[NSG Senate] Lobby-ing a Scimitar

[Arkolon]

But your entire point is based off this myth that the admin team wants to help NWO get "off". I would have loved to see NWO get banned for what she did, but the rules are the rules. That you're willing to bypass is your business, but you're not the one responsible for the decision, we are. We concluded that while the final ruling might not be ideal, it was the only fair ruling that could be given.

Then your concept of 'fair' is so fucking irrational that words cannot begin to express. The logic is nonexistent, the justification is pitiful and the ethics are flawed. I've never seen such incompetence from this team.

NWO committed an offence on IRC and it was decided they'd have no place in IRC anymore - what they did was intolerable, and they remain indefinitely banned. They didn't, however, break any gameside rules - they didn't godmod, neither did they vote with more than one account for example - so there's no reason to outright ban them from the RP. You're welcome not to want to RP with them, that's not actionable by anyone, and you're very welcome to put them on your Foe list, but the Admins don't see how it could warrant an RP-side ban. If something of that magnitude (such as harassment or further doxxing) happens on NS, you should contact the NS Moderators immediately.

[DrWinner]

Basically good intentions, badly written in parts, unintended consequences. Or At least I hope unintended lol.

Well, I like those unintended consequences. They'll essentially trap my competition in business regardless of how I screw them over, thus keeping Markson Industries from being flagged as a monopoly.

[The Sarian]

I am extremely confused by this statement.

It's longstanding precedent that the OPs of a roleplay thread can kick anyone out of the roleplay for any reason, no matter how arbitrary, and moderation has been known to get involved to enforce these OP-set bans from roleplays. Surely, doxxing is grave enough to merit such action?

To clarify, based on MV's statement that they can't ban people on the forums based on IRC conduct, I have seen people banned from role-plays based on their IRC conduct with no complaint from the moderators.

I'd just like to bring back these two comments from the original discussion, which I feel are extremely relevant (and correct) in this situation.

[Ikania]

Then your concept of 'fair' is so fucking irrational that words cannot begin to express. The logic is nonexistent, the justification is pitiful and the ethics are flawed. I've never seen such incompetence from this team.

NWO committed an offence on IRC and it was decided they'd have no place in IRC anymore - what they did was intolerable, and they remain indefinitely banned. They didn't, however, break any gameside rules - they didn't godmod, neither did they vote with more than one account for example - so there's no reason to outright ban them from the RP. You're welcome not to want to RP with them, that's not actionable by anyone, and you're very welcome to put them on your Foe list, but the Admins don't see how it could warrant an RP-side ban. If something of that magnitude (such as harassment or further doxxing) happens on NS, you should contact the NS Moderators immediately.

A crime is a crime, no matter where it happens. Your responsibility to protect this community from unsavoury sorts does not stop where the NS mods' begins. I can't believe you'd put technicality over logic and common sense when you determine what's "fair".

[Britanno 3]

I'd just like to bring back these two comments from the original discussion, which I feel are extremely relevant (and correct) in this situation.

It isn't against NS rules, but it would be against what the rules for the senate were at the time. We weren't going to break the rules we were supposed to be enforcing.

[Arkolon]

NWO committed an offence on IRC and it was decided they'd have no place in IRC anymore - what they did was intolerable, and they remain indefinitely banned. They didn't, however, break any gameside rules - they didn't godmod, neither did they vote with more than one account for example - so there's no reason to outright ban them from the RP. You're welcome not to want to RP with them, that's not actionable by anyone, and you're very welcome to put them on your Foe list, but the Admins don't see how it could warrant an RP-side ban. If something of that magnitude (such as harassment or further doxxing) happens on NS, you should contact the NS Moderators immediately.

A crime is a crime, no matter where it happens. Your responsibility to protect this community from unsavoury sorts does not stop where the NS mods' begins. I can't believe you'd put technicality over logic and common sense when you determine what's "fair".

Of course it does. If we start dishing out punishments for flaming and doxxing, the NS Mods will be upset, as they have been before. MV didn't end his warnings with an asterisk for no reason. We acted where we could, and where it was common sense to act: the IRC is now indefinitely protected from NWO's unsavoury sorts. Again, if doxxing (or flaming) happens gameside, you should contact the NS Moderators immediately.

[The New World Oceania]

How long before we see "NSGS: High & Mighty Edition" clogging up F7? Or, more specifically "NSGS: No Doxxing Edition," since death threats, years of harassment, and evading bans don't seem to contravene your ethics.

[Ikania]

A crime is a crime, no matter where it happens. Your responsibility to protect this community from unsavoury sorts does not stop where the NS mods' begins. I can't believe you'd put technicality over logic and common sense when you determine what's "fair".

Of course it does. If we start dishing out punishments for flaming and doxxing, the NS Mods will be upset, as they have been before. MV didn't end his warnings with an asterisk for no reason. We acted where we could, and where it was common sense to act: the IRC is now indefinitely protected from NWO's unsavoury sorts. Again, if doxxing (or flaming) happens gameside, you should contact the NS Moderators immediately.

