Dragonslayor65 2 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Can someone answer my question I'm very excited to join in on the fun Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonAulus 2082 Share Posted October 21, 2013 um ok Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cracker 4570 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Can you define exactly what makes up LotC's definition of cyber-bullying? If someone calls me a genderbender can I get them permabanned? Name-calling, slurs, banter between friends, entering a TS channel and getting told to leave, cussing someone out for doing something bad, etc. Considering cyber-bullying is a repeated process and not a one-off "you are a XXX", I think LotC needs its own definition and clear examples of what is and is not acceptable. For example, AiiM's incident is not one where he used particularly belligerent terms nor did he really do anything besides probe Vardak about lying to him about playing an alternative account in a one-off incident. Apparently this makes up cyber-bullying, while it would not in the dictionary definiton, so clear boundaries are essential to prevent unneeded bans and awareness of the rule. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wretched 2075 Share Posted October 21, 2013 :c Hypothetical +1 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 2232 Author Share Posted October 21, 2013 Can you define exactly what makes up LotC's definition of cyber-bullying? If someone calls me a genderbender can I get them permabanned? Name-calling, slurs, banter between friends, entering a TS channel and getting told to leave, cussing someone out for doing something bad, etc. Considering cyber-bullying is a repeated process and not a one-off "you are a XXX", I think LotC needs its own definition and clear examples of what is and is not acceptable. I'll speak with the GM team tomorrow and we'll see how we can work on actually giving a proper definition. Banter between you and your pals isn't cyberbullying, just to clarify -- neither is just swearing at someone once. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samson Option 9652 Share Posted October 21, 2013 I'll speak with the GM team tomorrow and we'll see how we can work on actually giving a proper definition. Banter between you and your pals isn't cyberbullying, just to clarify -- neither is just swearing at someone once. To assist your reading eyes Danny: "The AiiM ban will either require you to be fully transparent and post full content or renege on your ban. You have failed to recognize that Vardak hisself stated that he wanted no bans being meted out. Skype being counted as within your jurisdiction as LotC [note: Not Skype] is a rather broad action that I do not believe you have fully thought out. You may mistaken the idea that "if you can supervise Teamspeak, then you can Skype"- but notice that you have your own server on Teamspeak to watch over, it is your property that others are using. Skype, however used, is it's own platform in which we are using. There is a difference and you must respect this. There is a term that I have studied, it is called precedent. In much of human nature, past experience governs how we would react if such an experience were repeated. You have set this prominent precedent: will you be banning individuals, I will leave unnamed, [although I can supply if you go through with this, I gathered names as a GM who I knew participated in] who have participated in cyber-sexual acts, planning game events and collaborative acts as metagaming, etc?" 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cracker 4570 Share Posted October 21, 2013 I'll speak with the GM team tomorrow and we'll see how we can work on actually giving a proper definition. Banter between you and your pals isn't cyberbullying, just to clarify -- neither is just swearing at someone once. Thanks for the quick reply Danny I edited this into my post after you responded so I will respost out of inquiry "For example, AiiM's incident is not one where he used particularly belligerent terms nor did he really do anything besides probe Vardak about lying to him about playing an alternative account in a one-off incident. Apparently this makes up cyber-bullying, while it would not in the dictionary definiton, so clear boundaries are essential to prevent unneeded bans and awareness of the rule." http://pastebin.com/M2GWp99z ^ Out of these pastelogs exactly what falls under the category of cyberbullying? Especially considering that Vardak had admitted to being TheForeverRuler, the main reason of distress by a lot of the community is that staff hasn't made it clear within these logs exactly where the cyberbullying occurred and how it is measured. Sure, AiiM could have been more polite about it, but given the situation where he was lied to and had been ICly wed to a "gender-bender", something that he was not pleased about, his reaction in my eyes is warranted. Some clarification of what exactly is inappropriate in these logs would do a great deal in putting ease to a lot of people's minds in regards to this rule enforcement. