Skip to content
Translate Ideas and Comments
Choose language:
There was an error during translation

Settings and activity

1 result found

  1. 63 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Sakurai1996 supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Sakurai1996 commented  · 

    Ok. Charity's view: It might be better to not let banned users to be using the charity as a proxy for an end to their means.

    Streamer's view: It is better to let banned users stay banned universally. If they were banned it had a reason.

    Viewers' view: It is better to not let banned users interact with stream. They are banned for a reason and if I get to interact but still adhere to rules, and they don't then it is inequality.

    Counterpoint to "Changed man" argument: 1)they can directly donate to charity. 2)they can show this change of heart in ban appeal message if they weren't heated enough to use it selfishly. 3)unless streamer decides that watching stream is also banned for them, they should be able to enjoy contents of stream, donate to cause indirectly, but still suffer consequences of their messages via no chat ability.

    Result: It is actually better to apply ban of a person, universally. Only caveat is that mods and streamer cannot be corrupt. So we need a way to check that also. Not for innocent streamers but for malicious ones.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Sakurai1996 commented  · 

    I think even though users are banned, if they want to contribute monetarily, they should be able to. But since they are also banned, they shouldn't be given any spotlight if they do so. Basically a shadow donator status. They either have to donate for donation's cause and get no acknowledgement or just leave.