Arguing about this won't change anything. Instead of making 7 threads talking about the same thing or giving your own personal opinion, which is literally irrelevant, useless and all about that demagogic +1 (because what you're doing in the end is throw shit at people who not only you were playing with until yesteday but also who can't defend themselves, very brave indeed), what you should do is sum up actual points, have the admin feedback thread/ cancernnouncement thread open and post these points of yours there.
Most of you don't even have that much though. You just feel its a good opportunity to attack people you don't like / gain attention.
They aren't permanently banned, they're indefinitely banned with the ability to appeal after 6 months.
Out of curiousity, what would happen if the admins posted concrete proof of wrongdoing by those who were banned, what would happen to those defending them? Would you still be up in arms despite the proof or would you accept the decision?
I wouldn't have any issue with the indefinite ban if, as you say, concrete proof of wrongdoing were provided. As usual, though, all we have is an opaque decision, with no clarification - the only support the administration has isn't evidence, it's a mass of self-serving individuals who like to sing in harmony with the staff for a variety of reasons, ranging from personal dislike of those banned to fishing for orange/green names themselves.
That said, my doubts that there is enough concrete evidence to justify all of the bans and the severity of the punishment levied are, at this point, almost insurmountable. Even if these could be assuaged, I would still have a bone to pick with the unprofessional, incompetent, and utterly deplorable manner in which the staff chose to go about the whole process of banning them one way or another.
In short, even if evidence was provided to support all six bans that was impossible to argue against, you would still see me calling for the staff to either put up or walk out the door on the grounds of their misconduct thus far.
I have to agree about the poor conduct on this recent ban spree, as well as with what omicega mentioned about letting things pass through "under the rug". It would actually be better to have a "discussion" just like what we had one or two years ago, over that "No Confidence" thread. That way we somehow managed to point out the mistakes of one another and so on and in the end it worked out in a matter of speaking. And I have to say that yber is right on what he posted, that this whole thing could be laid out much better than seven different threads, half of them locked and the other half all with different kinds of posts.
Hey, I'm all for presenting the evidence publicly, I'm even against banning them in the first place. It's how they're being presented as saints by some people that annoys me.
Present the evidence, publicly.
But don't only do that for them.
Do it for everyone.
User was banned for: Karlotta alt.
Time left: (Permanent)
If any evidence at all is presented I will already be surprised. I would consider ourselves fortunate to find even that much - that said, I wouldn't stop there.
If you ask me, the entire staff should be wiped at this point - from where I see it, having looked at a seemingly endless stream of this same old sh*t rolling around time and time again, an entirely new set of greens is the most permanent and effective solution to the constant mistakes and mishandling of everything the current set shovels out. Unfortunately for me, I think most of the community would find my views extreme, especially since I already made the point that people here are extraordinarily apathetic about how things are done, to the point where I feel their own disinterest impinges upon their own interests more often than not. Having spent a lot of my time in RP communities similar to this one (some with a game attached, some without) Discovery has always been consistent in its ranking as having the least approachable, transparent, and open-to-discussion staff in relation to pretty much any matter, whether it be rule breaking, rule clarification, or any number of other issues that a player can run into. Furthermore, other than the staff who take care of critical server stuff on the back end of things (like @Alley and @"King Boo") the rest of them do comparatively little as well. One of the other mediumRP games I've played in the past had less admins than this place - four or five at last count, if I'm not mistaken - and they managed to have a near-constant stream of live moderation, account management, appeals, and even a live, in-game /adminhelp command that would connect you straight with an admin or mod in the event of a severe issue cropping up. Comparing the workload I've seen staff in other places take on, the comparative laziness of Discovery's greens in particular has always raised an eyebrow.
I don't even doubt the theory that states that there's no evidence at all.
Know why people got hurt over it? Know why there's o many threads and subsequent paragraphs laying into the admins strategy when it came to this opaque and currently wildly unjust decision?
Because it's bull shit. That's why. I'd give more reasoning to that but Omi's taken the words out of my mouth. You can see the clear divide between reason and sticking your nose deep into the rectal passage of the gan-greens.
@Ninja You kinda sound like Karlotta or some sort of individual banned long time ago that circumvents their ban on some alt just for these special threads, sections and occasions. I mean I could always be wrong but it's just the impression I get.
Omi that might be going a bit too far if you ask me.
(06-30-2016, 08:16 PM)Omicega Wrote: Discovery has always been consistent in its ranking as having the least approachable, transparent, and open-to-discussion staff in relation to pretty much any matter, whether it be rule breaking, rule clarification, or any number of other issues that a player can run into.
Maybe they'd be easier to approach and more open to discussion if you didn't fling around so much hatred in your posts?
Transparency and accountability isn't a matter of who is admin, but of the system the admins work under.
Whether they present evidence or not or justify their decisions or not shouldn't be up to the admins whims, but required via rules.
That will solve things. A new batch of people with different friends and different biases wont.
User was banned for: Karlotta alt.
Time left: (Permanent)
I will freely admit that my tone isn't the easiest to read in the world. I am frustrated and angry after years of trying to argue the same points again and again.
Maybe I would be easier to approach and less cynical and jaded if the administration hadn't repeatedly shown me - and others - a lasting and constant contempt for our attempts and suggestions to improve the system and methodology that's currently in place.
I would agree with your broadly suggested rule reformations and so forth if I had any trust in the current administration to carry them out in a fair and proper manner. Unfortunately, I don't.
![[Image: omicega.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/omicega.gif)