They didn't seem very pissed when Nariterrr was banned three days for being omniscient- but nothing for doxxing. Gameside, forumside, it doesn't matter one bit. This is about the community, not the game. I'm still waiting for an answer that isn't 'well technically...'

[Arkolon]

Of course it does. If we start dishing out punishments for flaming and doxxing, the NS Mods will be upset, as they have been before. MV didn't end his warnings with an asterisk for no reason. We acted where we could, and where it was common sense to act: the IRC is now indefinitely protected from NWO's unsavoury sorts. Again, if doxxing (or flaming) happens gameside, you should contact the NS Moderators immediately.

They didn't seem very pissed when Nariterrr was banned three days for being omniscient- but nothing for doxxing. Gameside, forumside, it doesn't matter one bit. This is about the community, not the game. I'm still waiting for an answer that isn't 'well technically...'

Nariterrr broke gameside rules, so we took gameside action. You also shouldn't be expecting anything other response than "Well, according to the rules...", since that's what the admins abide by.

[Ikania]

They didn't seem very pissed when Nariterrr was banned three days for being omniscient- but nothing for doxxing. Gameside, forumside, it doesn't matter one bit. This is about the community, not the game. I'm still waiting for an answer that isn't 'well technically...'

Nariterrr broke gameside rules, so we took gameside action. You also shouldn't be expecting anything other response than "Well, according to the rules...", since that's what the admins abide by.

Then it's on you for drafting such shitty rules!

Cowardice, bias and loophole abuse. Absolutely pitiful.

[The Sarian]

They didn't seem very pissed when Nariterrr was banned three days for being omniscient- but nothing for doxxing. Gameside, forumside, it doesn't matter one bit. This is about the community, not the game. I'm still waiting for an answer that isn't 'well technically...'

Nariterrr broke gameside rules, so we took gameside action. You also shouldn't be expecting anything other response than "Well, according to the rules...", since that's what the admins abide by.

https://youtu.be/8pXG3EsxYRQ?t=68

[Britanno 3]

Then it's on you for drafting such shitty rules!

Cowardice, bias and loophole abuse. Absolutely pitiful.

Could you please stop saying "bias" over and over and over again with absolutely no evidence to support its use. Do you actually believe there was bias involved? If so, say what proof or even indication of favouritism you saw that brought you to this conclusion. If not, and you're actually just dishing out words that sound effective because you like bitching and then not backing yourself up then please stop. It's actually quite frustrating when people are trying to have a debate over a decision that is clearly important to the community.

[The Nihilistic view]

Nariterrr broke gameside rules, so we took gameside action. You also shouldn't be expecting anything other response than "Well, according to the rules...", since that's what the admins abide by.

https://youtu.be/8pXG3EsxYRQ?t=68

[The Nihilistic view]

Then it's on you for drafting such shitty rules!

Cowardice, bias and loophole abuse. Absolutely pitiful.

Could you please stop saying "bias" over and over and over again with absolutely no evidence to support its use. Do you actually believe there was bias involved? If so, say what proof or even indication of favouritism you saw that brought you to this conclusion. If not, and you're actually just dishing out words that sound effective because you like bitching and then not backing yourself up then please stop. It's actually quite frustrating when people are trying to have a debate over a decision that is clearly important to the community.

I'm not accusing of that myself, however it is easy to me to see why others could get such an impression when looking at the size of punishments for various other offences and a number of the IRC logs posted showing a closeness between certain admins and NWO even as this incident was unfolding.

I think basically it is a symptom of how you are now held by some people. You have lost their trust completely. They don't believe you are capable of protecting the community.

[The Sarian]

Could you please stop saying "bias" over and over and over again with absolutely no evidence to support its use. Do you actually believe there was bias involved? If so, say what proof or even indication of favouritism you saw that brought you to this conclusion. If not, and you're actually just dishing out words that sound effective because you like bitching and then not backing yourself up then please stop. It's actually quite frustrating when people are trying to have a debate over a decision that is clearly important to the community.

I'm not accusing of that myself, however it is easy to me to see why others could get such an impression when looking at the size of punishments for various other offences and a number of the IRC logs posted showing a closeness between certain admins and NWO even as this incident was unfolding.

I think basically it is a symptom of how you are now held by some people. You have lost their trust completely. They don't believe you are capable of protecting the community.

To be fair to Brit, I have little qualms over his handling of this - I think he's come to a wrong (and frankly horrible) conclusion on the matter, but I don't feel like he's done that because of a closeness with NWO.

As for some of the other admins, their closeness with NWO and vocal dislike of Kam (and some those defending someone being doxed) has lost them all authority on the matter, in my opinion.

[The Nihilistic view]

Also for my part I have little faith myself but I'm not so far gone based on what I have seen as to suggest the whole team is rotten in such a way.

