Community Blacklist

Idk man you need to re-read all that again, I'm seeing that you completely misunderstood Tim.
The original BL entry was created by a player - that already have their forum account, but they created a new one just to filed a report on Foxy. No one in this forum may have 2 separate account, that's a written rule.
There are cases that users got their forum accounts merged because staff discovered that they have different forum accounts - nothing related to GMs at all.
I hope you can get a correct view on this specific situation.

 

Ah yeah true, you're right. My bad.

Public question: Are we allowed to speak for someone else though? For example, if this anonymous person reaches out to me. Am I allowed to post it on his behalf? Couldn't find anything in the rules against that.

 

However in cases for player reports, many times us players do not have concrete evidence to get them banned.

Think of your average new skele leech buyer who got scammed. Most players do not have the concrete evidence of the entire trade transaction and recording of them logging off with their money so they post it on the blacklist for visibility.

As one of the people who claimed was affected, my sources have been sent to Tim but they are mostly word of mouth. I heard almost all of it went on through voice chatting. I myself didn’t even know I was perma banned, I didn’t tell a soul as my soul itself wasn’t even aware yet the status of my ban was aware to dozens of ingame players.

To me this topic is both a staff and a community issue, as the community was involved. And so be it, maybe it’s not feisty. But I’m sure as damn hell it was a staff member that leaked my ban status.

I’ve had multiple people inform me it was spoken about in their voice calls, and no it isn’t Geto. I don’t like Geto, we aren’t friends like that lol.

As a result, I likely don’t have enough evidence to get them removed off of staff, just like how billybob doesn’t have enough evidence to get xxskeleleecherxx banned for scamming. So why can’t players put their side of the story on the community blacklist and let shira decide.

Even if Matt/Tim believes us, it is unlikely in my opinion feisty is removed from staff. The amount of shit Pure/Saturn did until they finally removed him is much more than what Feisty may or may not have done. And Matt would be in a real difficult spot having to look for more unpaid qualified volunteers. He just went through the trouble after two of his long tenured staff members that rwted/duped and had to overhaul staff powers. I’m not saying Matt doesn’t take this issue seriously, but if I was him, even if I believe in the accusations, I would probably give Feisty a warning and move on with it because there’s already a severe lacking of manpower. So, I’m supposed to just here knowing I got 100% wronged?

Just like blacklist posts, if there is enough community and anecdotal evidence, why can’t we create a new blacklist community section as this is a new situation.

Staff Abuse

I full heartedly believe Shiratsuyu should consider making a new section for Staff Abuse.
This is a scenario where we don’t have (at least I don’t) enough evidence to get her banned/removed. In addition, she should stay on that list even if she is removed from staff. Personally I would put Pure/Saturn on the Staff Abuse community blacklist section if he still played/wasn’t banned already.

People who are eventually temp banned for scamming. They do not get removed from the community blacklist just because they serve their 7-14 day temporary ban. Feisty should stay and people should know she was blacklisted by the community for sharing sensitive staff information to players even if she returns to a normal player. Regardless if she is or isn’t removed by staff, as it has become a community issue for getting the community involved.

A different example:
If Becca was talking shit about me in the staff chat and laughing at my banned status with other staff members. A bit distasteful, but ultimately this is within the staff chat, and in my opinion, not a community issue. This is a scenario where it got leaked outward to the community, so it is both a staff and a community issue.

 

Ah yes ig that's fine because there were cases like that, as you mentioned (the RG Claymore case)

 

Motion to require this be quoted in every reply about this entire situation and add a confirmation that it was read before allowing the next reply.

To me this entire situation seems like a petty competition of pointing fingers with baseless accusations and speaking on conjecture over, and over. It's clear that there are some strong feelings in both directions and everyone wants to share their opinions about a situation that, from an outside perspective, they have limited information on, but I think without more concrete evidence this is quickly devolving into a popularity competition rather than a constructive conversation about whether someone should be blacklisted.

I think for the people commenting with limited information on the alleged allegations against Foxy should wait for an official word from Staff because ultimately that's up to them whether you like it or not.

Regarding whether Geto should be blacklisted this doesn't seem like enough evidence to support that argument, in my opinion, and that is with taking out as much bias as possible (To be frank I don't really care for him either, but I also don't have enough interaction with him, by choice, to make a decision to completely speak out against him).

As for Geto getting kicked from a guild or alliance on the word of another member... This is a situation that should be resolved with the parties involved. Geto can defend himself and plead his own case to the guild he was kicked from. Why is this even in question? Are we now voting as a community every time anyone gets kicked from a guild or alliance. Lmao. Arguing that this is an abuse of her influence is hilarious at best.

Let's grow up a little here people and look at things objectively. There are appropriate channels for voicing opinions (with or without any evidence). I would also suggest taking out as much of your emotional response as possible because it only invalidates your arguments and the information you are presenting.