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 2232 Author Share Posted October 21, 2013 To assist your reading eyes Danny: "The AiiM ban will either require you to be fully transparent and post full content or renege on your ban. You have failed to recognize that Vardak hisself stated that he wanted no bans being meted out. Skype being counted as within your jurisdiction as LotC [note: Not Skype] is a rather broad action that I do not believe you have fully thought out. You may mistaken the idea that "if you can supervise Teamspeak, then you can Skype"- but notice that you have your own server on Teamspeak to watch over, it is your property that others are using. Skype, however used, is it's own platform in which we are using. There is a difference and you must respect this. There is a term that I have studied, it is called precedent. In much of human nature, past experience governs how we would react if such an experience were repeated. You have set this prominent precedent: will you be banning individuals, I will leave unnamed, [although I can supply if you go through with this, I gathered names as a GM who I knew participated in] who have participated in cyber-sexual acts, planning game events and collaborative acts as metagaming, etc?" I haven't hopped onto your thread as I was actually intending on heading off to bed, and only sticking around to reply to short posts. With regards to the AiiM ban specifically, head on over to his appeal and you'll see all you need. We don't 'moderate' Skype: the only times that we'll even consider punishing someone for something done via skype is cyberbullying, or if they're metagaming through it when they'll get a slap on the head. Skype is not "within our jurisdiction", nor do we consider it so, however, harassment is harassment and it doesn't matter where it's done - we'll treat it the same if it's two LotCrs. I'm not quite understanding: who have participated in cyber-sexual acts, planning game events and collaborative acts as metagaming, etc?" If you mean on server, we will, yes. If you mean via Skype: the first nope, the second is not considered to be breaking the rules unless meta is directly involved and the third we'd look at, yes. We have, as of this post, made it quite clear: any harassment or cyber-bullying will be punished regardless of where it's done, if it involves LotCrs on either side of the event. I'm not willing to debate whether or not we should be punishing cyber-bullying on Skype and other platforms, because, we will not sway from the stance that we will - indeed, I don't even feel it necessary to discuss it more than what we've done in the OP. Thanks for the quick reply Danny I edited this into my post after you responded so I will respost out of inquiry "For example, AiiM's incident is not one where he used particularly belligerent terms nor did he really do anything besides probe Vardak about lying to him about playing an alternative account in a one-off incident. Apparently this makes up cyber-bullying, while it would not in the dictionary definiton, so clear boundaries are essential to prevent unneeded bans and awareness of the rule." http://pastebin.com/M2GWp99z ^ Out of these pastelogs exactly what falls under the category of cyberbullying? Especially considering that Vardak had admitted to being TheForeverRuler, the main reason of distress by a lot of the community is that staff hasn't made it clear within these logs exactly where the cyberbullying occurred and how it is measured. Sure, AiiM could have been more polite about it, but given the situation where he was lied to and had been ICly wed to a "gender-bender", something that he was not pleased about, his reaction in my eyes is warranted. Some clarification of what exactly is inappropriate in these logs would do a great deal in putting ease to a lot of people's minds in regards to this rule enforcement. That is not what he is actually banned for currently: that's only part of it. If that were all, I can assure you, I would be fully in support of him being back asap, but it's not. His appeal lists why else he is banned. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samsan99 274 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Can you define exactly what makes up LotC's definition of cyber-bullying? If someone calls me a genderbender can I get them permabanned? Name-calling, slurs, banter between friends, entering a TS channel and getting told to leave, cussing someone out for doing something bad, etc. Considering cyber-bullying is a repeated process and not a one-off "you are a XXX", I think LotC needs its own definition and clear examples of what is and is not acceptable. For example, AiiM's incident is not one where he used particularly belligerent terms nor did he really do anything besides probe Vardak about lying to him about playing an alternative account in a one-off incident. Apparently this makes up cyber-bullying, while it would not in the dictionary definiton, so clear boundaries are essential to prevent unneeded bans and awareness of the rule. You can't really define cyber-bullying totally it is so wide and covers so much and can differ from case to case, person to person while some might not see certain things as Cyber-bullying others might and they see people from our server being associated with cyber-bulling looks bad for all of us and just causes issue IG and OOCly for everyone involved. yes fun between mates isn't cyber-bullying. Is swerer or getting annoyed at someone once? it might be a bad day for them or other reasons you might of annoyed them. When i become repetitive or its purpose is to hurt someone whether is be how they feel about themselves personally, The bully or others is when the line is crossed 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samson Option 9652 Share Posted October 21, 2013 I haven't hopped onto your thread as I was actually intending on heading off to bed, and only sticking around to reply to short posts. With regards to the AiiM ban specifically, head on over to his appeal and you'll see all you need. We don't 'moderate' Skype: the only times that we'll even consider punishing someone for something done via skype is cyberbullying, or if they're metagaming through it when they'll get a slap on the head. Skype is not "within our jurisdiction", nor do we consider it so, however, harassment is harassment and it doesn't matter where it's done - we'll treat it the same if it's two LotCrs. I'm not quite understanding: If you mean on server, we will, yes. If