Clean up and reorganise Handling foul play and related articles
#14119
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
I have made `Handling foul play` focus on actions that violate competitive integrity. If a user wonders why they are restricted, they should consult `Account restrictions`. I added IDs to the long section names. The addition of the continual misbehaviour clause to `Account restrictions` is because that makes much more sense there than on `Handling foul play`.' The update to `Silences` is because the end of the article seems more fitting there. Line 65 is very much up to discussion, however.
Userlog2
changed the title
Handling foul play and related articles.Handling foul play and related articles
MChecaH
reviewed
Dec 29, 2025
Contributor
MChecaH
left a comment
MChecaH
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Left the entirety of Handling Foul Play to peppy as this all pertains to Support matters, and anything I'd say would be as opinionated as the PR changes themselves.
Rest looks generally fine, and it is either an expansion to the current content, or extra information that doesn't really change the contents nor expand on topics that cannot be disclosed.
"Two weeks" comes from the support email autoreply.
Userlog2
commented
Dec 30, 2025
| ## My cooldown has passed. How do I appeal? {id=appeal} | ||
|
|
||
| You can appeal by sending an email to [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]) including the username of your account. Make sure you are sending the appeal from the email address associated with your account. After you send your appeal, expect a reply within one week. If you have not received one by then, please contact us on twitter or by email — there is a chance we may not have received it. | ||
| You can appeal by sending an email to [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]) with the subject line `Restriction Appeal: <username>`. Make sure you are sending the appeal from the email address associated with your account. After you send your appeal, expect a reply within two weeks. If you have not received one by then, please contact us on Twitter or by email — there is a chance we may not have received it. |
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"two weeks" comes from the support team's automatic email
2 tasks
Contributor
Author
|
@0x84f Is it possible for a user to be silenced if they post inappropriate tickets on tcomm.hivie.tn or abuse report functionality there or on the BN site? If so, I think it should be made clear as a deterrent. |
Contributor
|
We can cross that bridge when we get there. Doesn't happen often or frequently enough, if at all. So I would say adding a 'deterrent' for it isn't necessary at the current time. If someone goes out of their way to abuse report features we can consider what to do at that time imo. |
Userlog2
commented
Jan 3, 2026
|
|
||
| 1. **Each player may only have *ONE* account, ever.** The *first* account you make during account registration is your one and only osu! account, from the moment of its creation and forevermore. This account is YOU. It is not anyone else — not your brother, your mother, your sister, your friend — it is YOU. Don't share your account with anyone else. You don't get to make a new one if you lose access to it. Keep it safe. | ||
| 2. **Play fair.** Using third-party utilities of any kind to get any sort of advantage is not okay. This includes things like aim-assist programs, timescale modifications, and so on. Macros, keybinds, or hardware where a physical action (e.g. pressing a key down) does not correspond to the same in-game action are similarly disallowed.[^macros] If a program is doing something to help you play the game that you should be doing yourself, it isn't okay! | ||
| 3. **Be good to each other.** Harassment or other antagonism has no place within the osu! community. We're here to click circles, beat drums, catch fruit, and hit up to eighteen keys at once, not to be assholes to each other. |
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@peppy Is there a reason rules 3 and 4 are separate? If not, they could be merged like this:
Suggested change
| 3. **Be good to each other.** Harassment or other antagonism has no place within the osu! community. We're here to click circles, beat drums, catch fruit, and hit up to eighteen keys at once, not to be assholes to each other. | |
| 3. **Be good to each other.** Harassment or other antagonism has no place within the osu! community. We're here to click circles, beat drums, catch fruit, and hit up to eighteen keys at once, not to be douches to each other. If you are uncertain as to whether you are being a douche at any point, you probably are. |
2 tasks
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I have made
Handling foul playfocus on actions that violate competitive integrity. If a user wonders why they are restricted, they should consultAccount restrictions.I added IDs to the long section names. The addition of the continual misbehaviour clause to
Account restrictionsis because that makes much more sense there than onHandling foul play.The update to
Silencesis because the current end ofHandling foul playseems more fitting there. Line 67 is very much up to discussion, however.I know this is a big change out of nowhere, but I have thoroughly considered the interests of the staff and moderators (or at least tried to). I have not made any changes I think would be highly controversial or give away too much information.
(I didn't know "handling cheating" was the article's original name when naming my branch, that is a coincidence)
Silenceassumes this is merged).Self-check