Doomberg - Muting OOC over Tajaran discussions or something

[Doomberg]

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.

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.

 

Since three or so days ago, we have had a band of disgruntled (for lack of a better word - I mean no offense) former staff and players constantly furthering this so called debate in OOC, being generally passive-aggressive against Tajaran players, and overall making OOC a pretty terrible place to be in/look at.

 

Notice how you've been allowed to complain constantly with little to no intervention or censorship? Yep. Me too.

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.

[Doomberg]

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.

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.

 

Since three or so days ago, we have had a band of disgruntled (for lack of a better word - I mean no offense) former staff and players constantly furthering this so called debate in OOC, being generally passive-aggressive against Tajaran players, and overall making OOC a pretty terrible place to be in/look at.

 

Notice how you've been allowed to complain constantly with little to no intervention or censorship? Yep. Me too.

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.

[Japak121]

Spokes person for Chazzy boy here again, bringing you all the latest news:

Quote 1

'Continue stirring drama in OOC and you will accept the entirety of the consequences.'

Quote 2

'Alright. Three conditions for your continued presence here, then. You do not fuck with the players. You do not intentionally test my staff. You keep your ideology to private conversations and don't try to cause riots in OOC, LOOC or dsay. In exchange, you will receive the same treatment and privileges every other player does.'

 

Both of those quotes are from Doomberg in a private chat. Alongside that, Doomberg also stated that mine and the opinions of others do not count, stating that he does what he wants to. This seems to factor into this complaint somewhat. As one other player in the chat stated, 'Doomberg, you want a mile but won't budge an inch.

 

Wow. Literally nothing you said when put alongside Chaz leaving in such an immature way looks good on your argument.

1. Neither of those quotes is something that should even have to be said. The fact that it was, coupled with the quote Doomberg posted where Chaz left as soon as he joined, shows MORE that the intentions of you and the others is not to play the game, but to settle old scores.

2. You left out the bit where he was invited to attempt to settle all this, Chaz left, oh and the entirety of the rest of the conversation. Post all or nothing. I don't even know you all but based on what I've seen, ICly you guys attempt new and interesting things, which I like. OOCly you just attempt, obviously I may add, to stir things up. If you're really here to play the game, then what Doom apparently said to you all shouldn't even be a point of contention and is certainly not asking for much.

[Japak121]

Spokes person for Chazzy boy here again, bringing you all the latest news:

Quote 1

'Continue stirring drama in OOC and you will accept the entirety of the consequences.'

Quote 2

'Alright. Three conditions for your continued presence here, then. You do not fuck with the players. You do not intentionally test my staff. You keep your ideology to private conversations and don't try to cause riots in OOC, LOOC or dsay. In exchange, you will receive the same treatment and privileges every other player does.'

 

Both of those quotes are from Doomberg in a private chat. Alongside that, Doomberg also stated that mine and the opinions of others do not count, stating that he does what he wants to. This seems to factor into this complaint somewhat. As one other player in the chat stated, 'Doomberg, you want a mile but won't budge an inch.

 

Wow. Literally nothing you said when put alongside Chaz leaving in such an immature way looks good on your argument.

1. Neither of those quotes is something that should even have to be said. The fact that it was, coupled with the quote Doomberg posted where Chaz left as soon as he joined, shows MORE that the intentions of you and the others is not to play the game, but to settle old scores.

2. You left out the bit where he was invited to attempt to settle all this, Chaz left, oh and the entirety of the rest of the conversation. Post all or nothing. I don't even know you all but based on what I've seen, ICly you guys attempt new and interesting things, which I like. OOCly you just attempt, obviously I may add, to stir things up. If you're really here to play the game, then what Doom apparently said to you all shouldn't even be a point of contention and is certainly not asking for much.

[Frances]

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.

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.)

[Frances]

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.

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.)

[Doomberg]

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.

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)

[Doomberg]

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.

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)

[Frances]

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)

I'm not discarding you. (I don't agree the administration isn't censoring users, whether their intent or not, but that's for another thread, not this one.)

However, I believe your behavior is relevant as a headmin because you seem to be making a lot of people upset in easily avoidable ways (these are your users, after all.)

[Frances]

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)

I'm not discarding you. (I don't agree the administration isn't censoring users, whether their intent or not, but that's for another thread, not this one.)

However, I believe your behavior is relevant as a headmin because you seem to be making a lot of people upset in easily avoidable ways (these are your users, after all.)

[Doomberg]

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)

I'm not discarding you. (I don't agree the administration isn't censoring users, whether their intent or not, but that's for another thread, not this one.)

