James

Would be an extremely responsible pick for the global moderator team. I can only predict positive growth based on Wendigo's past contributions to the server, and I believe he would be indefatigable in his work ethic. He is both scrupulous and shrewd, amazing traits in a productive global moderator. +1

Great pick for the FM team. +1

I see you didn't respond to my comment and so I feel obliged to do this. @L0rdLawyer You realize that just because you can say something is possible under the Terms of Service, doesn't make it a morally correct decision right? While it shouldn't be considered an LOTC medium, even if it is the argued point it's still null on the basis that the ban was still outright a breach of personal freedoms that should be granted in any fair community. You may not have these on the internet in certain places, but you can definitely argue for the injustice in not having them. While you're free to take it away, people are free to leave for what they believe is unjust. Tythus is the owner and can do whatever he want with the server, regardless of whether someone actually broke the rules or not and as such they're irrelevant in a case like this when an Administrator is involved. While they should confine themselves to the rules presented, an administrators decision isn't the same as a global moderators. The discussion shouldn't use the rules as a center point rather the act itself if the issue is with how he was banned. This discussion will continue further onto the problem with the TOS or Rules itself past Imattyz ban. The idea of banning for toxicity that isn't immediately relevant to the actual medium is like arresting someone in France for breaking a law in America /within/ France. You don't convict people with a punishment when it isn't relevant to where you are. Just because you discuss something about lotc within a medium doesn't make it inherently tied to LOTC. I run multiple discords where lotc players reside, and yet none of them are for LOTC. Just because they may talk about it at one point, shouldn't give anyone the right to ban them over it.

You've always been able to ban people for committing and creating incentive of harassment within Skype and Discord. The problem is when this infringes on a persons right to voice their opinion within civil discussion. If someone has performed poorly, it is that persons right to speak out against the mistake and criticize it. Banning the person for doing so is not only wrong if they haven't done anything outwardly towards the person with negative intent that infringes upon their own rights, but also creates them as a martyr. Even with this bad connotation that's drawn from progressive speech, without it their would be no realization of past failures within the whole of the community. Point of the discussion is that freedom of speech is important and shouldn't be taken away unless circumstances directly use language upon the medium that can affect youth. That's the only valid reason I can see for the removal in the case of vulgarity and actual illegal harassment. What Imattyz has done as far as I'm aware is voice an opinion towards a group and maybe a specific few individuals and get removed for it. When you get rid of your playerbase for speaking about an injustice, you're validating the injustice. If you believe the injustice wasn't necessarily true, you are validating their argument by refusing their right as an individual to hold their case before punishment is given or if that punishment was even a necessity. Getting rid of a person with an opposed viewpoint is the opposite of clarity. Even on the server as a GM, I would always teleport the person if they were online to have a discussion with them before handing out the verdict. I could have concrete logs of cyber and I'd still talk with said individuals before banning them. While there are cases where this isn't ideal, the way this was handled was extremely poor and bias.