NG+7 Gael

I understand what the reason given for denial is, and if that's how you feel about it, then that's how you feel about it. I'm not really sure what else to say, though. I can write out a much longer post apologizing in lots of words for many different things, but I personally don't see how it would make the apology any more or less sincere. I'm still extremely unhappy about falsely being accused of posting literal Nazi propaganda, but- as I said in my initial appeal- I also understand that my response to the original situation(s) was too much. This more-or-less extends to the warning I got from the other staff member around the same time: unhappy about the situation, but I understand that the way I responded was unacceptable as well. Either way, I will say again that I absolutely did attempt to apologize for it in the appeal, whether it was clear or not. And as I said, I can write out a longer one, but I don't see how that would make you or anyone else view it as any more sincere than what I already posted. I have no idea what the expectations are for this. If any of you have questions about whatever, feel free to ask.

Discord ID: Imperial Duck (They/Them)#5344 Staff BYOND Key: Melariara Game ID: N/A Reason for complaint: So, my discord unban request was denied by Melariara, "because I feel you aren't really remorseful about it, nor do I feel you understand why you were banned." Upon asking for some potential clarification, and assuring Mel that I meant it, I was just told to either re-appeal in two months or make a staff complaint to contest it, so that's what I'm doing. Honestly, I don't understand why this was the response I got- I dunno if I came across the wrong way in the appeal or something, but I certainly did attempt to apologize, and tried to make it clear. I also don't understand how waiting two months to appeal again would make any amount of difference; she won't recognize the appeal as being legitimate, like, 8 months after I was banned in the first place. I received no clarification for her statements, and I don't see how trying again in two more months would change anything. As far as knowing why I was banned goes: the reason that I was given on the forums was that I received 3 strikes, which automatically escalated to a ban. The reasoning for each of these 3 strikes is different, but they were all collected within a very short period of time, hence the reasoning I gave in my initial appeal. Also, the reason that was given for the ban via the discord bot was largely false, as it claims that I posted Nazi propaganda despite never posting anything like that. The second part of that message which mentioned going on about it after struck is true, though, and I already recognized and apologized for that in my initial appeal.

Discord Key: Imperial Duck (They/Them)#5344 Total Ban Length: Permanent Banning staff member's Key: I guess this counts as Melariara? Reason of Ban: 3 Warnings Reason for Appeal: Well, I was banned for getting 3 warnings, but I kinda just speedran all 3 warnings at once. In all the rest of my time on the server, I didn't get any, so I think it's safe to say it's not exactly a common thing. I still entirely wholeheartedly disagree with whoever it was that I was disagreeing with, but I do understand that I went about it the wrong way, and that I was excessively aggressive, particularly towards Mel, so I do apologize to her, it was undeserved. I already had multiple ppl in the server, including staff, trying to tell me false things about myself and completely ignoring what I was saying on top of w/e else was happening so, perhaps understandably, I was quite upset at the time- which isn't meant to be an excuse, just an explanation.

that's very not 'clearly an implicit was of asking for elaboration'. And it wasn't sarcasm, it was literally just a response. that's still not 'bad faith arguing', but whatever, you've already stated your unwillingness to listen. I'm done.

I was not asked to elaborate on my argument, nor was it an argument, as I already said. It was me giving my opinion, which Sycmos took to be an "argument" by his own accord. "Yes, and?" is not a 'bad faith argument' when there's no argument, all I was doing was agreeing. "You're doing ____" is not 'asking for an elaboration', it's someone dismissing my opinions because they're not found in some sort of logic, but... well, by my opinion.

Bump, been almost another week.

and yet passive-aggressively calling me a dick is just fine? cool.

what the hell are you talking about? what about that was "unacceptable"??

@Garnascus correct me if I'm wrong but this doesn't sound right. Why would the ban be replaced with a strike? I wasn't on two previous strikes, I had one from Haydizzle and one from Mel. The "third" one doesn't exist.

whatever, I'm done. no fucking point in trying between this and haydizzle's thing. idek what you mean I have 3 strikes, I have one from haydizzle (a strike which I'm still contesting) and this one. I'm not going to fucking apologize for saying 'nazis bad' because it's """political""". Especially not after reading dumbass shit like it's "red flags." Are you fucking kidding. this is basically just saying "it was personal". Also I never told you to fuck off. Ironically, despite the fact that I was mocking you at other times, the quoted part was not, in fact, me mocking you. That was just a statement. But yes, I have been mocking you because getting mad over someone saying 'nazis bad' is incredibly fucking stupid.

them* didn't post any nazi propaganda. look above. Also, you didn't say not to talk about Nazis, you said "no political shit." If saying Nazis are bad is political then I don't even know.

they* Yeah, Mel tried to ban me almost immediately after the strike. Once again, as the logs clearly show, for something I didn't do and has yet to be explained.

Here, a compilation of literally every single comment I wrote during the entire thing. Please, go ahead and show me where I "posted literal Nazi propaganda." Go ahead.

?

Now that Mel finally figured out how to ban me: what the fuck is this? I didn't post "literal Nazi propaganda." I didn't post any of the book. Soooo???

I would understand that, but I was responding to Lily at the time, who had been talking to me about what Mel said. We weren't talking about the book, which is what Mel had said to stop talking about. So I don't know why I got a strike for responding to someone who was talking to me. Still, even going forward with the assumption that the strike is acceptable, I don't see how a ban is, certainly not a permanent ban. My assumption is that Mel was mad that I was being aggressive and decided to go for a ban, which is just ridiculous if that's the case. Otherwise... I don't know what could have prompted that. My only comments after the book was done being talked about that could in any way be seen as related to it were "Nazis bad," which... I mean, seriously?