However, I believe your behavior is relevant as a headmin because you seem to be making a lot of people upset in easily avoidable ways (these are your users, after all.)

 

You argue against staff "hugboxing", yet complain about me apparently making a few people upset and not being particularly cuddly.

You seem to support people being allowed to state what they want despite what others may feel, yet apparently me inadvertently making a group of people upset is unacceptable.

Do you have a fixed MO or ideology we can speak of, here? I'm not a customer service representative. I can't be friendly to every single person who doesn't extend the same courtesy. If you're cordial, I'll do my best to be the same. If you're friendly, I'll be friendly. If you act like a dick, I will be unpleasant to deal with (this isn't a targeted "you", by the way). This seems to be a conflict of ideologies, but it's a bit difficult to discuss anything of the sort when the opposing ideology seems to adapt in a reactive manner.

[Doomberg]

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)

I'm not discarding you. (I don't agree the administration isn't censoring users, whether their intent or not, but that's for another thread, not this one.)

However, I believe your behavior is relevant as a headmin because you seem to be making a lot of people upset in easily avoidable ways (these are your users, after all.)

 

You argue against staff "hugboxing", yet complain about me apparently making a few people upset and not being particularly cuddly.

You seem to support people being allowed to state what they want despite what others may feel, yet apparently me inadvertently making a group of people upset is unacceptable.

Do you have a fixed MO or ideology we can speak of, here? I'm not a customer service representative. I can't be friendly to every single person who doesn't extend the same courtesy. If you're cordial, I'll do my best to be the same. If you're friendly, I'll be friendly. If you act like a dick, I will be unpleasant to deal with (this isn't a targeted "you", by the way). This seems to be a conflict of ideologies, but it's a bit difficult to discuss anything of the sort when the opposing ideology seems to adapt in a reactive manner.

[Frances]

You argue against staff "hugboxing", yet complain about me apparently making a few people upset and not being particularly cuddly.

You seem to support people being allowed to state what they want despite what others may feel, yet apparently me inadvertently making a group of people upset is unacceptable.

Imo what I've been arguing for is highly context-dependent. I'm not forced to stick to a single black and white ideology no matter what. Most of the cases of "hugboxing" I complained against had to do with game mechanics, enforcement of the rules, and excessive moderation of OOC/IC (mostly when people were being harmless). Even during these incidents a lot of the staff were displaying the kind of strict and authoritarian attitudes I've come to dislike on here.

I believe I can have an issue both with that and the tone the staff chooses to take when solving conflicts. If I've failed to clarify that, I apologize. In the end, there's a difference between "tone policing" and "being a cunt", and there's a difference between taking someone's argument in spite yet calling them out on their behavior, and completely disregarding what someone has to say because you don't like their tone.

The issue, however, is that not everyone will be smart, patient, and full of enthusiasm to get along with the staff. I'd argue the responsibility of a good admin team would be to work with these people and convince them that the staff can be reasonable. You seem to prefer to reply to hostility and conflict with more hostility.

You speak about people not having any rights, not being owed anything, not serving any purpose the moment they're found in violation of the rules. But in the end, are you there to solve problems and make people happy, or are you there to be right?

[Frances]

You argue against staff "hugboxing", yet complain about me apparently making a few people upset and not being particularly cuddly.

You seem to support people being allowed to state what they want despite what others may feel, yet apparently me inadvertently making a group of people upset is unacceptable.

Imo what I've been arguing for is highly context-dependent. I'm not forced to stick to a single black and white ideology no matter what. Most of the cases of "hugboxing" I complained against had to do with game mechanics, enforcement of the rules, and excessive moderation of OOC/IC (mostly when people were being harmless). Even during these incidents a lot of the staff were displaying the kind of strict and authoritarian attitudes I've come to dislike on here.

I believe I can have an issue both with that and the tone the staff chooses to take when solving conflicts. If I've failed to clarify that, I apologize. In the end, there's a difference between "tone policing" and "being a cunt", and there's a difference between taking someone's argument in spite yet calling them out on their behavior, and completely disregarding what someone has to say because you don't like their tone.

The issue, however, is that not everyone will be smart, patient, and full of enthusiasm to get along with the staff. I'd argue the responsibility of a good admin team would be to work with these people and convince them that the staff can be reasonable. You seem to prefer to reply to hostility and conflict with more hostility.

You speak about people not having any rights, not being owed anything, not serving any purpose the moment they're found in violation of the rules. But in the end, are you there to solve problems and make people happy, or are you there to be right?

[Doomberg]

You argue against staff "hugboxing", yet complain about me apparently making a few people upset and not being particularly cuddly.

