English German Italian French Spanish Polish Czech Portuguese Brazilian Portuguese Russian Slovak moonID.net - Please discuss stuff about moonID here → Discussions → arbitrary account banning

Hello,

my account was banned without any clear or understandable explanation. I would like to request a specific clarification: which game rule did I violate?

From my perspective, this ban was arbitrary and disproportionate. If a Discord comment was considered inappropriate, then a Discord warning, mute, or Discord ban would have been understandable. But banning the game account without a clear explanation, without a warning, and without pointing to a concrete rule violation does not seem fair or transparent.

So I am asking directly:
Which specific MonstersGame rule did I violate?

Thank you Lightning1, but this still does not answer the actual question.

I have checked the public moonID and MonstersGame rules. I can find general rules about insults, offensive content, spam, provocation, multiaccounts, bots, hacking, and uploaded content. However, I have not found a clear public rule stating that “profile copying” or a Discord-related dispute automatically leads to a full game account ban without warning.

Which exact rule was violated? Which exact action or content was the violation? Was the ban based on an in-game action, a forum action, uploaded profile content, or something said on Discord? If it was based on Discord, where is the ingame rule stating that a Discord incident leads to a MonstersGame account ban?

The decision still appears arbitrary and selectively enforced. If asking which rule I violated is itself considered a problem, then that only confirms the transparency issue.

Dear cratr.games.

I’m trying to look at this situation objectively and from both sides, which isn’t easy, but I can see that
injustices are happening here and someone needs to speak up.
I usually stand behind you and your decisions, even when the whole MG/KF community is criticizing you, but this action of yours is not okay.

1. In my opinion, Maximus didn’t commit profile theft; rather, he created a similar male profile to an existing female profile.
   No images were stolen or defamed, and the name actually exists in the male form exactly as he wrote it—in Italy, for example, it’s a common male first name.
   The profile was entirely AI-generated, so there was no copyright infringement either.
   The profile was in no way offensive or threatening.

-If someone creates a male profile with the name “Comtè” and similar pictures to mine, in similar colors and backgrounds, then that’s just how it is and not profile theft.
Profile theft involves entirely different things, such as what has happened to me countless times where MY pictures and MY name were stolen and, on top of that, I was defamed with insults and threats.
And in this specific case, none of that happened.

2. As for Maximus's second Discord account, there is no rule stating that you cannot have as many Discord accounts as you want.
   If it’s about what he said, then a warning should have been issued first, followed by a timeout for the violation. And in the case of a repeat offense, removal from the cratr-discord server would have been standard procedure.
   But in this case, he was simply kicked off the server.
   In addition, his main Discord account was punished with a 7-day timeout, so he couldn’t comment on the matter at all, and then his in-game account was also deleted without a warning or any explanation, and he still hasn’t received a response. To this day, he doesn’t know if he was deleted or just banned.

3. I don’t want to excuse any of this at all; I know Maximus often has a very peculiar sense of humor, but those who know him know he was just joking. A joke that admittedly went too far, but was never meant maliciously. And honestly, you should have known that too—after all, you’ve known him long enough.
   Besides, you also know that German isn’t his native language; he’s only been in Germany for four years. Yes, he speaks German very well for that, but often he can’t quite convey certain things in German exactly as he means them—which is understandable after only four years. And then it seems to us as if he said something bad, but when that's not what he meant at all.I'm curious if, in the opposite situation, anyone else can always convey every joke in Portuguese as 100% a joke—or even get the point across at all.

4. All I really expect is equal treatment for all users.
   The same warning/disciplinary process for similar or identical offenses. And unfortunately, that’s exactly what didn’t happen here, and that’s exactly what I don’t like and why I’m writing here today.

Comtesse 🦇

slow hand clap Well done CRATR team.... you are sucessfully destroying your community it appears.
I'm starting to wonder if this is being done on purpose?

The fact that Maxi was a mod before means he has "the inside line" to the team, he knows that "banning discussions" are never aired publicly & yet he is forced to do so because the complete lack of clear rule violation description in the ban.

I'm not going weigh into the specifics - As I've no idea what's happened on MG - but it appears that not only KF rules need to be assessed.

I haven't forgotten the "updated KF rules" have not appeared after you over-zealously booted people off the new world for not banking claiming they were "purposeful farms" when not banking is a perfectly allowed mechanic.
(because otherwise 2 players on my home world should have been booted (plus a huge number historially) & I know they were investigated; can't have one rule on one world and a different on another)

Hi everyone, well, surely there was plenty of time to sort this mess out and delete it from your own profile, wasn’t there? To offer an apology. The account ‘Lilo’ was banned at 10.50 – an account that was posting things that are more than a bit worrying:
“Not a copycat, but soulmates! 😉",
"Exactly. Silence means consent 😍"
or even "
I actually thought we’d already sorted this out... Yes means yes, no means yes and silence logically means yes, doesn’t it?"

