Hmph

[Schneebo 1593]

You would think this is common sense, just get along people. I don't think a post like this should've been made if we could act like mature adults and children.

[Danny 2232]

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?

 

I will not be releasing screenshots, logs or anything else regarding his ban to anyone but himself. We don't just lob around screenshots and images of bans for anyone to see. If AiiM wants to see it, he can ask for it:- although, I wouldn't be able to supply it for around 20 hours as I don't actually have access to it on my iPad.

Well, cybering on the server results in an even more harsher punishment that bullying because, depending on who is involved, it can actually result in a breach of law and we're liable - that's why we're so tough on it, not because we want to be. When it comes to Skype, we are not liable:- we also don't moderate Skype, as I've said. Because somebody cybers on Skype, doesn't mean that they're a problem to the actual community. If someone cyber bullies someoneon Skype, we'd consider them to be a problem, as they're clearly willing to do that to another one of our players, which can cause huge issues.

The staff team having to deal with things like this isn't anything new. I saw it when I first became a GM last year. I wouldn't say we're now "socia counsellors" - I'd say we're still doing the same job as we've always done, except, we're having to deal with things like this a bit more often than previously (excluding the recent period).

Frankly, all that needs done for issues such as this to stop, is for people to get the idea out of their heads that we're out to 'get them'. Without players, we don't have a server to run and moderate, so of course we don't go looking for reasons to ban people and be unreasonable.

 

Aiim's ban justification in his ban appeal

 

 

 

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.

  

The post doesn't call them minor past incidents, it simply mentions that. It says the ban itself's reasons include... [insert reasons from post here]. I won't repeat them all, as typing on this iPad is laggy enough. Like I said to Aislin, however, if AiiM wants his ban screenies, etc then he can ask and do with them as he wishes - however, we won't just post them all public. He can show you if he asks, however, I'm sure he's aware of his wrongdoings. Ask him to pop me a PM if you're interested.

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?

Major trolling, like what we saw today from people on status' and threads is what he was meaning. We wot perma ban you for having a wee laugh: we do have senses of humour, despite what some think. ;)

[Draeris 3124]

You would think this is common sense, just get along people. I don't think a post like this should've been made if we could act like mature adults and children.

 

Says John Wayne.

[Overland 349]

 Major trolling, like what we saw today from people on status' and threads is what he was meaning. We wot perma ban you for having a wee laugh: we do have senses of humour, despite what some think. ;)

Ok, once again thanks for the clarification.  

[Nefarious Aus Shitpost 891]

Wait I'm not allowed to be an ass on other servers now under risk of being banned here?

 

dumb dumb DUMB

[Draeris 3124]

Wait I'm not allowed to be an ass on other servers now under risk of being banned here?

 

dumb dumb DUMB

 

 

 

-------------------------------------------_THE BAR_---------------------------------------------

 

Wow, the bar went really low this time.

[Imperial Legion Soldier 34]

-------------------------------------------_THE BAR_---------------------------------------------

 

Wow, the bar went really low this time.

I believe it has fallen through the ground actually.

[Danny 2232]

Wait I'm not allowed to be an ass on other servers now under risk of being banned here?

 

dumb dumb DUMB

You can go ahead and be an ass on another server:- as long as you aren't cyber bullying another LotCr we won't ban you for it.

[Draeris 3124]

2stoopid4me

And that was supossed to be phunny?

Ohh but with all due respect, doesn't the title look more like a muffled voice or moan rather than any title related to this matter?

[Aislin 4354]

I don't really care anymore, but I still don't understand how any of this could justify a permaban, or even a 2 month ban.

 

Aiim makes stupid status updates about giving hecKs. Aiim jokes about edgies and DDoS'ing the server. Aiim hasn't really cyberbullied anybody, or even angered anybody up to this point (except when he makes status about hecKs, apparently people can find offense in that).

 

Meanwhile, Vardak evaded a ban for 3 months, used a proxy to play on an alternate account, and lied about his identity and created a false persona OOCly. Remember when Hunwald did that? Permaban. This time? Not even a slap on the wrist.

 

The inconsistencies are not making any sense to me.

[Muhammadan 181]

Don't worry, Danny, the Cyber Police Team shall step up abit.