You seem to support people being allowed to state what they want despite what others may feel, yet apparently me inadvertently making a group of people upset is unacceptable.

Imo what I've been arguing for is highly context-dependent. I'm not forced to stick to a single black and white ideology no matter what. Most of the cases of "hugboxing" I complained against had to do with game mechanics, enforcement of the rules, and excessive moderation of OOC/IC (mostly when people were being harmless). Even during these incidents a lot of the staff were displaying the kind of strict and authoritarian attitudes I've come to dislike on here.

I believe I can have an issue both with that and the tone the staff chooses to take when solving conflicts. If I've failed to clarify that, I apologize. In the end, there's a difference between "tone policing" and "being a cunt", and there's a difference between taking someone's argument in spite yet calling them out on their behavior, and completely disregarding someone's argument because you don't like their tone.

The issue, however, is that not everyone will be smart, patient, and full of enthusiasm to get along with the staff. I'd argue the responsibility of a good admin team would be to work with these people and convince them that the staff can be reasonable. You seem to prefer to reply to hostility and conflict with more hostility.

You speak about people not having any rights, not being owed anything, not serving any purpose the moment they're found in violation of the rules. But in the end, are you there to solve problems and make people happy, or are you there to be right?

 

Our obligations: Make certain the rules are reasonable and not difficult to follow or understand. Uphold these rules. Assist and protect (when reasonable) our players. Redeem, stop, or, failing that, remove problem players. Coordinate with the rest of the staff to make sure everything is working out smoothly in the long-term interest of the community as a whole, not in the interest of individuals.

Your obligations: Follow the rules. Don't cause trouble intentionally. Correct yourself if you're doing it by accident.

This case: Redemption was deemed a presently unrealistic goal, so an escalation to the "stop" phase occurred. Why? Because this is consistent behavior from this specific group of players. An attempt at discussion was made, and the results have been displayed previously in this thread.

We do not generally respond with hostility to hostility, but with punishment. To think that everyone can be redeemed or is worth the time cost of redemption is pure idealism. We do not have the time nor the paygrade to treat everyone as a customer - to expect this of anyone would be unreasonable.

As for rights, everyone has the following rights:

1. The right to leave. Why do I mention this? This is important to address everyone yelling "oppression". You are not forced to remain in this "oppressive" environment.

2. The right to be protected from anyone who acts in violation of the aforementioned rules.

Conditioned privileges that may be stripped for people who constantly cause trouble and show a disregard for our rules:

1. Playing on the server.

2. Using the forums.

As a final point: I do not believe players who violate the rules are worthless. I do not believe players who violate the rules should not be listened to. I do believe, however, that players that join or intentionally act in a certain way as to create an incident or string of incidents or bait a certain kind of response or antagonize a certain player demographic should be stopped or removed expeditiously, and should not have any degree of agency in the day-to-day management of the server and community, because they have demonstrated one of two things:

A) They have anything but the best interests of this community in mind.

B) They have the best interest of the community in mind, but are misguided, have no idea how to go about it, or are simply misinformed and entirely unaware of the present climate and needs of Aurora.

[Doomberg]

You argue against staff "hugboxing", yet complain about me apparently making a few people upset and not being particularly cuddly.

You seem to support people being allowed to state what they want despite what others may feel, yet apparently me inadvertently making a group of people upset is unacceptable.

Imo what I've been arguing for is highly context-dependent. I'm not forced to stick to a single black and white ideology no matter what. Most of the cases of "hugboxing" I complained against had to do with game mechanics, enforcement of the rules, and excessive moderation of OOC/IC (mostly when people were being harmless). Even during these incidents a lot of the staff were displaying the kind of strict and authoritarian attitudes I've come to dislike on here.

I believe I can have an issue both with that and the tone the staff chooses to take when solving conflicts. If I've failed to clarify that, I apologize. In the end, there's a difference between "tone policing" and "being a cunt", and there's a difference between taking someone's argument in spite yet calling them out on their behavior, and completely disregarding someone's argument because you don't like their tone.

The issue, however, is that not everyone will be smart, patient, and full of enthusiasm to get along with the staff. I'd argue the responsibility of a good admin team would be to work with these people and convince them that the staff can be reasonable. You seem to prefer to reply to hostility and conflict with more hostility.

You speak about people not having any rights, not being owed anything, not serving any purpose the moment they're found in violation of the rules. But in the end, are you there to solve problems and make people happy, or are you there to be right?