I can see why others might though. Accusations of bias are a symptom of how you are seen. Even if you do stick to your (in my view totally inadequate response) you have to introduce measures that gets people's confidence back or most will never have the faith in you that almost everybody had before this incident. Or even a change of the guard with regards to some of the Admins.

[The Nihilistic view]

I'm not accusing of that myself, however it is easy to me to see why others could get such an impression when looking at the size of punishments for various other offences and a number of the IRC logs posted showing a closeness between certain admins and NWO even as this incident was unfolding.

I think basically it is a symptom of how you are now held by some people. You have lost their trust completely. They don't believe you are capable of protecting the community.

To be fair to Brit, I have little qualms over his handling of this - I think he's come to a wrong (and frankly horrible) conclusion on the matter, but I don't feel like he's done that because of a closeness with NWO.

As for some of the other admins, their closeness with NWO and vocal dislike of Kam (and some those defending someone being doxed) has lost them all authority on the matter, in my opinion.

Well yes, to clarify "you" in my posts on the matter refers to the admin team as a whole rather than just Brit who I happened to quote.

[Britanno 3]

I think if you want human beings as admins you have to accept that sometimes admins will be punishing, or in this case not punishing, people they have friendships with. Now I understand that some of those accusing bias of the admin team do so because they genuinely believe an injustice has occured and I respect that, but I worry when so-called "bias" is used as a way of shutting down all debate rather than as a legitimate argument.

Another thing: obviously you only have my word to go off on this, so if you've lost trust in me then it might not mean much. But when we decided what our ruling on this matter would be over 100 telegrams must've been sent between the admin team, as well as discussion on the IRC. We all looked at it from multiple perspectives, and none of us finished with a conclusion that was the same as our initial reaction. I know some members of the community doubt the trustworthiness of the admin team and the five of us have to accept responsibility for that, but please don't think any of us went in with one view based off personal relationships, because I know for a fact that everyone involved in the decision-making process changed their minds as more facts presented thenselves to us. Point being that every admin came to a consensus based on the facts, not bias. To allege otherwise is to pretend you know something you don't.

[Ikania]

It's either hiding behind technicality because you think that's somehow a good thing or hiding behind technicality to justify bias. Neither answer is satisfactory.

[Lykens]

At this point you continue to reuse that line and its getting old.

[The Licentian Isles]

Wait, the fuck happened to the Chamber ?? I've been too drunk to properly pay attention for the past week.

[Tumbra]

Wait, the fuck happened to the Chamber ?? I've been too drunk to properly pay attention for the past week.

A lot of shit. Parlipro got revised, majorly.

Also, can I just remind those on the committee (Licen, Freyhill and Nariterrr) that they have to present their findings in accordance to

RULE VIII. COMMITTEES

a. Committees shall have five business days to conduct a review of a question that has been committed.
b. Should a committee need more than five days to conduct a thorough and adequate review, they may request more time from the Speaker.
c. Committees shall vote amongst themselves any changes they feel are necessary to the question committed.
d. Committee Recommendations may be adopted by the full Senate upon the conclusion of the Committee Report by the Chairperson.
e. The Committee Report shall be all Committee Recommendations made, comments and annotations by committee members on the question, and a statement or statements from the committee regarding the bill. Committee Recommendations may be moved after the Committee Report is made, and upon being seconded, they may be voted on for two hours.
f. The Committee Report shall be read by the Chairperson when no other business is pending.
g. Upon conclusion of the Committee Report and adoption or loss of Committee Recommendations, the question will be laid upon the table, edited or not, as if it had not be committed.

[The Licentian Isles]

Wait, the fuck happened to the Chamber ?? I've been too drunk to properly pay attention for the past week.

A lot of shit. Parlipro got revised, majorly.

Also, can I just remind those on the committee (Licen, Freyhill and Nariterrr) that they have to present their findings in accordance to

RULE VIII. COMMITTEES

a. Committees shall have five business days to conduct a review of a question that has been committed.
b. Should a committee need more than five days to conduct a thorough and adequate review, they may request more time from the Speaker.
c. Committees shall vote amongst themselves any changes they feel are necessary to the question committed.
d. Committee Recommendations may be adopted by the full Senate upon the conclusion of the Committee Report by the Chairperson.
e. The Committee Report shall be all Committee Recommendations made, comments and annotations by committee members on the question, and a statement or statements from the committee regarding the bill. Committee Recommendations may be moved after the Committee Report is made, and upon being seconded, they may be voted on for two hours.
f. The Committee Report shall be read by the Chairperson when no other business is pending.
g. Upon conclusion of the Committee Report and adoption or loss of Committee Recommendations, the question will be laid upon the table, edited or not, as if it had not be committed.

Let it be noted that this honourable member considers the new way of working to be dumb.

Also, thanks for reminding me I'm on a committee.

[MERIZoC]

The new way the chamber works is absolute nonsense.

[Lykens]

I don't know how something works, it's broken.