[SXX]

It has nothing to do with human decisions. Bans always come later because it's a best way to make sure most people who get banned would never know what are they banned for exactly and what threshold there is,

The same tactics used in game development against cheaters. If it would ban you right after prompt you'll know how to avoid getting banned.

Obviously that didn't worked for you because you wasn't doing multiple attempts to bypass filters like if you were jailbreaking it by repeatedly trying different stuff.

[hobo123]

Like rat poison. If it works too fast, the rats learn to avoid it.

[butlike]

But isn't the whole point to avoid getting banned? Like the system doesn't want to ban you, and you don't want to get banned, so what's the issue with knowing exactly how you get banned?

[charcircuit]

Except in the case of video games it in practice means that cheaters get to terrorize your playerbase without being banned. This tactic is the kind of decision that is made by people staring at metrics all day without considering what's going on in reality.

[DaSHacka]

It's pretty effective actually, this is why they do ban waves.

One of my friends in high school used to cheat on a popular video game. The fact ban waves would occur about once a week to once a month meant whenever his accounts got banned, he never knew why exactly and wasn't able to stop it the next time.

Of course, if ban waves are too long apart then yeah you're just letting a known cheater wreak havoc on the playerbase.

[charcircuit]

But the price of a new account is low. So worst case cheaters can cheat on the playerbase for a couple weeks get banned and then switch to another account and continue cheating for another couple weeks.

[DaSHacka]

That's the problem with many older games, I don't know of a good solution other than either age-gating accounts or keeping the price of the game ~$60