Apologizes to the server

[teOx]

Kadar Wrote:I bet you could get anyone to say anything on @main given the right incentive.??If I offered someone 2mil to type out the words to "I'm a little teapot" or "Never gonna give you up" on @main most people would do it.??What about 4mil to badmouth for a line or five about whichever allegiance (L/D) they weren't on.??How about 8 mil to talk bad about their last server???If you don't think you're going to get in serious trouble for it you are even more likely to do it.??This is true to a much greater extent with veteran players.??If I made some snide comment about Pandora on @main I certainly wouldn't expect to get banned for it.??I wouldn't even expect an 'official' reprimand.??The only thing I would 'expect' to come of it would be @mainers telling me how hard she works on the server.??It's not as severe as what Aries and the others did but it's basically the same without the spamming isn't it?

Was it stupid of Aries to do???Yes.??Was it his own fault that he got punished???Yes.??Did the GMs handle the issue as well as they could have???I don't think so.??I think they took it personally and overreacted.??What Amil did was take good 'loyal' players and turn them against the server with a little bit of money and items.??As a server owner that must hurt.??You build a nice little carebear community only to have them turn their back on you so quickly.??So what was your response???Well, you most certainly turned your back on them in return.??Amil was the one out to get you and yet you punished the people he used as tools just as severely.??I would have taken away what he gave them and muted/jailed them for a month, but it's not like their comments were directed at me or anything.

[GM-Ayu]

Seems like quoting previous poster without reading new posts (or any post) is the trend of the day. I'll follow along.

GM-Vanadis Wrote:One of the problems here is that you think he thought he wouldn't get punished, which is a wrong assumption. He did it knowing that he risked losing his account.

[Yuriohs]

But it seems to me that even if you did know that he didn't mean what he said intentionally, you still would have banned him. Because you said that what he said was wrong, and no matter if he meant it or not, it doesn't matter. We get that.

What were not getting, is why he got this sort of punishment for what he said. And like what Kadar said, we know that Aries did was wrong, were just tryin to figure out why he got this sort of punishment.

[conch]

teOx Wrote:

Kadar Wrote:You build a nice little carebear community only to have them turn their back on you so quickly. So what was your response? Well, you most certainly turned your back on them in return..

aww... hurts to be betrayed, and we often choose to get even to those who crossed us regardless of our relationship with them. Makes us no different from them either in that sense..

[GM-Pandora]

If you do something bad, even if someone else told you to do it (bribe or not), it's still your responsibility.

Aries created another account to do it, and then deleted the character afterwards, he must have thought that would make it safe and that we would not be able to trace him. One thing is for sure, he knew it was wrong, he even refused at first saying to Amil that he would get ban if he did it due to previous stuff, but in the end he caved in and did.

Sure the responsibility is partly Amil's and he got all his accounts + IP ban + not allowed back treatment for it, while aries, death note and the other one who's name I forget got 1 account banned each.

[Kadar]

GM-Pandora Wrote:If you do something bad, even if someone else told you to do it (bribe or not), it's still your responsibility.

Yes it is your responsibility but that doesn't mean that others are not ALSO at fault or to blame. Does this mean that if I give someone a suggestion to break the rules and they do it I'm free and clear so long as I didn't bribe them?

GM-Pandora Wrote:Sure the responsibility is partly Amil's and he got all his accounts + IP ban + not allowed back treatment for it, while aries, death note and the other one who's name I forget got 1 account banned each.

So while Amil was kicked off the server outright, Aries was told that he CAN STAY if he really really wants to but you don't want him around. If you're going to start over on a server you might as well do it on one where the GMs aren't watching to see if you slip up again so they can ban you for good. You didn't honestly give him that punishment expecting him to play here anymore did you?

Look at all of the terrible things Jason did:

GM-Pandora Wrote:What he did: Various past offenses reported in bulk which include disrespectful comments aimed at other players, innapropriate party name, innapropriate guild title, etc.
what he did: racist comment toward player Bloody.
What he did: breaking the rule about Shrooming limit.
How long: 2 weeks ban + appologies before the ban is lifted + 1 week mute on the character Haku for the racist comment.

Note: Any further offense, however small it may be, will result in full permanent ban of all accounts + IP Ban. Such offense can be, but is not limited to: innapropriate party name, guild title, shop/chat name, pet name or slandering/disrespecting other players.

All of those disrespectful and hateful comments toward players and Jason still got to keep his characters if he apologized and waited. He obviously wouldn't do that because for all intents and purposes you would be out to get him from then on. Just like Aries probably wouldn't come back under the same circumstances. The fact remains though that you pretty much forced Aries to leave.

From the looks of what transpired you were sick of people being disrespectful and wanted to crackdown with a sentence more harsh than usual. In doing so you got your own feelings mixed up in it which comes across as vindictive and unprofessional.

[Pyronic]

Kadar Wrote:

GM-Pandora Wrote:If you do something bad, even if someone else told you to do it (bribe or not), it's still your responsibility.

