COMPLAINT REGARDING WRAITH
First, the rules state that harassment (minor) applies when the
victim asked the offender to stop, yet he persists. On the Ceri
incident, Ceri never asked Wuss to stop whatever it was that
he was doing.
Second, the rules state that harassment (major) applies when
the offender is harassing the other PLAYER. As Wuss has no
knowledge of Ceri's other chars (nor have problems with them
since they don't use triggers), this was not an OOC action.
Third, the rules state that repeat sending of text is a violation
(spamming). However, Wuss only sent strings of text when actually
asking a question, and each string of text were appropriate under
the circumstances in terms of substance. Moreover, they were not
triggered but sent manually upon people's responses regarding a
favor or disfavor to Ceri's triggers.
Fourth, the rules state that there is a stern talking to on the
first offense, which never happened. The player has had two
warnings before, more than 6 months ago, and none related to the
current warning -- i.e, different area of the game that could
warrant a warning. No verbal anything was given before Wuss
was warned, not even an intervention on chat by an immortal
asking Wuss to stop.
Fifth, Wuss was restricted in his channel usage when he started
protesting the unfairness of the warning. No abusive language of
any kind was used in doing so, yet Wraith restricted his channel
usage without one word of a warning of any kind. Not to mention
the fact that the substance of his channel usage was different
from what he was warned for -- ie, he wasn't restricted in channel
usage because he kept up with talking to Ceri, but because he
protested the sudden warning.
Sixth, Wuss's alts were restricted in their channel usage whenever
they tried to make public the treatment Wuss has received by Wraith.
unlock u
In my opinion, that's suppression of truth via abuse of power,
when it is obvious that none of the substance or the actual use of
vocabulary conflicted with the rules on legend.
Seventh, ability to create guests were locked. This is another abuse
of power that harms more than one person, not to mention that its
motive runs along the same lines as the fifth and sixth points. It's
not as if the guest chars were bending rules, thus such locking is
overt abuse of power.
COMPLAINT AGAINST SANDRA
Wuss was prohibited from discussing the issue any further with the only
reason for it being Sandra's "I'm getting annoyed." Even if that was
true, and had logical reasoning behind it, it is the duty of the
immortal to clarify. As an immortal that interacts, and metes out
justice, it is imperative that actions should be logically explained
before being done. If Sandra had said "Your comments come close to
harassing Wraith" in the first place, of course I would have desisted,
as I did.
Also, here Sandra again says comments close to harassment, but nowhere in
the rules does it state that it is within the Imm's discretion as to when
it is reasonable for them to step in -- the prerequisite to labelling
anything harassment is the victim's plea for the offender to stop. Wraith
never asked for Wuss to stop asking him questions, but only kept
repeatedly restricting Wuss's channel options.
I'd like to thank you for taking the time to read this paper, and would
like to ask you to remind me of the post Sandra meant to post a while ago
regarding triggers on infos. It was to my understanding that there was to
be a debate as to allowing triggers on channels, but I've not heard from t
that again.
Best regards,
Wuss
tried to append with a card, guess that's not working
From: Azash
Tuesday, April 13, 09:48PM
What I can say?
Be glad immortals are giving warnings, no deleting chars
From: Azash
Tuesday, April 13, 09:50PM
At least you need get some warnings before you are deleting
or make something very very bad.
From: Leatherface
Wednesday, April 14, 12:30AM
Disturbing accusations, indeed. Anything to say about this Wraith/Sandra?
IF this is true, I would like to see some harsh and heavy consequences
for the offending Immortals.
Looks to me, Azash, like you beleive these things were done, only
you don't really mind. Maybe brown-nosers don't get treated unfairly, but
I bet you would complain real loud if you were the one getting uncalled fo
-r warnings.
Leatherface.
From: Jean
Wednesday, April 14, 01:34AM
I'd like to say that I thought Wuss's points were very good. However, I
think that we should also try to get the immortals' side to this story.
Personally, I don't think Sandra's wording was right- if she really was
just "getting annoyed", she shouldn't have gagged Wuss. And if she was
genuinely annoyed, she should have said so i'd think. Hopefully Sandra
and Wraith will clear up what happened better and we'll all be able to
move on in a fairly amicable manner. I've just come from 2 harrowing
experiences where i was banned from 2 separate muds and I certainly hope
that something like that doesn't happen here- the sophistication to avoid
such an event certainly seems present :-). well, here's to hoping
everything ends nicely.