 

Our obligations: Make certain the rules are reasonable and not difficult to follow or understand. Uphold these rules. Assist and protect (when reasonable) our players. Redeem, stop, or, failing that, remove problem players. Coordinate with the rest of the staff to make sure everything is working out smoothly in the long-term interest of the community as a whole, not in the interest of individuals.

Your obligations: Follow the rules. Don't cause trouble intentionally. Correct yourself if you're doing it by accident.

This case: Redemption was deemed a presently unrealistic goal, so an escalation to the "stop" phase occurred. Why? Because this is consistent behavior from this specific group of players. An attempt at discussion was made, and the results have been displayed previously in this thread.

We do not generally respond with hostility to hostility, but with punishment. To think that everyone can be redeemed or is worth the time cost of redemption is pure idealism. We do not have the time nor the paygrade to treat everyone as a customer - to expect this of anyone would be unreasonable.

As for rights, everyone has the following rights:

1. The right to leave. Why do I mention this? This is important to address everyone yelling "oppression". You are not forced to remain in this "oppressive" environment.

2. The right to be protected from anyone who acts in violation of the aforementioned rules.

Conditioned privileges that may be stripped for people who constantly cause trouble and show a disregard for our rules:

1. Playing on the server.

2. Using the forums.

As a final point: I do not believe players who violate the rules are worthless. I do not believe players who violate the rules should not be listened to. I do believe, however, that players that join or intentionally act in a certain way as to create an incident or string of incidents or bait a certain kind of response or antagonize a certain player demographic should be stopped or removed expeditiously, and should not have any degree of agency in the day-to-day management of the server and community, because they have demonstrated one of two things:

A) They have anything but the best interests of this community in mind.

B) They have the best interest of the community in mind, but are misguided, have no idea how to go about it, or are simply misinformed and entirely unaware of the present climate and needs of Aurora.

[Frances]

We do not generally respond with hostility to hostility, but with punishment. To think that everyone can be redeemed or is worth the time cost of redemption is pure idealism. We do not have the time nor the paygrade to treat everyone as a customer - to expect this of anyone would be unreasonable.

You're basically justifying your behavior by saying you're a volunteer, though. Like, I'm not sure how else to take it? I'm not asking you to go above and beyond the call of duty, and I understand wanting to be sassy with users who are being sassy to you (I've done it, it was fun), but what you're doing is just, kinda bad imo. You've thrown out valid points for the sake of being cheeky. This isn't about poking users who are already angered beyond redemption - this is about you driving them away and making them into the pissed off, "subversive" and "toxic" elements we're all starting to hear about recently.

You're running the staff team of the server, which means you're here to garner the users' compliance in establishing order. There's three basic ways to do that: coercion, influence, and authority. I think it's clearly been proven that most people on the internet won't respect you without question simply because you have a shiny ☆Moderator☆ title (though you and a few other admins on here still seem to be trying without avail), so that leaves us with coercion and influence.

What to do with these people? You can attempt to reason with them, or you can ban them. Eventually, it's going to come down to either (unless they just get bored first, which they might.) But coercion doesn't make you look very good, especially when you're leaving out influence while it's still a clearly open option. And you might say you don't care, but the community's users definitely will.

[Frances]

We do not generally respond with hostility to hostility, but with punishment. To think that everyone can be redeemed or is worth the time cost of redemption is pure idealism. We do not have the time nor the paygrade to treat everyone as a customer - to expect this of anyone would be unreasonable.

You're basically justifying your behavior by saying you're a volunteer, though. Like, I'm not sure how else to take it? I'm not asking you to go above and beyond the call of duty, and I understand wanting to be sassy with users who are being sassy to you (I've done it, it was fun), but what you're doing is just, kinda bad imo. You've thrown out valid points for the sake of being cheeky. This isn't about poking users who are already angered beyond redemption - this is about you driving them away and making them into the pissed off, "subversive" and "toxic" elements we're all starting to hear about recently.

You're running the staff team of the server, which means you're here to garner the users' compliance in establishing order. There's three basic ways to do that: coercion, influence, and authority. I think it's clearly been proven that most people on the internet won't respect you without question simply because you have a shiny ☆Moderator☆ title (though you and a few other admins on here still seem to be trying without avail), so that leaves us with coercion and influence.

What to do with these people? You can attempt to reason with them, or you can ban them. Eventually, it's going to come down to either (unless they just get bored first, which they might.) But coercion doesn't make you look very good, especially when you're leaving out influence while it's still a clearly open option. And you might say you don't care, but the community's users definitely will.