Yes it is your responsibility but that doesn't mean that others are not ALSO at fault or to blame.??Does this mean that if I give someone a suggestion to break the rules and they do it I'm free and clear so long as I didn't bribe them?

GM-Pandora Wrote:Sure the responsibility is partly Amil's and he got all his accounts + IP ban + not allowed back treatment for it, while aries, death note and the other one who's name I forget got 1 account banned each.

So while Amil was kicked off the server outright, Aries was told that he CAN STAY if he really really wants to but you don't want him around.??If you're going to start over on a server you might as well do it on one where the GMs aren't watching to see if you slip up again so they can ban you for good.??You didn't honestly give him that punishment expecting him to play here anymore did you?

Look at all of the terrible things Jason did:

GM-Pandora Wrote:What he did: Various past offenses reported in bulk which include disrespectful comments aimed at other players, innapropriate party name, innapropriate guild title, etc.
what he did: racist comment toward player Bloody.
What he did: breaking the rule about Shrooming limit.
How long: 2 weeks ban + appologies before the ban is lifted + 1 week mute on the character Haku for the racist comment.

Note: Any further offense, however small it may be, will result in full permanent ban of all accounts + IP Ban. Such offense can be, but is not limited to: innapropriate party name, guild title, shop/chat name, pet name or slandering/disrespecting other players.

All of those disrespectful and hateful comments toward players and Jason still got to keep his characters if he apologized and waited.??He obviously wouldn't do that because for all intents and purposes you would be out to get him from then on.??Just like Aries probably wouldn't come back under the same circumstances.??The fact remains though that you pretty much forced Aries to leave.

From the looks of what transpired you were sick of people being disrespectful and wanted to crackdown with a sentence more harsh than usual.??In doing so you got your own feelings mixed up in it which comes across as vindictive and unprofessional.

*claps*

[GM-Ayu]

Warning: Incoming Wall of Text

Kadar Wrote:

GM-Pandora Wrote:If you do something bad, even if someone else told you to do it (bribe or not), it's still your responsibility.

Yes it is your responsibility but that doesn't mean that others are not ALSO at fault or to blame.??Does this mean that if I give someone a suggestion to break the rules and they do it I'm free and clear so long as I didn't bribe them?

No, both people in this scenario will be held responsible. In this case, the manipulator (Amil Gaul) was given full ban, while those who are bribed by him are given only account ban. Most arguments in this thread are made as if Aries took a harsher punishment than everyone else. Perhaps it seems this way because his account contain a character that's the highest level compare to everyone else, but if you look at the action carried out, he received an account ban similar to everyone else that got bribed.

Kadar Wrote:

GM-Pandora Wrote:Sure the responsibility is partly Amil's and he got all his accounts + IP ban + not allowed back treatment for it, while aries, death note and the other one who's name I forget got 1 account banned each.

So while Amil was kicked off the server outright, Aries was told that he CAN STAY if he really really wants to but you don't want him around.??If you're going to start over on a server you might as well do it on one where the GMs aren't watching to see if you slip up again so they can ban you for good.??You didn't honestly give him that punishment expecting him to play here anymore did you?

I fail to understand why the concept of account banning is treated as to allow a player to stay on a server with strings attached. If GMs are to be obnoxious and waiting for every excuse to pick on a player to leave, then GMs can easily do it be it an account ban, mute+jail or whatever the first punishment is. So first of all, I don' see how the particular punishment we picked have any correlation to setting up a trap for him to come back just to "ban him completely next time."

Kadar Wrote:Look at all of the terrible things Jason did:

All of those disrespectful and hateful comments toward players and Jason still got to keep his characters if he apologized and waited.??He obviously wouldn't do that because for all intents and purposes you would be out to get him from then on.??Just like Aries probably wouldn't come back under the same circumstances.??The fact remains though that you pretty much forced Aries to leave.

From the looks of what transpired you were sick of people being disrespectful and wanted to crackdown with a sentence more harsh than usual.

I actually think that your quote on what happened to Jason half a year ago, compare to what happened in this case, is a sign of an improved ability in decision making for the GM team.

Jason's case was half a year ago. 2 of our GMs were not a GM. I was an intern where I mostly observed only. Half a year compare to the server's 3 year old is 1/6 of the server's life span. LOTS have changed, including the GM. I think that we all quoted on Jason's old punishment as most of us are rather dissatisfied with the poor ability on the GMs part on handling that ancient drama scenario. Hesitation to action along with being held threatened of drama outbreak because of a predicted unwelcoming punishment left everyone rather disappointed and upset against the GM. It was rather weak, and far too late. There are those who left because they find the GMs' ability to decision making to be poor and inexperienced, and those who stay didn't feel exactly happy either. Server took a huge 30% population cut.

And thus why, GM team has switched from an emphasis on particularism to universalism (may or may not appeal to all players, but I think that overall the pros outweigh the cons of this change.) GM team is more organized now in establishing records of all players when it comes to punishment, so we can easily refer to similar old cases in order to be consistent. Some rules are changed and updated (sadly at the cost of the phonebook of rules expanding even more most of the time). These changes obviously include the magnitude of punishment as well.