From: Azash
Wednesday, April 14, 09:13AM
I got warnings too, but it isn't important.
I didn't see that an imm gave someone a warning without a reason.
Or because an imm was mad.
At least always when I got a warning, they had reason for it
or I found it when I thought about it.
Yes, everyone can make mistake. We are not Gods.
Azash
From: Sandra
Wednesday, April 14, 11:33AM
I'm oftentimes surprised that people will bring things to public
boards such as these with only half of what happened, and then
expect the other parties to sit quietly by while people jump
to the poster's defense.
My statements were "I've been here less than 5 minutes and all
I've seen is your whining. And I"m beginning to get annoyed."
My second statement was that you, and others, were boardering
on harassing Wraith. In the rules it does state that constant
rudeness or aggresive behaviour towards an individual could and
would be seen as harassment. In the 5 minutes I was on before
going visible, that's all I saw.
For the record, I did not remove Wuss' channel privledges, I made
a statement. I also said repeatedly that if there was a problem
with one of my staff, that they should come to me. One person
has to this point. Another decided to post here for, what seems
an added backing of play support. If that's what you choose, then
don't be surprised when it declines as I, and other staff members,
post what they saw.
As far as info triggers, I didn't post because I'd assumed the
randomizing of the levels and deaths as Kaige and Rufus coded
would be sufficient in reducing the triggers. In most cases,
they've done just that. Also added to it that info can now
be turned off, and people's levels or deaths still seen if
you're config seedeath/seelevel are toggled on, I felt that
it was obvious that we -were- working towards something that
has been a complaint of many people. Perhaps I underestimated,
my apologies.
As far as the situation with Wraith, I'll not post here regarding
it without getting the story from all sides. Its unfair for anyone
to even think I'd do so. So, as I stated repeatedly last night,
mail me with the information on the situation specifically, or
take it to Kaige if you feel that I'm not the one you'd rather
speak with regarding it.
-Sandra
From: Jean
Wednesday, April 14, 01:11PM
Sandra writes:
I never expected you to sit quietly by. Nor would I have wanted you to-
in my first append, i -clearly- stated that i wanted to hear the
immortals side of the story.
Whinings a pretty serious word and has been used by immortals in wrong
ways before on other muds ive been on. what, precisely, did you find he
was complaining unnecessarily about?
before or after Wraith warned him? I mean, talk about harassing- imagine
-you- were warned for no good reason- thats pretty serious stuff and if
Wraith didnt have a good reason for it, I can see why Wuss would be
pretty upset. Not that he used abusive language at this point, if one is
to believe him.
towards who, wraith or ceri?
nods- Wraith did that I take it.
Id like to see what you saw.. Wuss, how about it?
From: Wuss
Wednesday, April 14, 03:46PM
I posted this letter because I wanted people to know of the things
I have said, sent, and when. I -DID- send you the exact same letter,
and I don't expect you (sandra) to respond to the board -- as long
as you respond to the letter, for me it is the same. However,
I do want to know what other individuals think of such treatment,
whether it be from Azash or Jean (yes, i am using the two to
indicate a wiiiiiiiiiiide spectrum of intelligence :p). Also,
I thought it'd be interesting to see just how long it takes for
matters like this to be resolved, since I can't really rely on
my memory much :)
As far as 'half' the story goes -- it is a COPY of the letter
i've sent you, so of COURSE it has MY half of the story on it.
If you think it'd help player relations to clarify the other
half, I'd more than urge you to do so -- too much of the administrative
actions taken on this mud are being done behind closed doors.
And I still think the mud's Admins should be PR imms as a pre-
requisite. Administration is player relations, just one
aspect of it -- the aspect that requires more people skills than
the other (not to put them down) PR departments. Imho, PR should
get off their obsession with games and actually work out the
miscommunications and lack of information to the playerbase -- not
that I don't enjoy what they are doing now, but in terms of
priorities, games can wait.
I don't think I've accused you of removing channel privileges,
nor did I accuse you of being unjust -- just having been less
than appropriate in your choice words expressing your annoyance.
