Pink Poogle Toy Forum

Warnings, yes, but automated freezings? That's ridiculous since freezings are supposed to be for major offences, and how could a computer programme know whether someone was scamming others or not? Just because he typed "password" in his post? (Yes, I know they don't allow you to type "password" that was just an example).

While the idea of a 3 strike system initially sounds good, it just won't work. You have people posting in chat trying to get frozen at times. I would hate to see these people get a second and third strike. The best thing to do is be sure of the rules before you do something out of the ordinary. We tell people at our guild to ALWAYS ask if they aren't sure about something. Most likely someone has already written TNT and had the question answered.

Quanda, I'm actually thinking more along the lines of some of the game freezings - like there was a huge glitch last summer and I don't know how many people were frozen for "cheating on flash games" - there were a couple games that just seemed to go round the bend. Within minutes of sending a score people were frozen.

Volcano Run I know was one of the games - it's somehow timed? so if you're using a slow computer, something like that, your score won't be what it's "supposed" to be and apparently triggers something and you're frozen. Me? I've never played that game and never will. Heard of way too many people frozen after playing that specific game.

Though on the boards, some people never get warnings, others especially lately seem to be getting some very weird warnings. A person today has gotten 2 warnings regarding her guild, one for holding contests. She doesn't even HAVE a guild. Problem is, if there's something wacky going on with the system, she could end up frozen - by automation for something she couldn't possibly have done.

Then maybe TNT should make the self-ice link a little more obvious. I've never self-iced, but when you do it, does it ask for your password or not?




Woah, freaky. Sounds like the neo-apocalypse or something

Yes, it will ask for your password, but I think TNT didn't want to make the self-ice link too obvious because they don't want to lose players.

But I think what dogfriend meant was that people are posting disallowed things on the board to get into trouble, not because they wanted to self-ice their account but didn't know how to do it.

Ahh, at least it asks for your password. I guess that I wouldn't want to make it too obvious either, but I mean, it's their responsiblity. They can make the page as depressing as they want with as many messages of "Don't You Love Me Anymore?" as they can handle. But it should be in an easy to find location. I mean, just look at the boards and at least once a day you will see someone saying something bad just to get iced, becsaue they don't know that a self-ice link even exists.

Freezing is a ridiculous idea in my opinion. Since frozen accounts are rarely if ever returned, they might as well use the word "banned" so as to disillusion people of what really happens when they are "frozen". I recommend temporary account bans (the length of the ban depending upon the offense), or in more severe cases, permanent IP or even local-area ISP bans in worst-case scenarios. Freezing permently means an equal, although unjust punishment for ALL offenders, and in many cases these offenders don't know what they've done (When I was first frozen, I didn't know what I had done; I later learned that it was an attempt to sell my account for desperately-needed cash that they froze me for, though at the time it was one of those rules that was in the fine print.) or have done such minor offenses that a week's ban would be sufficient. GameFAQs.com has a feature called "meta-moderating" that allows users to make decisions on how severe a given punishment is for an offense, and based on peoples' responses, the administrator would make the punishment more or less severe. Here, you're either frozen or you're not, and so there are no gradations in severity to fit the crimes, if you will. Therefore, perfectly innocent Neopians are subject to spontaneous, permanent, irreversible freezings for offenses which they have never partaken in with no reassurance that they will be given their frozen accounts back, and now we are left with the past, present, and what seems to be the future of the site's (in)justice system. Granted, I like many aspects of the site, but having been frozen for a crime I hadn't known I had commited makes me empathize with the others here who have been frozen unjustly (and they didn't even do anything that broke any single rule in the ToS.).

Quite a mouthful, eh?

I myslef think Neopets.com is great fun, but there are certain aspects of the game I dislike very much. One of these is 'freezing'. If customer support was better, I would have nothing to complain about. But since Customer Support is so crap, I belive that they should either replace freezing with some other form of punishment (other than completely banning accounts), or hire more support staff.

The whole GameFAQs system of punishment is okay, but would not be very well suited for Neopets. Neopets has more accounts than GameFAQS. A lot more. It'd be pretty hard to implement that system.

If you are unsure of something you don't normally do, just ask before doing it. It's really that simple in 99% of the cases.

O_0 I thought restocks were random and didn't happen at any specific minute or time...

I post too much without thinking. Please disregard my previous statement. Must remember, think daily. It's Friday, that's my excuse.
The bottom line is, just follow Neopet's rules!

Restocks begin on the zero-second mark of random minutes.

Unless neopets has some kind of IP banning system. I think they do, but I'm not sure.

Yes. neopets can IP Ban.
Yes, those worthy of an IPP ban can work out how to use proxy IPs.
No, IP Bans do nothing.

OK, I'm going to be Nervous Nellie here again.

The problem with banning IP addresses is that many ISP's share IP addresses (like AOL).

I am a moderator on another board, and we came across this problem. The nasty member was an AOL member, and when we banned his IP, we inadvertantly banned 40-50 good members who also happened to share that IP address, and were also AOL members.

And banning the IP doesn't mean they won't go to the library or go to another computer.

So banning IP's is a BAD thing. Very bad.