I don't know about that honestly. A previous poster assumed I knew Anno, Raineh and Moerin well. I was invovled with one game at most with them [and that's over two different games]. The reason I found out about it is that it caused enough of a stir that even though I don't share any games with them people were discussing it and mourning their departure. I know them mostly through reputation and for the most part it's a good one. My limited experience with the three mostly conincides with what I've heard. I've since looked through a lot of threads that people mark as "potential reasons for it" and I've nothing bannable. Mostly straws as the mods stated that eventually broke the camels back but honestly it seems less rule breaking and more being less than patient with people who undermined GM authority or quitting due to legitimate differences with players in order to avoid conflict. I really don't think the people they clashed with represented the community at large and they have a lot of silent supporters who aren't necessarily happy about this.
Exelixi; Call it paranoia if you want, but axing three major players who to my knowledge had a fairly good reputation sort of inspires that in people.
edited 4th Jul '12 11:17:51 PM by Fauxlosophe
I'd say a third liked them, a third didn't, and a third didn't care.
What happens to those three is between them and the mods at this point. I want to know if we cab do something that will prevent these drama flare ups and subsequent bannings in the future. Even if they are justified, its always a shame to lose members of your community.
edited 4th Jul '12 11:28:28 PM by Parable
By minor I mean big enough to be hollered and get a mod post on a thread but not big enough to get a thump in part because there tended to be multiple people involved. They were repetitively told to play nice by the moderation. They did not.
edited 4th Jul '12 11:30:42 PM by shimaspawn
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick@shimaspawn
The majority of such mod posts seem to be directed at the thread, not the individuals. But I understand, as long as it's clear to them that repeated problems will lead to consequences.
Now, from the discussion here, it seems that there are certain people that don't like the three, and some have been saying that it wasn't misbehavior, but a personal dislike that prompted the clash(es).
When the disputes happened, were the posts by other people in the disputes also checked? It seems fair that if there's a clash between the three and some others, those others are also held accountable.
Now I'm not saying it's a good idea to go after and suspend even more people, but rather that this should be taken into consideration to see whether this is just partisan fighting and personal disputes, which should be handled by the users themselves when possible.
edited 4th Jul '12 11:46:33 PM by abstractematics
Now using Trivialis handle.Okay, warnings were given to the thread.
The thread is made of posters.
Some posters were involved in warned threads more than others.
The pattern equaled a suspension.
Fresh-eyed movie blog
If there are specific people that oppose them, wouldn't they be involved in thread disputes just as much?
The evidence we have shows the three of them starting fights, not mere people not liking them. Now, people might not like them because they start fights, but that's outside of the scope of this. There are not specific people that oppose them. They seem to be the ones starting the arguments with a wide variety of people.
All tropers are held to the idea that repeated violations of the rules is a bannable offence even if the infractions themselves are minor. This is far from the first time someone has been banned for this reason. The only reason it's news now is that it was three people at the same time.
edited 5th Jul '12 12:14:45 AM by shimaspawn
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickI've been directed here by some others, and I must say that personally I agree with Faux and some others. I have only played a game or two with this trio, but I have seen quite a number of their R Ps. While they may have been commonly involved with various drama, I do not believe it was of significant size for any amount of it to justify a ban, much less a triple ban.
I have seen a lot of what mods might call "problems" with them, but in general have found them not to be at fault. They can occasionally be a bit harsh, but I have not seen them step significantly out of line. In their own games, I haven't seen anything that goes beyond a GM's basic rights and authority, and in other people's games I have seen them overstep their boundaries as a player, but rarely. With the exception of one or two events(mainly with Raineh being overly harsh) I cannot think of any serious problems they had that violated any rules.
I have seen accusations of "favoritism", but honestly, I believe they were simply granting more leeway to players they knew could perform well, which I find hard to fault. Faux spoke a little on it, but I'd like to say that as someone with some experience on the board, it is natural to give more freedom to people you know to be quality poster, something that may come off as favoritism.
It has also been said that they "snowballed" off minor things until they deserved a ban. I find this a very dangerous example to set, as there is no clear point at which they crossed the final line. The term "straw that broke the camel's back" has been tossed around, and I find that if no final, definitive warning was given to let them know that they were very close to being banned, it's rather sketchy.