It may be hard to believe at times like this, but we players are
individuals with opinions who live, and are used to, the treatment
we get outside Legend -- a member of a society with a certain
degree of respect that allows for discussion of matter rather than
forcing and preventing somebody to express their thoughts at all.
I am guilty in terms of attitude -- yes, I am capable of temperamental
outbursts, whatever you may believe -- but I have behaved within
the legality of the rules. I can't say the same regarding Wraith's
actions, but strongly believe that he has overstepped his boundaries.
Whatever decision you may come to, I am more than certain that, though
his warning could be justified with the leeway an immortal has upon
the situation, the channel restriction, the guest restriction, and
the channel restrictions upon all my active alts were uncalled for.
Wuss
From: Jean
Thursday, April 15, 06:18PM
Ok, this is append 9, reposted in a format with line spaces :-)
Wuss writes:
I dont think Sandra was saying otherwise to that..
->shade<- wonders if hes the intelligent one or the fool in
Wusses mind, he he he :-). Well, personally, Im all for Wusss
tactic, as the best muds have open discussions of these topics
(shh, dont tell anyone that this is the first mud where ive actually
seen that.. doh :p).
i think an argument Sandra could make is that things can be
resolved better behind closed doors. Sadly, I think this really
usually just works one way in these types of cases- it works for
the -Immortals-, not the mortals :-p. One could say that airing it in
public would cause more extremism, but i beg to differ- this way,
there are a lot more voices and the more voices thinking adding to
the discussion, the less biased the discussion is one way or the
other.
Im somewhat lacking as to how much time the Admins put into
player relations, but it looks a whole lot better then the muds ive
been on before, so i think we should take that into account..
I agree with this.
From: Davien
Friday, April 16, 01:34AM
Actually Jean, I disagree with what you said about getting
proceedings outside closed doors. While it is true that there
is a widening of the base of people who will get involved in
the discussion, that widening is not representative of the
playerbase of the MUD. There was a similar outcry when Ronnie
and DeathSpawn were deleted, and interestingly it is almost
the same people saying the same things.
Yes, more people respond, but those people are from one
side only. The other side basically have beeter things to do
or no interest in taking up a crusade. The immortals are there
to enforce the rules and I have every confidence in their
ability to do so.
The best format for dispute resolution is still IMHO the
courtroom format, with independant bodies representing each
side of the case to a deciding authority. The distance the
independant person has allows perspective and rationality
that is often otherwise lacking, and almost always leads to
a better argument. This is impractical here, and the system
of posting one side of the case to a judging body, either
Sandra or Kaige is a workable, and indeed very good,
compromise.
Davien Holyoake - speaking on behalf of those who don't
really want to spend their gametime resolving disputes where
personalities have clashed.
From: Jean
Friday, April 16, 02:09AM
Davien writes:
Perhaps, perhaps not. But I think it could be fair to say that the
people who post here might -care- more about the mud.
Why were they deleted? Ronnies name seems to be in
someones title still..
Doesnt mean theyre wrong or that theyre not representative of
the mud. Some people like talking, some dont.
That or they have nothing to argue for- they -got- their wish.
On here, the immortals are pretty good. But let me tell you, thats
not always the case on a mud. Personally, I dont think all the
responsibility is on immortals shoulders- were -just- as
responsible to make sure the immortals dont get off track.
What this assumes is that (1) Sandra and Kraige have the will
and the time to do it real quick and (2) that Sandra and Kraige
are -always- right. Personally, I dont think anyone in the world is
-always- right.
Then don't and leave it to people who do.
From: Wraith
Saturday, April 17, 10:44AM
FIrst of all, if you have a problem with a warning that you were
given or the treatment that you receive from an immortal, boards
and channels are not the appropriate place for discussion. You
should talk directly with the immortal in question and if unable
to resolve the issue, talk to Sandra and then Kaige about it. You
have been here a long time and know this. I'm not going to hold
your hand just because it's the first time one of your characters
was given a warning for a particular action.
Regarding your 'points', you should have combined a few of them
since they are really the same thing restated in another way.
Immortals do not need to wait for a player to complain although
we often will. Not all players may feel comfortable making a
complaint against another. Also, I'm not going to wait for a
player to complain if a throw-away newbie logs on and spams
channels with profanities. I will limit or purge them as fast
as I can.
