Garnascus

Week ban did seem harsh at first glance but i am unfortunately going to need to side with @Owen on this one. We have no choice but to escalate in punishments when a particular player continues to break rules. I am sorry to say but i do not see any reason to alter the ban or expunge it from your ckey.

Forgot to archive this.

Locking and archiving as judgement has been rendered. Frank can appeal again at the stated time.

Sorry for the late response I think the initial permanent ban is definitely valid given the sequence of events. I think frank even acknowledges its validity given the text of his ban appeal. Permanent bans are expected to be exactly that. Permanent. They are not placed lightly and its not always a guarantee that they can even be appealed. While i acknowledge the exact length of time for when to consider an unban appeal is a bit "Feelcrafty" it is up to the banning administrator. Considering i do not have any problems here with the ban itself i feel like siding with cybs on this one.

No, you did not "stop talking to them". You claimed you would no longer engage and then continued to make snide comments directed towards me. Of course I'm going to respond. In no universe do you get to keep making passive aggressive comments about our discussion and then have a problem when I respond. You can argue all you want about how you think im "baiting" you. Its common sense that if you keep discussing a topic then so will I.

Ironically in the screenshots you've clipped here I told fox to drop it twice yet he still continued the discussion with condescending and passive aggressive remarks. I do not believe I said anything against the rules of conduct for being staff. There's really nothing to say here.

The thing to keep in mind here is that the current document regarding how able bodied your character must be is the result of EXHAUSTIVE discussion, iteration and debate. Overall policy has shifted this way and that over the years. Regardless of where the pendulum swung there was always a portion of people dissatisfied with it. Most staff members have personal anecdotes of having to deal with a frustrating case of a particular character toeing the line or pushing a good faith boundary with a disability. Expanding or restricting disabilities is TECHNICALLY easier to do nowadays since we have fancy charts. I think the best things to consider when doing this is "Does this allow interesting characters to be made" and "is this consistent with a heavy RP setting" with hopefully a fine balance between the two.

Gonna piggyback off of what Carver has said. The topic of headmin elections has come up numerous times over the years including when I was still headmin. I believe headmin elections to be a popularity contest. Staff work together internally on nearly every issue related to the server and the topic of "Who do we make headmin" is always a lengthy discussion where all the mods and admins have a say. The idea being that the mods and admins are well equipped to asses the potential for the new headmin. The community sees a very small portion of this process. I'm not saying its good or bad it just is. However its very difficult for someone not on the staff team to make an informed choice on who the next headmin should be.

What is the basis for this complaint. There arent any hard policies on how long to keep a player permabanned for though the initial unban appeal seems genuine to me.

Strong disagree. Its an enormous buff to security and improves an area they are already very strong in.

Honestly, when i examine the entirety of events it does look all above board. I admit that the evidence presented does make Eddy look pretty bad here. It is true that this was his character's first round and it is also true he was the individual who handled, at least in part the character complaint on 50_noob's character. I am not making any judgements on the "wrongness" or "rightness" of any IC interactions as they relate to OOC rules but the premise of the original incident report seemed reasonable to me. It also does not seem to be the case that Eddy was observing the round before hand. It makes sense to me that a captain character upon joining would inquire as to the status of an active expedition and make suggestions or orders regarding it as is in their power to do so. The specific comment that Eddy made about making the character to "bait" 50_noob's character into an IR was allegedly said while in a voice chat. There is no proof that he made this comment so i have to analyze the events as is and determine if they are reasonable. While i am a bit uncomfortable with Eddy's comments here where he states. I do not believe it is acceptable to monitor someone IC with a higher ranking character due to the result of a character complaint. It feels a little weird to have any IC interactions be for the purpose of monitoring someones play as a result of a character complaint.

Readthisnameplz is currently on leave so i will live this ban in their place.

I will require some time to gather a timeline of events here. I will also need to confer with other administrators.

@eddymakaveli What do you say in regard's to 50_noob's allegation you joked privately with a staff member that you would utilize your character to bait sasha into an IR?