Doomberg

It's more because of the way you're saying it. The point is relevant, but I don't see why you need to present it like a smartass. (I'll reply to the other stuff later, busy atm.) I believe you've avidly preached the idea of "look at what the message actually says, not the tone it's said in". Why does this suddenly not apply, if you don't mind me asking? (I do apologize if I'm mistaking you for someone else, though)

It's more because of the way you're saying it. The point is relevant, but I don't see why you need to present it like a smartass. (I'll reply to the other stuff later, busy atm.) I believe you've avidly preached the idea of "look at what the message actually says, not the tone it's said in". Why does this suddenly not apply, if you don't mind me asking? (I do apologize if I'm mistaking you for someone else, though)

Then explain what people did to piss other people off - because that's what you should be arguing, not how right you are. I feel like you're focusing a lot more on the power you supposedly hold than is necessary. Psst. This was my first post. the salt is real Whatever you say. The point is relevant to the discussion. I don't see anyone's posts being deleted because they disagree with the staff and whatever actions we've chosen to undertake, despite all accusations of censorship that tend to be thrown around.

Then explain what people did to piss other people off - because that's what you should be arguing, not how right you are. I feel like you're focusing a lot more on the power you supposedly hold than is necessary. Psst. This was my first post. the salt is real Whatever you say. The point is relevant to the discussion. I don't see anyone's posts being deleted because they disagree with the staff and whatever actions we've chosen to undertake, despite all accusations of censorship that tend to be thrown around.

From the very same chat you speak of: "stating that he does what he wants to". This was never stated nor implied. When an attempt at discussion starts with behavior like the above (note that I had not even gotten the chance to type), no, you're not likely to get much out of it. So let me reiterate my explanation: When you are a disgruntled former member of staff engaging in a more benign equivalent of raiding, no, your opinion will not matter to me, nor will I make any attempt to accommodate you. When you act like a regular player, you will be treated like a regular player. When you act like a problem, you will be dealt with like a problem. If a statement of "follow the rules and be treated like someone who does" - because we've reached the point where this statement apparently needs to be explicitly made for certain people, unfortunately - bothers you, then I really can't help you.

From the very same chat you speak of: "stating that he does what he wants to". This was never stated nor implied. When an attempt at discussion starts with behavior like the above (note that I had not even gotten the chance to type), no, you're not likely to get much out of it. So let me reiterate my explanation: When you are a disgruntled former member of staff engaging in a more benign equivalent of raiding, no, your opinion will not matter to me, nor will I make any attempt to accommodate you. When you act like a regular player, you will be treated like a regular player. When you act like a problem, you will be dealt with like a problem. If a statement of "follow the rules and be treated like someone who does" - because we've reached the point where this statement apparently needs to be explicitly made for certain people, unfortunately - bothers you, then I really can't help you.

There might be something wrong when your defense can essentially be summed up to "We own the place! We can do what we want!" rather than trying to argue an actual rationale to explain why you think an user is in the wrong. I'm sorry, but I don't see how you can possibly go from "There is no real freedom of speech here because you do not have the right to keep expressing your opinion in certain places when you're pissing a lot of people off" to "We own the place, we do whatever we please.". What I said applies to literally every single online community barring a few very specific exceptions, so I'm going to politely ask you not to twist my words. Notice how you've been allowed to complain constantly with little to no intervention or censorship? Yep. Me too.

There might be something wrong when your defense can essentially be summed up to "We own the place! We can do what we want!" rather than trying to argue an actual rationale to explain why you think an user is in the wrong. I'm sorry, but I don't see how you can possibly go from "There is no real freedom of speech here because you do not have the right to keep expressing your opinion in certain places when you're pissing a lot of people off" to "We own the place, we do whatever we please.". What I said applies to literally every single online community barring a few very specific exceptions, so I'm going to politely ask you not to twist my words. Notice how you've been allowed to complain constantly with little to no intervention or censorship? Yep. Me too.