[Doomberg]

We do not generally respond with hostility to hostility, but with punishment. To think that everyone can be redeemed or is worth the time cost of redemption is pure idealism. We do not have the time nor the paygrade to treat everyone as a customer - to expect this of anyone would be unreasonable.

You're basically justifying your behavior by saying you're a volunteer, though. Like, I'm not sure how else to take it? I'm not asking you to go above and beyond the call of duty, and I understand wanting to be sassy with users who are being sassy to you (I've done it, it was fun), but what you're doing is just, kinda bad imo. You've thrown out valid points for the sake of being cheeky. This isn't about poking users who are already angered beyond redemption - this is about you driving them away and making them into the pissed off, "subversive" and "toxic" elements we're all starting to hear about recently.

You're running the staff team of the server, which means you're here to garner the users' compliance in establishing order. There's three basic ways to do that: coercion, influence, and authority. I think it's clearly been proven that most people on the internet won't respect you without question simply because you have a shiny ☆Moderator☆ title (though you and a few other admins on here still seem to be trying without avail), so that leaves us with coercion and influence.

What to do with these people? You can attempt to reason with them, or you can ban them. Eventually, it's going to come down to either (unless they just get bored first, which they might.) But coercion doesn't make you look very good, especially when you're leaving out influence while it's still a clearly open option. And you might say you don't care, but the community's users definitely will.

 

Point already addressed: Those who can be reasoned with are reasoned with. The only ones driven away are the ones who seek to cause trouble and can't be redeemed. I don't see what valid points I've thrown out. Am I driving away problem players? Weeeellll, that's arguably part of the job. Those can go. Otherwise, I'm more than open to discussion, especially on Skype/whatever, provided I'm not approached with the intent of baiting/throwing in cheap jabs.

Coercion is not jumped to before assessing whether the player in question can be reasoned with/talked to or not.

I've said this before, I'll say it again. I don't want nor demand anyone's respect. I want them to fulfill the obligations listed above, as I fulfill mine.

I will not attempt to negotiate with or redeem unreasonable people, nor will I ever ask my staff to do so.

[Doomberg]

We do not generally respond with hostility to hostility, but with punishment. To think that everyone can be redeemed or is worth the time cost of redemption is pure idealism. We do not have the time nor the paygrade to treat everyone as a customer - to expect this of anyone would be unreasonable.

You're basically justifying your behavior by saying you're a volunteer, though. Like, I'm not sure how else to take it? I'm not asking you to go above and beyond the call of duty, and I understand wanting to be sassy with users who are being sassy to you (I've done it, it was fun), but what you're doing is just, kinda bad imo. You've thrown out valid points for the sake of being cheeky. This isn't about poking users who are already angered beyond redemption - this is about you driving them away and making them into the pissed off, "subversive" and "toxic" elements we're all starting to hear about recently.

You're running the staff team of the server, which means you're here to garner the users' compliance in establishing order. There's three basic ways to do that: coercion, influence, and authority. I think it's clearly been proven that most people on the internet won't respect you without question simply because you have a shiny ☆Moderator☆ title (though you and a few other admins on here still seem to be trying without avail), so that leaves us with coercion and influence.

What to do with these people? You can attempt to reason with them, or you can ban them. Eventually, it's going to come down to either (unless they just get bored first, which they might.) But coercion doesn't make you look very good, especially when you're leaving out influence while it's still a clearly open option. And you might say you don't care, but the community's users definitely will.

 

Point already addressed: Those who can be reasoned with are reasoned with. The only ones driven away are the ones who seek to cause trouble and can't be redeemed. I don't see what valid points I've thrown out. Am I driving away problem players? Weeeellll, that's arguably part of the job. Those can go. Otherwise, I'm more than open to discussion, especially on Skype/whatever, provided I'm not approached with the intent of baiting/throwing in cheap jabs.

Coercion is not jumped to before assessing whether the player in question can be reasoned with/talked to or not.

I've said this before, I'll say it again. I don't want nor demand anyone's respect. I want them to fulfill the obligations listed above, as I fulfill mine.

I will not attempt to negotiate with or redeem unreasonable people, nor will I ever ask my staff to do so.

[Guest]

Alright the specific issue that was addressed as the complaint was answered earlier.

Doomberg was not going against what we (Or specifically I) said in the quoted post, the OOC got heated and Doom decided that after a few times of asking people to stop and being returned with continued discussion and arguments of why they should be allowed to argue/debate/discuss the very thing that's making people insult each other, that an OOC mute was required to let the tention settle down.

Unless Hivefleet has anything else to say I'll be locking this thread as resolved baised off of this post and the post below it

http://aurorastation.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=3630&start=30#p35814