Of course you got to trust the person your vouching for, like i wouldn’t vouch for someone i have known for 1 week and vouch for him on Loka. The vouch system is perfectly fine and shows how your bad actions got consequences. You need to know the person your vouching for and can’t be a random thats 100% an alt
So what your saying is that if you vouch for someone you 100% know is an alt and he gets banned for being one you only deserve a tap on the shoulder? If you vouch for the wrong guy you should get the same punishment. you shouldn’t get any second chances when doing a banable offense. If thats your suggestion then you could just dupe, harassing someone, etc and rely on a second chance.
If you vouch for someone you 100% know is an alt, you very likely know the alters' true identity, and your involvement with that person most probably won't end with just vouching for them. You would most likely help them get set up, and continually advocate for them not being an alt, in which case you should get rightfully banned for assisting evasion. My point was to differentiate those who get tricked (I'm not denying their part of responsibility, if you're too naive you gotta face some kind of consequence), and those who deliberately assist in more ways than vouching .
Sure, I might not have been clear enough in my first suggestion, but when I was talking about a warn, it'd be more of a 2-month tempban for example, which is a far cry from the "tap on the shoulder" you talk about. I believe that the threat of a multiple-month tempban, plus the immediate threat of a permanent ban, plus the loss of trust with the staff and more should be enough to discourage any active, and invested player from vouching for someone who they know is an alt (which is already drastically increasing the chance of them being discovered). The risks are just far too great compared to the potential winnings, which is like 2 months maximum of playing with the alter. Plus someone getting caught doing something once is far less likely to do it again.
I'm mainly suggesting this because Loka (and Minecraft in general to some extent) is a server where active player age ranges from 14 to like 20 years old, and the playerbase is predominantly male. We don't make the smartest decisions, and we all do immature things. For such an offence (still talking about vouching here), especially if it's the first time, I think some kind of consequence is necessary, to ensure we learn, but shouldn't be the same one as someone breaking another rule.
To compare it to an irl situation, suppose you crash into someone's car because your breaks failed. You should still get punished, because you bear the responsibility of not checking on your car's condition. Compare that to a case where you crash into someone else's car on purpose. Since there is clear intent in the latter case, you should get treated far worse, because you
intend to cause harm. Obviously Loka alting is nowhere near the same gravity, but my point still stands, it would be nice to see a way to differentiate between those who intend to cause harm to the server, and those who caused harm, but didn't intend to. This is why people who report bugs/dupes despite having used them are usually treated better than those who attempt to hide them and lie their way out.
If thats your suggestion then you could just dupe, harassing someone, etc and rely on a second chance.
And in regards to this, a kind reminder that I am only talking about the rules related to alting here, not everything. Alting, hacking, duping, harassment, etc are all
separate offences, and as such should be treated in separate ways. The second chance suggestion would not apply to those. It is far easier to prove intent for hacking (you can't hack accidentally unless you had like default macros you didn't know of, and the staff are pretty lenient in that case anyway), harassment (do i really have to explain here...?) or duping (especially if you circulated / actively used the duped items) than it is for vouching. Of course, there will still be those who vouch for alts they know, and still claim they got tricked/didn't know of their true identity. This is why I'm suggesting some kind of blanket punishment. You vouch for someone who turns out to be an alt = you get banned for 2+ months (and they get banned permanently). This not only ensures the affected players learn a lesson, thereby reducing the odds someone else falls for this, but it also makes people less willing to help alters, because of the clear punishment (and if you get caught doing it again, you get permed anyway), AND saves time for staff, because this should cut down on the amount of ban appeals for vouching they have to deal with.
To end this, perhaps you would never vouch for anyone you haven't known for several months, because you clearly know of the consequences, you've played the server for a while, and have been part of the community as a whole for even longer. That's great, you know what to look out for and won't be as easily tricked. The issue here is not everyone has had the same experiences as you, and therefore aren't able to react as well as you do. Some are too trusting, others don't understand because of language barriers, some just aren't able to even imagine the possibility of the account they vouch for being an alt.
).