What judgment was like half a year ago, won't be the same now after april and may GM-Aki and GM-Pandora did a major administrative cleanup. Remember the time when half a year ago, a password change in heRO will take a super sluggish 2-3 months to finally get it done. Improvement to administration, because of GMing experience with new blood into the GM team to give senior GMs a hand, changed to be as quick as a week for password changes latest, and now control panel is back for immediate changes without GM interferences. Half a year ago I'm only an intern and was inconsistent in ruling (too strict/lax), constantly flip-flopped, and even had a period of time where GM-Loki took over my duties because of the inadequate level of performance from me. However, I'm quite confident to say that I'm a much more experienced GM now than before. Citing Jason's old case to use as comparison how the punishment against Aries is rather moot. Times have long changed from back then.

GMs are now much more determined to face unpopular yet necessary rulings, such as the case against recent 'well loved' player like Sthephio and Aries. Rather than giving leeway like with Jason in the past out of fear of drama and unpopularity, GMs give the proper and fitting punishment as soon as the event occurred (rather than dragging it on for months.)

It is less about who told Aries to do what he did, or who he said those comments to. The main points that led the vast majority of the GM teams (not GM-Pandora alone), myself included, are:

-He committed the crime while being fully knowledgeable that it is against server rules (chat log has Aries saying how it is wrong to do so in the beginning)
-He committed the crime under the context where the entire server voiced out their pleads, and thus reminded Aries, that he is committing a huge mistake (everyone on @main can testify that numerous people called for people to shun Amil Gaul and resist his deals)
-He attempted to hide his identity with a new character, showing full intention to do what he did (he created a new character for the sole mission to say what he said) with planning, trying to please both the manipulator and escape the punishment from the GMs as well

The general rule (with some exceptions, though this case isn't one of them) is that punishments are directly related to the crime as much as possible. Those who spam, is muted so they cannot talk anymore. Those who sacrificed other player's playing experience for their own entertainment, has their playing time in heRO limited by jailing, and so on.

Aries tried to get a head start caving in to Amil Gaul's bribes, (and Aries intentionally doing it on a new account to try to protect his own character safe while receiving full benefits as well). Therefore, we take his account so that his attempt to protect himself by hiding will fail, he is far set back than the supposed forward boost in heRO. This same punishment is carried out not unique to Aries but for everyone else within this scenario.



On the contrary, I'll rather ask a question to the players instead of only defending our position when GMs are doubted:

Are we having doubts in a particular case because of *what* the GM's decisions are, or is it the*who* on the receiving end of the GM's decisions that's causing all the ruckus?

There are well constructed arguments of doubts and questioning to the GM's severity (like some of the posts in this thread, which we welcome) about the recent scenarios, and there's also wild accusation to me for a in-game PM that some players believed how this is the GM's own doing for not being active enough (and how we should've been online to stop Aries and somehow it's part of our responsibility...?). Everyone chose to defend the place of particular players, when there's other players who has the same magnitude of punishment, yet that's perfectly fine for those people? Very, very few people brought up the fact that Aries indeed apologized and therefore is worth reconsidering the punishment against him, if it should be lighter than everyone else (which we took into account already.)

Quote:In doing so [GMs] got [their] own feelings mixed up in it which comes across as vindictive and unprofessional.

Likewise, aren't a small part of the playerbase in 2 recent occurrences with 'famous players' mixed their own feelings, especially personal ties and friendshiop, in their logical analysis of GMs decisions and is insisting that the fault is on the GMs because of the 'who' that is involved? I ask that while GMs will try their best and be accountable to players by keeping out biased opinions/decisions, players will also judge the GMs with total fairness and impartiality. This relationship to look after each other works both ways. Players make suggestions and raise questions to keep GMs in check by requesting fairness in judgment, while GMs also need the players to be rid of biased emotional judgments to help in maintaining server rules and order.


There are lessons to be learned for both sides. GMs understand that players worry more when GMs decide on irreversible punishment in case if GMs make a mistake, and will much more prefer a ceasing of playing priviledges regardless of time limit, even up to 2-3 months in some suggestions. Players also have to understand and accept that rules ought to be followed even when GMs are absent on the scene, and one looks out for another keeping each other accountable by reminding each other to respect the server rules to keep heRO server a great place to play on.

[Ryu Van Burace]

You know I only know Aries in passing so I've got no way of knowing what he was like, what he'd done or anything else but really, all these counters as to why he should be allowed back with no consequences for his actions fail to recognize something very simple thing:

He broke the rules.

There's all this talk of intent not being malicious. End result is:

He still broke the rules.

It would also set a bad precedent to just let it slip. So he gets let off scott free. What does that mean to everyone else in the past that's been banned for breaking the rules? They'd see it as an edge to get back in.

[Seriyu]

I'm in the same boat as ryu, never really knew him, traded with him a couple of times I think, saw him walk by a lot in pront, but he still did break the rules, that incident with the spammers insulting heRO on main a while back involved in the spammers getting banned, why shouldn't this?