You, like many others, seem to forget that there is a Rule 1. Don't be a dick. It's there with the intent to stop people from being assholes in general and from ruining the game for others. Do you REALLY think that if what your saying is causing people to mute OOC, that you aren't breaking rule 1? Cause others to mute OOC = You are being a dick to those people, thus breaking rule 1, thus giving admins/mods a reason to shut you down. It's very simple. Even in a democracy you can't say whatever you want wherever you want. If you want to argue a point, take it to the forums where it won't clutter up OOC, where people can avoid it if they so choose, and where it has the added benefit of being much more organized and much easier to read. If someone muted OOC and I 'caused' them to do it I'm a dick and broke a rule? Most people just mute OOC because they don't want to see the conversation while playing or just don't like having OOC open. Turning off your OOC doesn't make the people enagaged in the discussion ducks. Making that assumption is just plain stupid. If I am in a public place and don't like when someone is talking loud or singing it something and I put in ear buds to drown out the noise, does it make them a dick? No. I just don't want to hear it and have the choice to listen or block it out. Comparing it to democracy isn't true. You can say whatever you want whenever you want. The freedom of speech comes with the equally important right to be offended. Er. I'm pretty sure this can be aptly answered in a very brief statement: You have no freedom of speech. There is no such thing in a moderated, private online community. That isn't to say you'll be censored for complaining or having a certain opinion, but when you start pissing people off left and right, you don't have the right to continue.

You, like many others, seem to forget that there is a Rule 1. Don't be a dick. It's there with the intent to stop people from being assholes in general and from ruining the game for others. Do you REALLY think that if what your saying is causing people to mute OOC, that you aren't breaking rule 1? Cause others to mute OOC = You are being a dick to those people, thus breaking rule 1, thus giving admins/mods a reason to shut you down. It's very simple. Even in a democracy you can't say whatever you want wherever you want. If you want to argue a point, take it to the forums where it won't clutter up OOC, where people can avoid it if they so choose, and where it has the added benefit of being much more organized and much easier to read. If someone muted OOC and I 'caused' them to do it I'm a dick and broke a rule? Most people just mute OOC because they don't want to see the conversation while playing or just don't like having OOC open. Turning off your OOC doesn't make the people enagaged in the discussion ducks. Making that assumption is just plain stupid. If I am in a public place and don't like when someone is talking loud or singing it something and I put in ear buds to drown out the noise, does it make them a dick? No. I just don't want to hear it and have the choice to listen or block it out. Comparing it to democracy isn't true. You can say whatever you want whenever you want. The freedom of speech comes with the equally important right to be offended. Er. I'm pretty sure this can be aptly answered in a very brief statement: You have no freedom of speech. There is no such thing in a moderated, private online community. That isn't to say you'll be censored for complaining or having a certain opinion, but when you start pissing people off left and right, you don't have the right to continue.

Thank you and Swat <3

Thank you and Swat <3

I can't really disagree with that. If you don't like users, don't want to discuss issues with users, and want to boot users out when something goes wrong with them, you can. If you're saying you can't be convinced to think otherwise, well, you can't be convinced. I didn't think that was what the purpose of a headmin was, but there's only one headmin on this server, and they get to decide what their purpose is. I do my best to avoid removing or generally punishing people unless I feel they are detrimental to the community and it's absolutely necessary. The issue is, a lot of these people live in the past, they're frustrated by the fact that things have changed, and they actively seek to undermine the staff and militantly preach their ideology. This conflict is older than the incident discussed here, and had been occurring since before Chaz even resigned from his position as a moderator - which is why I've reached the conclusion that there isn't really any discussion to be had.

I can't really disagree with that. If you don't like users, don't want to discuss issues with users, and want to boot users out when something goes wrong with them, you can. If you're saying you can't be convinced to think otherwise, well, you can't be convinced. I didn't think that was what the purpose of a headmin was, but there's only one headmin on this server, and they get to decide what their purpose is. I do my best to avoid removing or generally punishing people unless I feel they are detrimental to the community and it's absolutely necessary. The issue is, a lot of these people live in the past, they're frustrated by the fact that things have changed, and they actively seek to undermine the staff and militantly preach their ideology. This conflict is older than the incident discussed here, and had been occurring since before Chaz even resigned from his position as a moderator - which is why I've reached the conclusion that there isn't really any discussion to be had.

Actually, I'm well aware you haven't been partaking in this behavior. It was a general "you", aimed more at preempting any response they may make, considering it felt like you made this complaint on their behalf. If that sounds silly, it might be. I apologize, as it wasn't my intent to give you that impression. Hi.

Actually, I'm well aware you haven't been partaking in this behavior. It was a general "you", aimed more at preempting any response they may make, considering it felt like you made this complaint on their behalf. If that sounds silly, it might be. I apologize, as it wasn't my intent to give you that impression. Hi.

And to answer your edit: I feel it was. Complacency and pointless attempts at reasoning with people who do not want to be reasonable was what allowed this sentiment of "I have the right to express my opinion even if it offends everyone" to take root.