you mean via Skype: the first nope, the second is not considered to be breaking the rules unless meta is directly involved and the third we'd look at, yes. We have, as of this post, made it quite clear: any harassment or cyber-bullying will be punished regardless of where it's done, if it involves LotCrs on either side of the event. I'm not willing to debate whether or not we should be punishing cyber-bullying on Skype and other platforms, because, we will not sway from the stance that we will - indeed, I don't even feel it necessary to discuss it more than what we've done in the OP. Take your time in responding, I do apologize for keeping you away from sleep mate. Cracker hits the first question risen and you've said you'll be giving us an update- I await it. Im trusting you all will be releasing the other, copious logs of AiiM's bullying to disprove factually that this is not over the "genderbender" comment. Will you be punishing Freya for recently calling Jarkarll "pathetic"? Why does cyber-bullying illicit a harsher ban policy than cyber-sex, especially after the Indelwehn incident in which a below-consensual aged male was brought into cybering? Do you now recognize that Lord of the Craft should be a refuge? Are the staff cognizant that this precedent now has them as social counselors in essence, stepping past the rudimentary task of supervising the mc.lordofthecraft.net, ts.lordofthecraft.net, and www.lordofthecraft.net and prepared [mentally] to deal with social issues? 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cracker 4570 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Aiim's ban justification in his ban appeal You will be banned for four months for the harassment of Vardak and TheForeverRuler, as well as few others in minor past incidences that wish to not be named, individuals that have come to us personally in regards to the matter. Included in this ban is your constant mass trolling, including the TS incident where you and a few others claimed you were going to DDoS and hack the server and acted "racist" (as provided by some people that witnessed the event), as well as the mass trolling of Malinor that has been occurring for a little while now. You may appeal after four months on February 20th, 2014. The other incidents were referred to as minor and were not the main cause of the ban according to rittsy. Furthermore, keeping the minor incidents coated in secrecy is asking for backlash; people want to know why players are being banned and simply saying "minor past incidents" barely scratches the surface. The only incidents that are proved are pretty vague; "commenting in TS about hacking the server" "acting racist" "mass-trolling". There's no evidence to any of these claims and listing them off without proof does not help in accepting the staff's decision without inquiry. Few people will, and for the right reasons, blindly follow staff verdicts without evidence, and failing to provide evidence and justify why Aiim's actions leave him banned will only stir the pot and fail to resolve the tension between staff and player. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overland 349 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Thanks for the clarification, too bad I'm out of +1's for the day :/ I recall Alan saying something that trolling will be counted under this, I was wondering if it meant all trolling, or major trolling? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draeris 3124 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Okay folks! Hop on the train and lets make this a whole " Basicly, the staff took action in what they believed was right. We are all aware AiiM was a very respected, yet immature player of our community. I fuly support the staff's statement when they say that they don't want cyber-bullies on our server, we have enough issues on trolls anyways. Even though I believe the staff have their right to do it, even though I do not fully agree with it. We shoudn't make it a circus seriously. All this unecessary drama about the ban of a king troll. Before you all start flaming on me because I am ( so it seems ) the only one who actually agrees with the staff, partially. We must all put our personal relationships with AiiM aside and think about why he was banned, and that he actually can return in 4 months? Even though it was harsh, the staff had to take action one day. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperial Legion Soldier 34 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Though I'm not sure I agree with punishing people for things said on Skype I have to agree that he did kind of harass a member of the community which has never been okay. I agree with the punishment and wish people would move on. Side note: I believe it was a little harsh to make him wait so long to appeal but it's up to the admins and GMs, so whatever. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aelu / Rel (Combustionary) 1540 Share Posted October 21, 2013 I think everyone needs to look at the whole picture. Aiim was not an ideal member of the community. Look at his posts, look at his actions IG (specifically, the 'protest' in Malinor, where he was told to leave by GMs, and refused?). He didn't have a clean record, but one of doing everything he could without being banned. I could go on, but I'd just be repeating what Blundermore said in another topic. Doing what Aiim did doesn't win you favors with the GMs, it puts you on a shorter leash. His banning isn't abuse by the staff, if anything, I'd say it's better compared to the common "We'll unban you, but if you mess up again, you're gone" appeal verdict. They didn't take action against him at first, but he continued to 'mess up'. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.png.4e5370fc69f142d96a905e477cd5dd97.png)
Recommended Posts