That has absolutely nothing to do with being funny; for a start, we can’t even tell if it’s meant to be a joke, or who’s behind these accounts – statements like this actually come across as rather threatening.
But instead of clearing things up and deleting the whole mess from the game account, the account ‘Maximus’ stepped in and defended the account ‘Lilo’ – quite apart from the statement itself

"Learnt something new about Germany again – apparently, humour here requires a written consent form 😝"
No, not for humour, but for copyrighted material you do need written permission to use or alter it. But that’s a different matter.

But it is also falsely claimed here that the player who was allegedly wronged had been flirting with the player Lilo.
So he knowingly used his main account to defend his "joke" account? At 16:15, a few hours later, we deleted the gaming account and took a look to see who was behind this MoonID.

And there was still plenty of time to clear up this very, very bad joke or simply remove the content from the game account, but that didn’t happen.

You’d think that someone with previous experience as a moderator – someone who was even warned by other players who knew that this action could cause trouble – would know the rules and not do something so daft; I would also have expected a bit more tact.

The internet is not a lawless space, and there have been plenty of such statements – even if they may be perceived as funny – and terrible things have happened as a result!
To this day, I personally have yet to see any apology or acknowledgement that things were taken far too far here, which I find very regrettable.

I also find something very regrettable: the lack of transparency in your answer.

You wrote that there was “plenty of time” to sort this out, delete the content, and offer an apology. But this assumes that I had received an official warning, an official instruction to remove specific content, or a clear statement from support identifying which rule had allegedly been violated. I did not.

The Lilo discord account was banned at 10:50 on May 6. The game account was deleted at 16:15. Between those two moments, no official message was sent to me saying: “Remove this specific content or your game account will be deleted.” Other players speculating or warning in chat is not the same thing as an official support instruction.

Let's start with the profile/copyright issue.
The Lilo avatar appeared on May 4. Visually, it shared a general style with another player: frontal portrait, black background, violet glow, and a signature-style name in the lower right corner. But it was not the same image, not the same face, not the same sex, and not the same identity. So where exactly is the copyright violation?

If the copyright issue refers instead to the rooftop/city image, then the situation becomes even more selective. The profile stated as being copied, used what appears to be the original Underworld/Selene rooftop image. The Lilo profile used a similar altered image. If using that type of image is a copyright problem, then why was only my account punished?

There was also a third image on the Lilo profile that did not appear on the other player’s profile at all. So the idea that the whole profile was simply a “copy” is not accurate.

That third image was a separate creation and included a different female face, not the face or identity of the player in question.

So again: which exact image is supposed to be the copyright violation?

Now to the Discord part, since your reply presents the quoted messages without the actual context.:

Hi everyone, well, surely there was plenty of time to sort this mess out and delete it from your own profile, wasn’t there? To offer an apology. The account ‘Lilo’ was banned at 10.50 – an account that was posting things that are more than a bit worrying:
“Not a copycat, but soulmates! 😉",
"Exactly. Silence means consent 😍"
or even "
I actually thought we’d already sorted this out... Yes means yes, no means yes and silence logically means yes, doesn’t it?"
That has absolutely nothing to do with being funny; for a start, we can’t even tell if it’s meant to be a joke, or who’s behind these accounts – statements like this actually come across as rather threatening.

The Lilo Discord account appeared for the first time on the morning of May 6, the same morning it was banned. The conversation did not start with me contacting Lila. There were no private messages to her, no in-game messages to her, and no forum PMs to her.

cvd saw the Lilo Discord account, noticed the similar dark/violet profile style, and asked: “Morning Lila ‘copycat’, how did this look come about?”

I replied: “Not a copycat, but soulmates! 😉 @Lila ❤️”

That was intended as a teasing answer about the similar profile style. It was not a threat, not a private message, not sexual content, and not an in-game message.

Then cvd asked: “and is that her wish?”

Again, in the context of the conversation, this referred to the profile/look/copycat issue. Nobody was discussing sex, sexual contact, or sexual harassment.

I replied: “Exactly. Silence implies agreement.”

In hindsight, I understand that this wording was badly chosen and could be interpreted negatively. But “badly chosen”, “worrying”, “not funny”, or “lacking tact” are subjective judgments. They are not, by themselves, a citation of a published MonstersGame rule. The context was still the profile/look issue. It was not a statement about sexual consent, not a threat, and not directed through private contact.

Then Lila replied: “No, it definitely is not. I don’t know the guy and have no idea what he wants from me. I also don’t want to know, because he is obviously not quite right in the head.”

So the first actual personal insult in that exchange came from her, not from me. Nobody treated THAT as a rule violation.

After that, I wrote: “I actually thought we had already clarified this... Yes means yes, no means yes, and silence logically means yes, right?”

Again: badly worded, provocative, and easy to dislike. I understand that. But it was still part of the same sarcastic exchange about the previous “silence means consent” line and about the profile/look/copycat issue. And it was not said in a conversation about sex, sexual contact, or sexual harassment.

Immediately after that message, the Lilo Discord account was kicked/banned. At that point, I could not clarify, retract, explain the joke, or apologize from that account anymore.