And to answer your edit: I feel it was. Complacency and pointless attempts at reasoning with people who do not want to be reasonable was what allowed this sentiment of "I have the right to express my opinion even if it offends everyone" to take root.

Your stern and authoritative attitude didn't work either. I doubt these people are scared of you, or more tempted to respect you if this is how you treat them. In fact, the only thing I can see this achieving is breeding more hostility. Have you considered why you feel like they have an "agenda", and behave towards the staff/server in a certain way? I do not seek their respect, I do not require their respect, I do not demand their respect. I have, in fact, one demand: Stop, or go. I'm not particularly curious as to why they behave the way they do. No reason in the world would justify it.

Your stern and authoritative attitude didn't work either. I doubt these people are scared of you, or more tempted to respect you if this is how you treat them. In fact, the only thing I can see this achieving is breeding more hostility. Have you considered why you feel like they have an "agenda", and behave towards the staff/server in a certain way? I do not seek their respect, I do not require their respect, I do not demand their respect. I have, in fact, one demand: Stop, or go. I'm not particularly curious as to why they behave the way they do. No reason in the world would justify it.

While this isn't the worst case of preemptive intervention, you did more or less treat the users involved like criminals and express marked disdain for them. I don't understand why you couldn't moderate OOC by waiting for the arguments to actually devolve before calling out specific users (or OOC as a whole), but if your decision was to put an early stop to potential problems, taking an authoritative tone and trying to belittle the people involved was not the way to do it, in my opinion. Why couldn't you simply give OOC a friendly warning to remain mindful of their behavior during the debate, or briefly explained why you wished for the debate to cease? (Instead of making an entry with a message of "the species bullshit has to stop".) Because, to be perfectly honest, friendly warnings have never worked with the people we are currently handling. They joined with an agenda. It takes more than a friendly warning to put a stop to this behavior. And once more, no, I have no obligation to be pleasant and friendly towards a group of people who constantly taunt other players and test me and my staff at pretty much every chance they get. Yes, they're treated differently than players who are actually here to play and try to steer clear of trouble. If you find this outrageous, then you may be a bit too idealistic. Ultimately, if someone can't handle being approached with an authoritarian stance, they should probably not intentionally and consistently antagonize players and/or test the staff's patience.

While this isn't the worst case of preemptive intervention, you did more or less treat the users involved like criminals and express marked disdain for them. I don't understand why you couldn't moderate OOC by waiting for the arguments to actually devolve before calling out specific users (or OOC as a whole), but if your decision was to put an early stop to potential problems, taking an authoritative tone and trying to belittle the people involved was not the way to do it, in my opinion. Why couldn't you simply give OOC a friendly warning to remain mindful of their behavior during the debate, or briefly explained why you wished for the debate to cease? (Instead of making an entry with a message of "the species bullshit has to stop".) Because, to be perfectly honest, friendly warnings have never worked with the people we are currently handling. They joined with an agenda. It takes more than a friendly warning to put a stop to this behavior. And once more, no, I have no obligation to be pleasant and friendly towards a group of people who constantly taunt other players and test me and my staff at pretty much every chance they get. Yes, they're treated differently than players who are actually here to play and try to steer clear of trouble. If you find this outrageous, then you may be a bit too idealistic. Ultimately, if someone can't handle being approached with an authoritarian stance, they should probably not intentionally and consistently antagonize players and/or test the staff's patience.

Nothing wrong with simply being honest if that's what you believe in. However, were the actions of the people involved in this specific debate enough to warrant harsh intervention followed by a mute? I believe the very most that had happened was that someone jokingly called someone else a "pleb". Thing is, you're trying to study this as an isolated incident. I made a decision based on the climate in the past three days plus the FFF nonsense that has been prevalent recently. With those factors considered, I do believe intervention was warranted.

Nothing wrong with simply being honest if that's what you believe in. However, were the actions of the people involved in this specific debate enough to warrant harsh intervention followed by a mute? I believe the very most that had happened was that someone jokingly called someone else a "pleb". Thing is, you're trying to study this as an isolated incident. I made a decision based on the climate in the past three days plus the FFF nonsense that has been prevalent recently. With those factors considered, I do believe intervention was warranted.

Absolutely everything, considering we've had certain individuals actually call players a furry bandwagon since the beginning of this incident, alongside multiple passive-aggressive taunts aimed at tajaran players. IC actions of certain command/security characters have also been centered around this general "fuck the catbeasts" attitude. Pardon the bluntness, but I have no intention of relenting regardless of how many complaints arise due to regulation of OOC.