I have never been emailed terms nor given a log showing the length of the ban. Only what was has been said was told to me.
Id love to see those though for my sanity’s sake. This was over a year ago.
Perhaps we could split the difference - twelve years of slavery in the content mines? 
What we generally look for at IB when reviewing bans is whether they have a) not sought to evade the ban, and b) not repeated the same behaviour elsewhere. But to be frank, most of those who burn through our lesser solutions such as comment/PM restrictions are not good candidates to return anytime soon. 
I’m like 95% sure that bans are generally intended to be permanent unless successfully appealed. When I issue a ban, I assume it’s permanent.
I’m definitely not AMAZING at words and what not, but I wholeheartedly believe the rat deserves to be unbanned. She’s been a big part of the community - having built the underground - and I feel her showing remorse for her actions, along with how genuinely lovely she is ooc, should allow her to come back to Wolfery to continue to manage this area, and return to the community
2 Likes
As someone who has moderated for a large scale roleplay community of similar scope to Wolfery before, I can safely say that moderation and management should never be held by referendum when it comes to punishment. I’ve administered bans, I’ve administered suspensions, I’ve handled formal ban appeals, and I’ve taken part in discussions regarding admin decisions in public and private forums. It is of vital importance that administration be able to act freely on their own conscience, guided by rules and regulations, and the wellbeing of the community, rather than the whims of said community, and out of fear/supplication of popular opinion, particularly in cases of punishment. It is one thing to solicit the views of the playerbase re: player bans, but it is another to have it volunteered. I do not know Shy/Millicent, I was not involved in their ban, my opinion on their reversal is largely immaterial- but my opinion on this particular effort here is that this is not an appropriate way to appeal a ban reversal. This kind of request, whether intentional or not, puts public pressure on the administration to act a certain way, or to fear losing the good faith of a portion of the playerbase, and limits their ability to do as they must with a clear conscience.
Praise publicly, punish privately, appeal privately. What are the admin to do now? If they refuse this request, then are you not forcing them to rebuke you publicly?
I actively resisted posting this appeal and told people not to get hopes up. I was so anxious i had to have someone help write the post. And a forum appeal request is how others have had their bans repealed in the past: going off precedent mentioned specifically by mods in the not too distant past. That this is the correct way to appeal a ban.
Since then its been the community around me pushing this forward. Every kind word here was given freely by others. Otherwise, I agree with you. I did not canvas for this support.
1 Like
Can confirm. A ban is exactly what it says - a permanent removal. The other flavor is suspension, which is time limited. They do the same thing - you can no longer access the game. But one is permanent, the other is not. And the suspensions say how long they are for.
1 Like
I say this with no knowledge of the persons or incidents involved:
Stalkers, abusers, and predators very frequently hide their actions from the outside world. If you aren’t their target, they can be incredibly friendly, generous, and supportive. Sometimes it’s genuine because their feelings about their target are compartmentalized, sometimes it’s manipulation to get into a position where they can continue their actions. How many times has society discovered that “pillars of the community” have been involved in predatory, or even simply corrupt, practices? It is not acceptable to let them continue in their role where they can inflict harm, even if they do plenty of good for people other than their targets.
Again, none of this is meant to accuse the person in question. What it is meant to do is point out that:
- public appearance can vary greatly from private;
- how an abuser acts toward non-targets can be the polar opposite of how they act toward their target;
- actions speak louder than words.
1 Like
Unless you have anything that suggest this could be true in this case it doesn’t need to be mentioned. We are all aware of the fact that bad and manipulative people exist. The only reason to do this is to poison the well.
Incorrect. It is to remind you that you may not be privy to the facts that the target and the moderators are, and the only facts you have tell you this person is a pillar of the community.
It is possible they have reformed. However, even just in this thread conflicting accounts have been offered. Clearly the contributions to the community are not the full story.
1 Like
What you say provides no new information. It only says hey, this thing over here remains a possibility. Yes, it does. We already knew that.
