed a warning first that massing CP would get you off with a warning since it was just your first time? Do you think that's acceptable? No. Therefor the disclosure makes sense.

I seriously don't see what the hell all the commotion/confusion is about.