+- NEUS Projects (https://neus-projects.net/forums)
+-- Forum: Sigrogana Legend 2 (OOC) (https://neus-projects.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Forum: General Discussion (https://neus-projects.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: Addressing Misinformation Regarding a Recent Ban (/showthread.php?tid=7382)
RE: Addressing Misinformation Regarding a Recent Ban - WaifuApple - 11-13-2020
I understand. I just believe that it hits a lot differently on a player's name to have a GM personally mention it than to have a player mention it. It's out there now, but I can only hope the community is willing to look past it's usual nature when it gets a name and the implication of them doing something bad and at least leaves the two alone. Though they may have said some things, it was out of frustration if anything at a series of events that I've already cleared up to try and exercise a bit of damage control.
RE: Addressing Misinformation Regarding a Recent Ban - Dystopia - 11-13-2020
(11-13-2020, 07:20 PM)jintheblue Wrote: Between pronouns, hearsay, and anonymous users, I have no better understanding the chain of events.
I am not arguing weather or not Detema should have been banned, nor for how long. You are a moderator, that is your duty. That said handling problem players by dropping a ban with a notice, without warning, nor follow up will not inspire them change, breaking your word with members of the community will only inspire distrust, and posting a thread begging for player trust, to clear your name, during a time where a significant portion of the community has misgivings about the staff team, not only makes you, and your team look bad, but further disenfranchises members of the community.
Whether or not I agree with your decision on this case, your handling of it has only hurt every party involved, and left you with fire upon fire to put out. In the future if you intend to ban a user, especially an established member of the community have a chat with them. If you're hearing reports someone is being rude in public, don't waste a week idling, talk to them. It doesn't matter if they've been warned before. You'll save people from being harassed just for you to have a rubber stamp. These things set the tone for the community, they paint you in a reasonable light, and keep bans from feeling like a sniper's bullet from a thousand yards away.
If you'd like, I can try to clarify once again with all the proper pronouns in place to better help you understand.
I apologize, and thought it was clear in the context of my initial post, as each point was going over what I've already stated in the lengthier one in shorter, concise sentences.
I'm not sure which parts are hearsay, you'd have to be more specific on that. In regards to protecting anonymous users, I'm afraid that's also my job.
I think a point to note here is that Detema didn't appeal their ban. Instead, they seemed very aware of what they did when they messaged Sly, as that screenshot indicates. There might even be far more reasons as indicated by their own words, that we aren't aware of because they weren't reported and I didn't happen to catch those. Either way, as stated, they were warned and their behavior indicates that they were entirely aware of what they were doing, hence the lengthy ban.
If you're talking about another ban, the only one that comes to mind is the other recent one, and as stated previously, I believe Chaos summed up everything the team had to say on it.
Additionally, I'm not begging anyone to trust me. That's something that's earned. My hope and intention in asking people to report things over and over is that people keep an open mind in regards to the current staff and are more willing to approach to report things they see go awry, for the sake of everyone in the community.
As far as I'm aware here, I haven't broken my word in this situation. I made a single mistake in it, have apologized, and otherwise handled it accordingly.
In regards to 'wasting a week idling', keep in mind that this wasn't the plan in relation to Detema at all. The aims I had in setting that time period for the investigation were purely in relation to the OOC corner as a whole, to better determine what to do with it and how to handle the problems people kept presenting with it.
As I've stated, the fact that someone chose to misbehave in it during the initial few days of that investigation was pure happenstance and I could not have predicted such.
The rest of that week was uneventful and led to the drafting of the thread I mentioned, regarding our suggestion of what to do with the OOC corner.
Mind you, the complaints over the OOC corner were many, not all of them were in regards to Detema, and not all of them listed any particular player as being the problem. This is why I felt it best to investigate for myself for a specific timespan to better come up with a solution to the problems presented.
While it's true that I've been constantly dousing fires lately, I can't say that I regret doing so. Far better to speak up than let the fires start and stop themselves.
I'd rather put out a dozen fires than be silent when it comes to situations like this, and feel it's far better to address them as best I can.
RE: Addressing Misinformation Regarding a Recent Ban - jintheblue - 11-13-2020
(11-13-2020, 07:58 PM)Dystopia Wrote: --
I'm sorry there seems to be a miscommunication between the two of us, but if this was about Shou's ban I would have said so. That's a different matter for a different day. As for hearsay, and the details of what exactly went down, without logs, or testimony, all of it is hearsay and not the point, you said yourself in the initial post.
(11-13-2020, 07:58 PM)Dystopia Wrote: This honestly isn't even about Detema's ban, which I slapped down after a lengthy discussion with the rest of the GM team.
I'm also not asking you to not put out fires, simply reminding you that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and the root of all of this miscommunication stems from you.
You banned Detema without a word prior, and only the server message after. Detema was left "knowing what they did", only in so much as, knowing that Seven, a user they lashed out at, after being stalked by, went to you. You told Seven that no one involved would get more than a warning. You have had a month to clear up these misunderstandings, and choose not to until now. All it would take are two messages. The first to Detema, "Do you know why you were banned?" and the second to Seven, "Detema wasn't banned on your behalf, he was banned for toxic behavior in the ooc corner."
RE: Addressing Misinformation Regarding a Recent Ban - Maksimum_Fire - 11-13-2020
(11-13-2020, 09:19 PM)jintheblue Wrote:(11-13-2020, 07:58 PM)Dystopia Wrote: --
I'm sorry there seems to be a miscommunication between the two of us, but if this was about Shou's ban I would have said so. That's a different matter for a different day. As for hearsay, and the details of what exactly went down, without logs, or testimony, all of it is hearsay and not the point, you said yourself in the initial post.
(11-13-2020, 07:58 PM)Dystopia Wrote: This honestly isn't even about Detema's ban, which I slapped down after a lengthy discussion with the rest of the GM team.
I'm also not asking you to not put out fires, simply reminding you that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and the root of all of this miscommunication stems from you.
You banned Detema without a word prior, and only the server message after. Detema was left "knowing what they did", only in so much as, knowing that Seven, a user they lashed out at, after being stalked by, went to you. You told Seven that no one involved would get more than a warning. You have had a month to clear up these misunderstandings, and choose not to until now. All it would take are two messages. The first to Detema, "Do you know why you were banned?" and the second to Seven, "Detema wasn't banned on your behalf, he was banned for toxic behavior in the ooc corner."
Up till now, it hasn't been GM policy to publicize reasons for bans, but rather let banned players approach GMS.
In the scenario, Detema approached Slydria, was directed to Dystopia, and then never followed up on things from there. Explicitly Dyst mentions in this thread Detema had recently received warnings regarding their behavior.
I'm sorry to cut in, but this definitely seems like a topic for Balthie's thread as it's a matter of policy.