You were attacking the player, not the character. You do not
need to know anything about a player's alts to harass the
player behind them. Among your other comments, you were
repeatedly asking on chat how many people thought Ceri should be
asked to leave. How could that not be OOC?
Any player who has been here for a long time should know the
rules, if not from reading them as you are supposed to, then
from reading about actions taken on the boards or having discussed
it with other players in private or chat. In addition, you should
already know right from wrong. You should have known that what
you were doing was wrong without anyone having to tell you. Do you
not learn how to behave as you grow? Don't your parents, society,
peers and others teach you? When you started playing here, did you
not learn how to behave in this environment?
Regarding the rules, you should have read the entire passage. You
left off this bit, "If the warning is severe enough, a punishment
may be given along with the warning up to and including site ban."
To go with it is this, "The administrators reserve the right to
upgrade the punishments based on the severity of the offense."
You were restricted from using channels when you used them
inappropriately. If you want to talk with me about the warning
given, talk to ME, not the entire MUD. Using chat to try and
agitate the other players and not discussing the issue with me is
an appeal to emotions and not to logic. Using propaganda is no
way to decide if somebody's actions were right or wrong.
Your other character was limited for doing the same thing that
Wuss was doing, as were the guest characters that you used. It
was your actions that required me to guestlock the game. I agree
that it is harmful to more than just one person, however, they
were not meant for players to log on and rail against the
immortals. Guests were meant for guests or players needing help
with their characters because they are archived, about to be
archived or the pfile is corrupted.
You made an append stating that all players are individuals who
are given certain treatment off of Legend, in RL. This is true,
however, here, as there, you will be given respect only if you
earn it. Your actions belie your statement that you were within
the legality of the rules. Your petty behavior does cross into
harassment when you start to make OOC attacks against other players
on chat as you did to Ceri or when you make posts such as the one
about forming the Annoyed with Benedict Club. Harassment is against
the rules and you will be warned if you are caught doing it. If I
did not give you a warning, I would be failing in my
responsibilities.
- Wraith
From: Wuss
Saturday, April 17, 04:24PM
You certainly make me laugh, Wraith, simply because you have
0 grasp of anything important that has happened, in addition
to distorting something that wasn't even said.
For starters, I've never asked Ceri to leave, but I asked her
triggers to leave. That isn't an attack against the player,
it's an attack against the player's triggers -- something that
everyone seems to agree is ooc, and thus has no RP standing
whatsoever, meaning it won't hurt their character.
Secondival, simply because one thing rests upon another does not
eliminate the need to have them separated into points. Why else
would you need, then, specific clauses to each piece of regulation
when the 'general' idea is the same?
As far as something being the 'proper' channel to complain,
there is not a single file, that I am aware of, in my 4 years
of play, that says channels cannot be used in such a fashion.
Also, as i have stated and the log will prove, I have never
used profanities in that incident. Not ever. All I have stated
was the circumstance of the decision, and I didn't even name
the character in question nor the specific circumstance in question
but asked generally whether such behavior was appropriate.
Again, I have never asked Ceri to leave, but only her triggers.
If a player who's been here such a long time does not know the
rules, it has to do with one thing more than anything else -- lack
of informing the mud of the rules each time somebody else gets
punished, and lack of reasoning behind any such punishments. Rules
mean nothing to those whose normal behavior does not infringe upon
them, since it is never their concern. For most people, rules are
the last thing they have to worry about, simply because nobody
(not many) are exposed to people who break rules everyday.
And I did learn how to behave in this environment, and that is why
i didn't use any profanity or even personal attacks on chat, but
only attacks on their actions. Never have I called you names, only
pointed out the stupidity of your actions and your abusive behavior.
If that says something about yourself, that's all good and well, but
when i accuse people, it is not through personal insults but through
their idiotic actions.
Severity of the offense. Sure, but i don't see how the discussion
of your actions relate to my supposed attacking Ceri's player. It is
definately one thing to attack Ceri, and quite another to discuss
the punishment. The issue was DROPPED. Ceri was no longer mentioned
in my channels post-warning.
