Discussion Index

Copy of the Letter sent to Sandra

1999 Topic Index

Posted by Wuss on 04/18

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 :-).


1999 Topic Index