Return of Reckoning

Hi, Can we have a constructive chat on a how the gms moderate chat with a slightly happy banfinger? If not, then just close this and it is fine. No need for any rude blanket lock hammering.

To any non team members who might post in this thread: Please be civil and discuss about things with reason instead of emotion.

There are alot of good things in this project but one of them isn't the way the project team handles discussion on topics that they are not confortable with. They also sometimes fail to provide proper feedback to players and seem to resort to statements wich you would expect to come from a "school yard bully" instead of an enthusiastic volunteer. I apologize if that reference offends anyone, but that is how I view the current situation. And as the project gains more popularity, you will face more and more problems with people unless you change the way your moderators communicate with the growing playerbase. Now I know that user experience isn't on your priority list, but sooner or later you will have to deal with this issue, on this project or the next.

First of all I suggest that any and all moderation actions against players, should start with actual conversation from a gm to the moderated player explaining the reasons for moderation and giving them a chance to reply to the moderator. Only after that kind of discussion should any moderation action take place, and perhaps the player should be politely informed about the next lvl of moderation actions, should the behaviour remain the same.

this will turn into a "Nerf WLs' discussion in 3...2..1..

dark days

My hammer is ready. No matter how 'popular' we become, the rules on the server will be followed. We're not interested in attracting or retaining a certain 'type' of player. Hence why the rules exist as strictly as they do in the first place. If you want free reign to be an edgy piece of trash, go find a different game to spread your filth in.

I also like how this has absolutely no context to the conversation that was occurring at the time. You were defending a character that was banned for being named as an explicitly Nazi reference. That's about as far as it needs to be discussed, and in fact, this already exists in our rules. Staff disciplinary actions are not to be discussed in general channels as we consider this harassment towards the necessary function we maintain. If you have an issue, you can contact us privately.