A bit angry

[Rexyn]

Ok, so I'm not banned or anything, it's a good friend of mine who is. She's not going to say anything and I'm not going to appeal for her. What I'm a bit peeved about is how underhanded this is being treated.

In short, why s Missplums banned and yet not on the list explaining why she was banned? I personally know why, but I'm curious as to what conspiracy there is as to not putting her up on the list proper.

 

[Baron]

Avoidance of drama, since the banning is based on things that I'm sure neither party would want public.

 

[Megadonkey30]

... I am with Rexyn on this

 

[Rexyn]

See but that's the thing. Why can't this be handled in an adult mater. I know Plums can do that but Mich I'm a bit skeptical. Ya, I said that out loud on the forum. I'm not going to say anything, but it seems a bit of an extreme to handle it. It may have been that Plums was being a bit mental during there argument, but to outright ban her is a sign that whoever (Mich in this case) is not capable of taking on a fight with someone under a, legitimate or otherwise not, reason. Her response is to just ban her and pretend it never happened. Does that sound about right?

 

[Deleted member 12912]

I agree with Rexyn on this. Banning her and trying to hide it should not be allowed.

 

[Arken]

I agree with Rexyn on this. Banning her and trying to hide it should not be allowed.

I can agree to this also.

 

[roopot]

the banlist has not worked since we updated

 

[Rexyn]

Ok, that's a good reason for not updating it, but why not make that a public thing? Why do I only now know about this new update? That means that there are now a whole host of people that the normal server has known that could be banned and nobody knows about it or why. Further, that still doesn't explain Mich's actions on this matter.

 

[Faelin]

Guys, I can understand you're all upset, but I'd just like to ask that we avoid jumping to conclusions, please?

At the end of the day, if something is evidently two-sided and you've only seen one side, please don't leap to conclusions about why you've only seen one side before you've heard from both sources.

 

[Deleted member 12912]

I've already heard from Missplums herself about what happened, from that I can say I've heard enough.

 

[Megadonkey30]

I don't see any Conclusions only what we had seen. This thread as I see it, is trying to figure out the other side

 

[Jeroxia]

For as far as I know.. isn't plums even remotely upset over the fact that she's banned. She said she thought it was a appropriate ban and she already made her excuses to Mich. Hence why it's a mere temp ban.

 

[Rexyn]

Thank you, Faelin, for that point. Yes, I know only of one side on this particular argument. But my knowledge of past arguments that I believe are of the same type as this one means that I can doubt the pretense of the second party (Mich) due to that knowledge.

I'm not asking for answers. I'm looking to make this a point that people can understand has happened in the first place. I have made no point for or against this judgment, only my observation on what has happened and the plea for the knowledge that answers my point even if it is in the simplest terms to protect both parties.

 

[bodejodel]

See but that's the thing. Why can't this be handled in an adult mater. I know Plums can do that but Mich I'm a bit skeptical. Ya, I said that out loud on the forum. I'm not going to say anything, but it seems a bit of an extreme to handle it. It may have been that Plums was being a bit mental during there argument, but to outright ban her is a sign that whoever (Mich in this case) is not capable of taking on a fight with someone under a, legitimate or otherwise not, reason. Her response is to just ban her and pretend it never happened. Does that sound about right?

I will not go into details here, but I can assure you, Mich was the one who handled this in a very, very mature way and she did not even want her to be banned.

 

[Rexyn]

For as far as I know.. isn't plums even remotely upset over the fact that she's banned. She said she thought it was a appropriate ban and she already made her excuses to Mich. Hence why it's a mere temp ban.

Another good point. But it is the principal of the ban that is upsetting, not the duration or if she cared about it or not.

 

[Rexyn]

I will not go into details here, but I can assure you, Mich was the one who handled this in a very, very mature way and she did not even want her to be banned.

Thank you for saying that. I will have to go on your word on this (though I know from what Plums has told me that it's true) and I am glad to have that response.

 

[Jeroxia]

You know what. . Give me a few moments. . I'll text plums about this.

 

[Naelwyn]

Details behind this are kept from being public for the sake of the individual banned and the hope that they can reconcile and become part of the community again.

I can assure you that nobody wants the backmatter behind this ban published because we'd rather let people take time, have their space, and hopefully come back.

Things like this happen frequently. We have a constant internal struggle between wanting to provide reasonings, and not wanting to come across as smearing anybody's name. We're not out to keep things secret, we're not out to try and shame people for being banned.

We just want people to have fun playing the game.

We keep back material on hand - we don't just ban/demote/reassign people for no reason - we have solid logs of things before we do so.

Do you really want to see us publishing all of the things behind a why every time? I felt it would come across as petty.

 

[Rexyn]

Thank you for answering (most) of my questions guys.

 

[Legion]

Aye there was no attempt or effort at hiding it.
When I banned her (I was the one who entered the command) I put a reason. It was: "Using the server as a vehicle for extensive verbal abuse."
I was not aware that our ban list did not get updated automatically anymore.