Another issue has been the triple ban. Many people have pointed out that Moerin has seemingly been suddenly banned, with very few previous offenses. Personally, I would not have been unduly surprised if Raineh had been banned alone, her less than forgiving nature is rather well known, but Anno and Moerin as well? I find that to be going somewhat overboard. I would've called a Raineh ban a somewhat shaky one, but hard to fight against given some of her history, but the addition of Anno and Moerin is outright screwed up in my opinion.
The banning event itself was, from what I can see, not their fault at all. I can see some abrasiveness involved in it, but I believe that after some tempers were roused, the right steps were taken by the three(especially Moerin) to calm the situation down. Banning based off this situation, even with the claim of a "snowball effect" seems very questionable to me.
Lastly, I must say that if anything, the amount of people showing their support for them should make the mods reconsider their decision. Most bans are rather clear and outright, but banning rather well-known posters on what many consider somewhat hazy reasoning is considerably more complicated, and I feel like the mods need to take another look at the problem.
Overall, I feel like this issue underscores fundamental issues between the mods and the RP subforum.
edited 5th Jul '12 12:47:44 AM by rabbitRider
Your legacy shall drift away, blown into eternity, like the sands of the desert.As someone who doesn't participate in the RP subforum at all, I have to strongly agree. So I find how much space it's taking up in this thread - which I understand to be one about general mediation between the users and mods - questionable.
Ditto. People, chill out - these three can and should use the appeals thread, and if it's the first suspenion, I'm positive they can come to an agreement with the moderators. Anyway, from what I understand, a forum suspension is more like getting pulled over by the police and less losing you license, so to say, so there's no reason to turn this into a huge drama.
edited 5th Jul '12 2:41:23 AM by jkbeta
I think that the tech of the appeal thread works on any ban, but that forum bans (and site bans) preempt the tech by blocking posting privileges (or seeing privileges in site bans)
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanI was under the impression they still had their P Ms working just fine.
edited 5th Jul '12 9:16:15 AM by Parable
@Best Of:
Can they read the forums? They wouldn't see this thread if they can't, though we did inform them.
Also, Moerin has informed me off-site that she has in fact P Med and is yet awaiting a response. (Just to be clear, I'm aware of what you said in this thread
.)
I regret that this drama had to happen. If it indeed was just a "talk to the mods", as jkbeta said, then the shock to the three and the other R Pers could have been lessened. But it looks like it was presented more as a "last resort", which makes reconciliation difficult. The mods initially replied to the appeals here that they "don't intend to budge" on the decision due to the accumulation.
But now, this impression seems to be softened. You're willing to listen to them if they talk to you directly? I want to make sure that's the case.
edited 5th Jul '12 1:40:18 PM by abstractematics
Now using Trivialis handle.
If it's absolutely dead-set that someone isn't coming back, all of their options for doing anything except viewing the site are turned off, and in the worst case scenario, Eddie can assign a Google bounce so that that person can't even access the site. We're willing to discuss the matter with them; that's why we left their PM privileges in place.
edited 5th Jul '12 2:09:15 PM by Willbyr
@Willbyr
I'm aware of that, but I'm afraid that the initial impression was stronger than it should've been, because of mentioning accumulation over time and "straw that broke the camel's back" and careful deliberation the mods had before the decision.
The thought of "please come to us mods via PM if you want to appeal" might not have been clear enough, soon enough.
edited 5th Jul '12 2:15:33 PM by abstractematics
Now using Trivialis handle.@DC: Mods will request a bounce for trolls, spammers, and repeated ban evaders. Otherwise, the only way to get one is to really piss Eddie off. I think we average out to maybe one of those each year.
Edit: ...and ninja'd by Willbyr.
edited 5th Jul '12 2:15:36 PM by Ironeye
I'm bad, and that's good. I will never be good, and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me.

I'm not sure I'd say "a lot of the community". I know they didn't get along well with everyone, but I wouldn't say those people are the majority.
Burn up, hurricane of justice!