Now to the claim that Maximus “stepped in and defended” Lilo.

But instead of clearing things up and deleting the whole mess from the game account, the account ‘Maximus’ stepped in and defended the account ‘Lilo’ – quite apart from the statement itself
"Learnt something new about Germany again – apparently, humour here requires a written consent form 😝"
So he knowingly used his main account to defend his "joke" account?

What actually happened is that the Lilo Discord account was kicked/banned, and after that, my account Maximus asked about that decision.

The comment: “Learnt something new about Germany again – apparently, humour here requires a written consent form 😝” was a sarcastic comment about the Discord situation and the way the joke was being interpreted.

I did not “defend alleged harassment”, because from my perspective there was no alleged harassment to defend: there was no private contact, no in-game message, no forum PM, no repeated messaging, and no direct threat.

When I tried to ask you, Patti, privately about the situation, I was blocked for 7 days. So again, the idea that I had a fair opportunity to “clear things up” is difficult to accept. The Discord account was removed, the private route was blocked, and the game account was deleted.

So where is the written rule saying that a Discord comment leads to deletion of a MonstersGame account? Where is the written rule saying that copying or imitating the style of another player’s profile leads to deletion of a MonstersGame account?

Now to your final remarks.

You’d think that someone with previous experience as a moderator – someone who was even warned by other players who knew that this action could cause trouble – would know the rules and not do something so daft; I would also have expected a bit more tact.

Exactly because I have previous experience as a moderator, I know the difference between a written rule, an official warning, and a personal opinion after the fact.

Other players saying “this could cause trouble” is not an official warning from support. A player warning is not a rule citation. A player warning is not an instruction to remove specific content. And it is not a notice that the game account will be deleted.

You call the action “daft” and say you expected more tact. Fine. You may consider it daft. You may consider it tactless. I can even understand why the wording was badly received. But “daft” and “lacking tact” are not rule numbers.

The internet is not a lawless space, and there have been plenty of such statements – even if they may be perceived as funny – and terrible things have happened as a result!
To this day, I personally have yet to see any apology or acknowledgement that things were taken far too far here, which I find very regrettable.

I agree. The internet is not a lawless space. But that cuts both ways.

If rules exist, they should be written, cited, and applied consistently. If an account is deleted, the player should be told which exact rule was violated, by which exact content, on which exact account.

I acknowledge that the “silence means consent” wording was badly chosen and easy to interpret negatively when removed from its context. It was not intended as a threat, it was part of a public Discord exchange, it was not an in-game message, it was not a forum PM, and it was not repeated contact.

No exact rule was cited before the deletion. No specific content was officially challenged before the deletion. No warning was given. Different explanations were added afterwards, depending on what sounded convenient.

But explanations are not rules. Personal disappointment is not a rule number. “We expected better from a former moderator” is not a published ban criterion.

That is not transparent rule enforcement. That is selective enforcement dressed up as procedure.

Max out!

hmm I did not studied law, but for what i seen so far this is the infringements rules + some standard web community rules + some additional old rules from the old MG forum (as i remember) you did.

1. using a copycat/impersonation account about someone else without his/her consent. As she said (Lila), she wrote clearly she doesn't want to do anything with that situation, and she wasn't aware of too. And that was done purposely against her.
2. the underworld picture background highly modified: that's for sure a law copyright infringement (from underworld franchise copyright and/or trademarks + their studios, "universal studios" if i remember correctly) even if the pictures are modified through AI. Probably it's even worse because modified easier with an AI.
3. all the high harassment (personally, this is the worse/horrible thing done) words told on discord server, you told you did not through PM etcs. But they're intended as in third person, so it's kinda the same.
4. defending banned persons after admin decisions (I'm sure, before doing a ban, admins check everything, for example: players different linking, IPs, providers, etc) so they know what they do.

So after you done "all of this" you still asking why you got a ban?
I think yes there are MG rules you break too btw.
The rules broken are linked one through others between all those things you did.
Btw, I'm a bit speechless, why you did all of this? for joking?
That's totally no sense... 🤷🏻
There are jokes ok, but idk, there are limits on joking too...

I hope some admin or moderator agree for what i said.

Just my 2p... these seems like a "storm has been created in a tea-cup" and there has been massive over-reaction.

What I feel actually the most sad - was that surely a PM on discord at the time of the postings could/should/would have cleared everything up.

Maxi appologies & explains as above on discord - gets a "time out" from discord for getting it wrong.

Instead the "ban hammer" was swung and retrospectively reasons explained to the player in question that are vauge at best.

I'm English and the posts excerpts that have been translated do not read as threats to me in the slightest - not entirely appropriatedue to how it can be misconstrued but not a threat.

And this is why there are moderators that look after forums/chats and games - people who are actively involved, can nip miscommuncation in the bud and "oil the wheels" to keep the community going.

I have to question again - are the team at CRATR purposefully mishandling the comminity so an excuse to pull the plug is generated? Because I've never seen so much division in nearly 20 years....