[Rexan]

Ban Notice for Lumi, Aegis, Mewni, and Croakie

With the bans covering the same issues; and much of the appeals posing the same arguments against their bans, this post will be a Net-Cover of all appeals; as they are all concerning the one ‘Four-Person-Ban’ which occurred.  We will in our best efforts attempt to make it clear explicitly why this ban was enacted, and hopefully make it clear why there will be no repeal for a ban of this caliber. As well as communicate with all hope, that this was not a crack-pot decision of one or two GMS; but a unanimous decision by the team to go forward with them. We’ll start from the top, and go through each of the cases, charges, and explanations to the best possible clarity without putting other players at open-risk of Harassment. 

"For repeatedly gatekeeping, metagaming, harassment, and OOCly preventing others from being able to exercise their roles fairly."


This caught our attention and was investigated over the course of a few months, starting sometime in January. This was not an abrupt decision, it’s been a coalescence of evidence stacking up against them over time to form a clear pattern and equally clear intent.

The reason these four got the same ban message, the same sentence (barring Croakie’s time, which included a slight typo that we’ll remedy when the correct time is up), and were lumped in together is because they all acted with coordinated efforts to achieve the same goal.

You might remember that this is the same ban that Blade was dealt, for excluding the other half of the donship. This is also intentional, as they perpetrated the same thing.

With the added harassment charge, in this case.


So with that in mind and the way that we always handle harassment cases and try to curb the potential for backlash, we’ll explain the charges as best we can.


Gatekeeping

Normally private game-related servers for IC groups are an issue due to the fact that GMs can’t moderate them effectively and sometimes echo chambers tend to bring out the worst in people, as one of our previous threads mentioned.

But in this case, one was used to completely exclude not just one player in a position of IC power that’s meant to be on equal footing, but a host of other players on that side of Meiaquar.

It would be one thing to have a private echo chamber with the usual problems that come from them, but it’s another thing entirely when said chamber is used to discuss and plan important nation-related things that should be done in a place where both sides of an IC faction can see, on an OOC level.

To throw a metaphorical ‘benefit of the doubt’ bone, if the concern was that someone might metagame with that information if it were made available to them on an OOC level, then that should be discussed with GMs instead so we can ensure everyone plays fair.


Metagaming

Also known as OOC in IC, this includes things like fabricating IC reasons to be upset using OOC information for something that doesn’t exist and didn’t happen ICly.

It also includes making up reasons ICly to try to justify an OOC agenda of kicking someone out of a position of power that’s inconvenient to your aims of attacking another faction for more OOC reasons.

Likely with enough time and enough people turning a blind eye to it (or worse, being complicit in it), these things could have amounted to something of actual IC substance and the lines would have blurred too much to act upon.

Especially with a coordinated effort between several different parties.

But thankfully, we caught it early.


Harassment

All of these things were targeted attacks for OOC reasons and a history of issues between the offending parties and the victims.

Harassment is a broad, blanket statement that we use to include things that fall under the umbrella of targeted attacks towards others. (Highlighted in case any of you were unaware.)



* This includes dragging your fellow players whether or not it’s done to their faces.

* This includes unsubstantiated claims of wrongdoing in an attempt to get a fellow player in trouble.

* This includes spreading misinformation/false narratives about your fellow players in multiple semi-public spaces to ostracize them from their peers and increase the divide you created in the first place.

* This also includes hiding under objects to monitor what your fellow players are doing.

* And of course, DMing people to incite them because you didn’t like something they did/said ICly or otherwise.

As you know, in the past we’ve had to ban several prior offenders for posting inflammatory statements in SL2-related discords. The consequences of which were often not felt until months after their initial attempts to ostracize others.

We were lucky this time to catch things as early as we did.

OOCly preventing others from being able to exercise their roles fairly

It’s more or less been stated above, but multiple players were excluded from important discussions and things they should have been made aware of on an OOC level.

This makes it all too easy to say things OOCly and ICly to fit the narrative you’re trying to peddle, like:

“So and so doesn’t do anything, they’re unfit for their role”.

If you make it nigh impossible for others to be included in what your side of things does, it does make it hard for them to do anything. Meetings, prisoner transfers, almost anything short of directly ignoring them ICly.

But then, you wouldn’t have to go as far as Blade did if you simply didn’t allow them to exist in the same IC spaces as you, by keeping them in the dark.

Needless to say, it’s not something we can ignore.

---

Whilst the team in whole agrees we ought’ best create a more conducive system for enacting bans; both to give more deserving players the punishment they have avoided in the past, and to give those who are harassed or elsewise more confidence and support that they need to bring their issues forward; this ban and it’s enactment was something we all saw fit to push through. 

This whole situation’s development over the months of investigation have made it clear that we need to have a far stricter ‘format’ when deciding bans, punishments, and warnings. In that niche, we do understand and agree 100%. But that doesn’t detract from the crimes we did see. Enacted multiple times over and with clear intent to sow OOC dissent amongst players for some level of IC gain.

To those who were banned, we hope that the time off from the game, short as it is, can be used in some medium of self reflection over one’s own actions and how they’ve affected the players around them.

To those who are unconvinced, and see this as a matter of GM overstepping. It is a shame. But it’s also an argument we can only fight so much personally; as opinions like those tend to be set in stone and infallibly hard to deter, only through action can they elsewise be proven. 

It is an established policy for a long time, (See rulings by Balthie, Pandos, & Dyst) that we will not place evidence in harassment cases out for public review. This is due to the amount of backlash as well as direct and indirect targeting either victims or informants receive. This is not a decision made by the team to obfuscate our motives for bans, but to protect the individuals who are victimised and those who inform us.

And to those who are simply taking the time to read this, we hope this has at least offered some level of clarity as to the depth and scope of this situation.