Important Issues the Community Should Acknowledge

If the lack of a warning is such a problem, look to the skype chat. That is more or less the textbook example of a warning. As Twitch and myself have both said, if Aiko had a problem with it, he could have found a way to try working it out, and he still can (And arguably is). There are appeals (Which, how can you claim they do nothing when you have never made one?), and he could have simply brought it up with Twitch, or, since he fears "personal agendas," could have brought it up with another staff member.

There is no battering or bullying being done here, only claims to it. I'd like to ask what the problems of staff's functionality are, though, since there has been no evidence of that here other than personal speculation without experience, and the claims of staff's functionality problems themselves.

 

In regards to Aiko receiving notice, this is to be blamed on the server. It has been our practice now that when a player is banned they are informed at the point of a server reset. This is due to the fact the whitelist bans should not take effect until that point. This is in part to protect the server and the players as someone who is actively online cannot find out they are banned and retaliate on the server before it takes effect.

If you have had a comment removed it is due to it being ooc in an ic section, containing graphic or questionable pictures or language, or being a general Shitposting directed at someone. In the latter case you will likely be notified as that is something which will likely become an actionable offense off the get go.

Again, regardless of what anyone thinks on the matter, rule six listed above was a rule that was broken. It is right there. If you disagree it is fair, that is fine. You can certainly discuss that, but there is nothing you can say to invalidate it was broken.

 

The use of both a 'generic' first name and last name, specifically 'Aiko', which you have used twice before, is an unnecessary step to tread on the 'no resurrection' laws. Even if the character is different, choosing a distinguished, unique name is hardly so time consuming or preposterous a request to avoid confusion among the players and, as these events show, among the staff.

You were provided a warning, and I understand that Twitch both notified you and reminded you that an appeal was available. Beyond that, this is not a long term, over-reactive exile from the community. This is a 3 day suspension for a lack of compliance. If there was some confusion as to whether or not you had actually complied, a quick appeal could have easily rectified the situation of human error.

Reuse of character concepts and names, or 'resurrection' has been increasingly restricted, particularly after the no cloning clause was added to the rules. Reusing the exact name and surname caused confusion and issues among players, which resulted in it being brought to the staff's attention.

The staff deliberated and decided that this reuse was more detrimental (intentionally or otherwise) than beneficial, and that an easy, quick name change was not an outrageous request. It appears we were, wrong, however. and that there was miscommunication.

 

There are people who are still on the server who had experiences with the character, and that causes continuity issues with their characters and otherwise. Claiming the name is generic and it's a different person is frankly, flimsy.

As was said earlier, the name is pretty insignificant, I don't think anyone on th estaff has contested that. The reasoning for the ban was not the name. It was because Aiko did the exact opposite of what he said he would do.

 

This is still not an appeal. If you want to make an appeal, there is a section for that.

 

Evidently someone saw your character, shown by a report. You don't have to say anything to be in character, and not everyone will see you wandering around doing your thing and say "Oh, he's OOC". What did you think it would look like? You know how the logs work. It still appears as if you were doing what you said you wouldn't do. Please, make an appeal, try to work this out with staff, something that's a little less blatantly "Look how terrible the staff are". Making this public doesn't seem to have any apparent purpose or added effect other than trying to put peer pressure on the staff.

 

Why would she be banned if there was no proof in the first place?

 

If what Aiko says is true then there would be no report or evidence to trigger a moderator to ban her for playing Aiko Yori. So what caused this moderator to ban her?

 

The logs were still pretty vindictive. Would it have been more certain if the character had said something? Sure, but with a report being made by a player, and the logs supporting the report, it leaves little else to think.

Staff members do make mistakes on occasion, which is a very large part of why the appeal system exists. Aiko, as a former staff member, would likely know that.

Try to keep it from becoming petty. We did not issue a command unto Mount Sinai into stone tablets of what you must do with your character, upon threat of death. The staff told you to stop using the character's name, or there would be consequences. You kept using the character's name, and then there were consequences. It's really that simple.

This is why we are asking him to make an appeal. We don't know that Aiko is telling the truth, and it would be much easier to work it out in private as opposed to handling the issue of the argued lack of staff functionality in the same space at the same time as whether or not Aiko's character broke the rules.

 

The name is the primary issue as far as I'm concerned. All subsidiary issues (whether they be non-compliance, clerical error or human error) all stem from the name. The NAME is what we received complaints about. The name is what you were contacted about. And the name is what was not amended.

If the issue is human or clerical error, it is as simple as making an appeal to say "I didn't actually interact with anybody or intend to as Aiko today." Call it bureaucratic, but that's the way the system has been set up. From our perspective, you played Aiko. We received complaints. You were warned. You didn't comply. You were banned. If there is an issue with that, then that is what appeals are for.

If you feel that you are above appeals, whether it is because you are a veteran, a donor, or simply entitled to a unique branch of this small communities time and resources, and deserve some greater outstanding trial by your peers, that is not how our system is set up.

There were reports made about the name. As has been stated previously.

 

This also brings the question: who was so concerned about the name that they actually reported it? From where I'm standing that smells like someone with previous history with a person or character looking to inflict some damage more than a real issue.

Have the mods considered the history between the reporter and Aiko?

 

yes, yes where have I seen this happen.

 

This isn't actually a new issue at all. There have been four Aikos in total. So for those who don't happen to know the history, it is as follows.

Aiko Yori, the original, who died.
Aiko Yori, the second. A human. Aiko was made to change the name in his case as well, which is when he changed his forum name as well to Aiko Ikari.
Aiko Akky, no issues, an obvious reinvention. As long as it didn't share the same name.
Aiko Yori, the pop idol. And here we are today.

You haven't tried to speak to the mod staff directly about changing the initial ruling from way back then, nor did you contact anyone prior to using the name again, it took a report to do that. You don't have intentions of making an appeal, that's fine. Just know if you don't work with the staff at all and continue to bring the character onto the server, the same thing is likely going to happen.

 

I am stating the staff's view on this, and urging you to appeal if you so strongly feel we are in the wrong, which you are refusing to do. This brings back the prior point, how can you complain about your lack of a voice when you have not tried to use your voice?

We do consider that. You're right in being suspicious of that, since a lot of reports are more emotional, biased, or taken out of context, so we do take that measure.

 

Wait so a moderator was looking through logs for a reason to ban her? Shouldn't it be that people get banned after they cause trouble, not before? It sounds like the ban was premeditated.

 

No it isn't, the staff accept they can make mistakes and it is the entire reason the appeals section exists.