If i want to talk about the warning, I talk about it with any person
i please. It is not within your jurisdiction as to what i can say
to others nor whom i choose to talk and not to talk with. That much
is clear, else the gag command wouldn't be in place. I have no
desire whatsoever to talk to you -- this isn't the first time you've
shown complete ignorance in the circumstances, not to mention being
unhelpful in general. I know I gain nothing but more frustration
from talking to you -- you lack concern for other players.
My characters were limited for one reason -- discussion of an immortal
action over chat. Unless you plan to, or already have, added to the
helpfiles and plaster it all over the place, I suggest you drop it.
Never in my 4 year career have I seen a ban in a possible topic of
discussion involving non-game issues that are not profane in general,
Guests are meant for many things, including a tour of the mud,
and if they are not meant for players to log on and rail against
the immortals -- that's fine with me. I have only tried to
discuss your actions, not your person. The difference may not
be clear to you, but it is there. If I were to hate you personally,
none of your actions would make a difference -- but since I am
only disgusted with your behavior and idiotic actions, if you can
correct that, I have no beef.
Respect only if you earn it, I return that statement right back.
You have lost respect, and every single action of yours simply
support my decision in stopping to respect you at all. Again,
I have never made ooc attacks against other players. Did i ever
say "Annoyed with Benedict's Player Club?" How can it be ooc
when all i am gagging and going up against is another CHARACTER?
It's not as if I know any of his alts, nor do I care to. The
bottom line of the matter is, i don't attack ANYONE ooc. THat
is proven time and time again when I clan characters against/with
the same characters i was with/against. I don't hold any player
in such grudge, only their characters. If that's the only char
they have, then it's THEIR fault for having themselves vested too
closely with their CHARACTER.
And finally, you are failing in your responsibilities. Why else
do you think you are a joke to a very good segment of the playerbase
while Sandra earns her respect? Off the top of my head, I couldn't
think of any other imm who is talked about with such disgust and
repulsion than you are -- oh, no, we don't discuss you as a person,
never, but only your actions that seem to imply something about your perso
n.
Wuss
From: Davien
Saturday, April 17, 07:08PM
Jean, I think you took the wrong meaning from my post. I confess
that it is almost certaintly the ambiguity on my part that caused
it. Let me explain.
In 95% of the cases of people getting angry about recieving
warnings/punishments, there is no question as to whether or not the
player committed the offense in question. If there was, I am sure
that the internal logs the machine keeps would clear things up. No
the reason people complain is not to say that they are innocent,
but that the rules/that rule should not apply to them, that they are
special in some way.
No player is above the rules, but it is human nature to blame
someone when things do not turn out as planned. Very few people can
admit they made a mistake and are responsible for their own actions
As a side note, Americans are the worst at this by a long LONG way
One merely needs to look at the legal proceedings of the country to
see this.
That aside, the only person who can be blamed by a punished
player is the person that punished them. This is almost invariable
the immortals. Like it or not, the average person caught cheating
will immeadiatly say 'Thats not fair, I'm not doing anything wrong
and everyone else does it as well' in an effort to avoid the
consequences.
While you may like to see every administrative action posted
somewhere, I personally do not. If someone is multiplaying and
an immortal spots it and deletes both characters, then that is just
rewards. However, if that player decides to remake a deleted char
then I see no reason to have any social stigma attached to their
name. After all, the character that offended is NO MORE, so any
previous actions are OOC. Ok, so thats specific to deletions, but
the principle is the same.
Currently, a persons 'foul' deeds only count against them if
they offend again, and are only visible to immortals. I for one
would like it to stay this way.
In respect to Wuss's case, it seems he may fall into the 5%
where there is a legitimate case to have the warning removed.
IMHO it comes down to what you see as harassment. Wraith believes
the actions were harassment, while Wuss doesn't, and like I said
in my last post, a personality clash. That aside, there are steps
that have been established and can be taken to have the case
reviewed, and that satisfies me.
Davien Holyoake.
From: Jean
Sunday, April 18, 12:18AM
Davien writes:
ok.
What do the legal proceedings of America tell you?
I agree that we dont have to see every administrative action. But
if a player has a claim that looks legitimate, like Wusss does,
and he would like it to be brought into the public light, I see no
reason why it shouldnt be allowed to be.
nods.
yeah.
If you think those steps include the ability for Wuss to post the
whole thing up in a public forum as he has, I agree with you, he
:-).