Then you should not be trying to turn rules enforcement into a popularity contest, and trust the people who are in full possession of the facts to make a fair decision.
Sorry. That was rude.
The appeal has been made. The arguments in this thread appear to be of the opinion that denying the appeal, even potentially, is unjust. THAT is what is dangerous, especially from people not in full possession of the facts.
It genuinely makes no difference to me whether this person is allowed back in or not, as I have had no interactions with them in the past or expect to in the future.
1 Like
Of note a review of our mod tickets says it’s been five ban evasion user accounts in the past year. Six if you count the one used to protest ban 5. I might have missed one or two.
1 Like
I am afraid that I cannot reconcile these two sentences. You imply you are not asking the ban to be reversed immediately, then go on to say that it there is no reason to wait longer before reversing the ban. And even that is an incorrect statement. Perhaps if the only concern was an NCO violation this argument might be salient. However, as I continue to point out, there is ALSO THE ISSUE OF BAN EVASION. Ban evasion does not work like that. One does not prove they have stopped evading a ban by being unbanned, they prove it by being banned and not evading the ban. Again, 2 months is not sufficient a time to undo nearly a year of history, regardless of how important some may feel the individual is to their community.
1 Like
I made this response thinking the ban was temporary. Now that I know it isn’t I have to ask. If the first ban was believed permanent and you have nothing saying anything about official appeals then yeah people are going to evade bans. As far as they know it’s that or just leave. It was permanent to begin with no chance of proving themselves was offered. It was, ‘you messed up, go away’. What is the incentive not to? You get permanently banned, oh wait. As far as you believe it’s your only option other than give up. I’m not saying it’s the right thing to do but what did you expect? Though honestly none of this matters. I just wanted to know if a return at some point was on the table and I let myself get dragged down into semantics I don’t care about. At this point all any of us are doing is fighting. I am sorry for my part in that. I get defensive of my friends. We all do. The question we really care to have answered is simple. Is it possible for Flint to be allowed back at some point. Is it even something worth pursuing. The intent had been to show that we cared I think we have done that perhaps a bit too much.
3 Likes
I know Shylocke very well. Their private appearance comes across (to me) as a gentle soul, and not that of an abuser. I have never once witnessed manipulation or even much harsh words.
Yes, authority figures or popular people have turned out to be bad people. I know Shylocke is good, but we aren’t trying to evaluate their personality or personal life.
The person appealing their ban is politely apologizing and politely asking for our moderators to consider repealing the ban sometime. Not asking if they should come back immediately because everybody says they should come back immediately.
At least they can see where they made wrong turns and are willing to avoid repeating those same mistakes.
Can’t we focus on that?
Not on the fiddly unsure parts of he-said/she-said which have to do with who said what happened to who and why however long ago?
I ask that the moderators moderate and see what can be done. That we actually find a solution rather than argue about it all for months and insult eachother (not that much of that has happened yet, but it could).
As for actual solutions, how about another three months, six months or even of course another year more of the ban being in place, to see that they will follow the rules and not evade the ban again?
After that, if that lets Shylocke back onto Wolfery, perhaps there could be a sort of trial run, perhaps a careful 1-3 months, to see if any NCO is left alone?
I might be naive by saying all this, not knowing the terms of moderation and ban times, but I believe change in behavior is able to be made. And I know hopefully that Shylocke is willing to do that.
It’s kind of simple to me.
- Yes, ban evasion happened.
-
- We can see that it doesn’t happen again via more time spent without another evasion.
- Yes, NCO violation happened.
-
- We can see that it doesn’t happen again via simply avoidance if or when the ban is lifted after evasion doesn’t happen again.
3 Likes
I think it would be much easier to get a concession like that from the mods once they’ve shown they can behave consistently. It’s very hard to say “sure, we can revisit it” when it’s only been two months since the last attempt. Right now, to my eyes, it looks very much like a “why should we?”
Reasonable.
Thus the “give it 6-12 months” thing.
1 Like