Another Discord staff complaint. Discord ID: Imperial Duck#5344 Staff Discord ID: Mel#6284 Game ID: N/A Reason for complaint: First, I was given a strike for talking/asking about why Mel was saying that those of us talking about a topic "should know better" than to talk about it, the topic in question being making fun of a pro-Nazi book. I was responding to other people who were talking to me at the time, and the only response that Mel gave was that it was political. I'd understand if it was something else, but we were literally making fun of fucking Nazis. Not an uncommon occurrence in Aurora discords. Additionally, however, by the time I was given the strike, we had already stopped talking about the book and I was just responding to other people in the Discord about why it was being called an inappropriate topic (which they were bringing up.) After pointing that out, albeit in an aggressive manner, Mel basically just said "ok" and then attempted to ban me permanently. I was talking about the strike at this point and not the book, so I really don't even know what the problem is. Evidence/logs/etc: Additional remarks:

I didn't brush aside what people said though? And you're still claiming that I'm baiting people even though I'm saying I'm not. I don't know why you think that you get to decide what is and isn't bait. As far as when I said "doesn't matter why", that was literally right before when I said "if it's fun, it's fun". That was all one sentence. "It doesn't matter why, if it's fun, it's fun." And yes, as you posted, I did say that I disagreed with someone else's strike earlier. Once again, it's not bait, it's me giving my opinion. Stop claiming that I'm baiting people without any proof. It's beyond annoying.

As far as the first part goes, I don't see the problem. In the conversation that Sycmos was referring to, I was quite literally saying that I enjoyed something because I found it fun, as Sycmos said. It wasn't an argument based on anything else. So I agreed with him. That's not a bait. As far as the second part goes, yeah, it was a hostile response. I got a strike for having an opinion, so yes that's going to annoy me. It's irrelevant to what I got a strike for anyways, so I don't know why you brought it up.

This is a Discord complaint. Discord ID: Imperial Duck#5344 Staff Discord ID: Petrichor#0098 Game ID: N/A Reason for complaint: I was given a strike for, basically, disagreeing with people in Discord. I don't really know what else to say. I disagreed with some people's opinions, stated my own, and then Petrichor claimed I was baiting. I then got a strike for "baiting". Just seems like targeted staff action if anything. Petrichor also claimed it was a "repeated problem" for some reason, so there's that. Evidence/logs/etc: Additional remarks:

I like it. Might as well at the very least test merge and give it a try?

More Dominia lore!! Well, overall I definitely like it. It would be really nice to have some lore representation of dueling considering how common a talking point it has become for a lot of Dominian characters and otherwise. Specifically, I really like the inclusion of rankings and dueling styles, as I think it adds a lot of flavour to what is otherwise entirely unexplained. I also very much appreciate the insertion of honour into mainstream dueling, as well as the stated differences between what you might typically find in a Morozian duel and a duel in the frontier. It's also really nice to have all of the Great Houses included in some way. Obviously, there's a lot of fluff, and I'd not be surprised if a good chunk of it would be cut down if implemented, but I do hope the overall general spirit of it remains the same, because I think it adds some nice needed depth to an important yet entirely unexplored part of Dominian society. I feel like it was pretty well thought out and had a lot of effort put into it. My only real "suggestion" at the moment is that maaaybe considering the effects on one's honour (and especially on a House as a whole) from dueling to last "generations" might be a bit excessive? I'm not really sure, I don't particularly mind the idea of it, but I figured it might be worth considering. Edit: Also, maybe a small bit on gun dueling would be nice? Maybe mention the Kirihide style being developed as an alternative to dueling with guns or something. +1

In my experience, I would say I have found Faye's character to be good, typically speaking, and I think she has a good understanding of roleplay and the server rules and such, and would do well with helping out newer players with mechanics or whatever else they might need. OOC, I think that she has shown herself to be levelheaded and, based on previous comments here, able to separate personal bias from server rules and such. Overall, she has usually been good to interact with both in-character and out of character. The interview, in my opinion, showed relatively rational and quick decision making, so I don't really have any doubts that a trial at the very least would be good to see. My only real possible point of concern at the moment would be, like some others have mentioned briefly, the fact that Faye seems to hold some beliefs very strongly, which could potentially be cause for concern in certain scenarios. Of course, this can also be seen as a positive thing, as it means being able to stand your ground and such. Regardless, I still don't think it will be a problem, and I have no other concerns. +1

Big +1 from me, people who haven't played since- like Matt said- 2015/2016, should absolutely have to reapply for Command and show their understanding of current lore and atmosphere, as well as general competency, to reacquire their whitelist. Especially with NBT coming soon, it would be the best time to do so in order to keep Command clear of those types of players. I think Command roles typically have too much ability to shift the direction of a round for players who haven't played in that long to just come back and jump back into it without any re-introduction to the server.

While I'm only really familiar with Karl, I do think that (especially as Karl is the one planned for use as Command) this is enough to give my thoughts. I've played quite a few rounds with Karl as QM under my HoP, and personally speaking, I think Karl is a great fit for command, both from perspective of the character and the player. I've never had a problem that I can think of with Restricted in terms of roleplay or OOC conduct, and 100% believe that they'd be a good fit for command. They're constantly engaging with their department, and generally seem to make a good effort to make experiences with the character enjoyable. +1