[Alan 1815]

I don't really care anymore, but I still don't understand how any of this could justify a permaban, or even a 2 month ban.

 

Aiim makes stupid status updates about giving hecKs. Aiim jokes about edgies and DDoS'ing the server. Aiim hasn't really cyberbullied anybody, or even angered anybody up to this point (except when he makes status about hecKs, apparently people can find offense in that).

 

Meanwhile, Vardak evaded a ban for 3 months, used a proxy to play on an alternate account, and lied about his identity and created a false persona OOCly. Remember when Hunwald did that? Permaban. This time? Not even a slap on the wrist.

 

The inconsistencies are not making any sense to me.

 

The reason Vardak was an exception is that we had /just/ given him the option of a second chance. We approached him and we told him if he came clean about everything we'd let him off the hook, as that's what a second chance is after all. He did, and thus no consequences followed. Had he not, he would have been found out and rebanned, this time for good.

 

Also, Hunwald was not permanently banned for ban evading. He was already permabanned from pugsying, and when he was found out (or rather he told us who he was), his account was banned as his main had never been unbanned in the first place. Though I admit it probably would not have happened, had his main account been unbanned, we would have looked at that situation differently as well. 

 

I won't comment on your view of Aiim, but I will say that it differs VERY greatly from how others portray him.

[Aislin 4354]

The reason Vardak was an exception is that we had /just/ given him the option of a second chance. We approached him and we told him if he came clean about everything we'd let him off the hook, as that's what a second chance is after all. He did, and thus no consequences followed. Had he not, he would have been found out and rebanned, this time for good.

 

Also, Hunwald was not permanently banned for ban evading. He was already permabanned from pugsying, and when he was found out (or rather he told us who he was), his account was banned as his main had never been unbanned in the first place. Though I admit it probably would not have happened, had his main account been unbanned, we would have looked at that situation differently as well. 

 

I won't comment on your view of Aiim, but I will say that it differs VERY greatly from how others portray him.

 

It just seems like you're being very lenient with somebody that tried to solicit nude pictures from an intoxicated, underaged female (who also happened to be a GM at the time), then didn't even have the decency to respect that what he did was wrong and evaded the ban. Confessing to one's wrongdoings doesn't make it correct, even if the admins advocate it.

 

I understand that others portray Aiim in a negative light, but that's because people like to make hasty first impressions and let them linger. I used to think Aiim was an ******* too, but then I spoke to him with an open mind and found, lo behold, he's not the monster that everybody makes him out to be. It shouldn't even matter what we think of him, it should matter what evidence the staff has to incriminate him for his alleged wrongdoings.

 

But, like I said, I don't care. Everybody seems to have their head too far up their own arse nowadays to step back and look at this server objectively or calmly anymore. Aiim's supporters were far too volatile in their reaction, the Elves were too quick to deem Aiim a monster on the grounds that the staff said he is a cyberbully, and the staff is inconsistent with their banning behavior.

 

Also, Hunwald was just a side note, and he obviously deserved his ban. However, Vardak is still worthy of the ban that you should be giving him.

[Drazker 307]

The reason Vardak was an exception is that we had /just/ given him the option of a second chance. We approached him and we told him if he came clean about everything we'd let him off the hook, as that's what a second chance is after all. He did, and thus no consequences followed. Had he not, he would have been found out and rebanned, this time for good.

 

Also, Hunwald was not permanently banned for ban evading. He was already permabanned from pugsying, and when he was found out (or rather he told us who he was), his account was banned as his main had never been unbanned in the first place. Though I admit it probably would not have happened, had his main account been unbanned, we would have looked at that situation differently as well. 

 

I won't comment on your view of Aiim, but I will say that it differs VERY greatly from how others portray him.

 

So does AiiM get a second chance? Do people get second chances now? Do the White Rose get a second chance?

[Alan 1815]

So does AiiM get a second chance? Do people get second chances now? Do the White Rose get a second chance?

 

To answer your questions in order, yes he does, as noted in his appeal. Yes, people get second chances if the rule the break isn't severe enough and if they prove themselves worthy to rejoin the community. Lastly, I have no idea what this has to do with anything, truly.