|
|
Post by RogueRougeRanger on Nov 2, 2016 11:49:59 GMT -5
So I was banned from the GDB again without warning recently, at the same time as Desertman from the looks of it. I've since been mostly unbanned. Below is the exchange I had with Nergal about it.
Though I didn't mention it in my request, I did find the mention of my wife to be more than a little offputting especially since she hasn't played the game in maybe 3 or 4 years.
Nergal was quick to reply:
My reply: (It turns out I actually made the Sardaukar account in 2005, not 2006.) Nergal's reply: My reply: By way of response, Nergal closes the exchange: Now that I can access the GDB I see that the new rules don't include any mention of a requirement that players maintain only a single GDB account. I also see that none of my recent posts as Sardaukar in the political thread were deleted, including my last post which was indeed about an NPR story. |
|
Jeshin
GDB Superstar
Posts: 1,516 
|
Post by Jeshin on Nov 2, 2016 12:26:03 GMT -5
I also found the mention of your wife to be super weird. Especially as it positioned any inconvenience as "her husband's" fault. They could have simply said. If you are not X player and are being caught by this IP ban please appeal blah blah blah. Salty staffer is salty.
EDIT
Also asking you to pick between 2 accounts, then later coming back and saying that one of the two wouldn't be unbanned regardless seems generally... Iunno wasteful? Wasteful of time and setting up for the ol, but you just said X, now you're doing Y complain.
|
|
|
|
Post by RogueRougeRanger on Nov 2, 2016 12:58:51 GMT -5
I also found the mention of your wife to be super weird. Especially as it positioned any inconvenience as "her husband's" fault. They could have simply said. If you are not X player and are being caught by this IP ban please appeal blah blah blah. Salty staffer is salty. EDIT Also asking you to pick between 2 accounts, then later coming back and saying that one of the two wouldn't be unbanned regardless seems generally... Iunno wasteful? Wasteful of time and setting up for the ol, but you just said X, now you're doing Y complain.
I agree with you totally on all counts.
|
|
seuly
Clueless newb
Posts: 103
|
Post by seuly on Nov 2, 2016 13:34:30 GMT -5
Nergal just hates you for your amazing Lord Fatpants.
|
|
Jeshin
GDB Superstar
Posts: 1,516
|
Post by Jeshin on Nov 2, 2016 13:44:24 GMT -5
Having just looked through the Next Prez thread (or whatever)... Not really sure how you standout compared to others. Also from the few pages I read, it's primarily left leaning commentary at the end so... I'm not sure where the hostile disagreement is.
|
|
|
|
Post by RogueRougeRanger on Nov 2, 2016 14:02:40 GMT -5
Nergal just hates you for your amazing Lord Fatpants.
You joke (I think?) and I can't know Nergal's true feelings, of course, but I do get the impression that he does equate me with my PC Dragean, who of course was the rival of Nergal's PC Raleris. And one way to interpret Nergal both banning me from the game before and then again recently from the GDB is an effort to finally "win" over his rival. Even the weird mention of my wife can be explained by that frame, if you remember that she played Dragean's IC wife Aristarche, who was honeypotting Raleris.
Regardless of his true motivations, what I do think can be concluded by my recent banning from the GDB is that the staff didn't ban Desertman or me because of our political views. After all, Desertman's posts in the political thread were interpreted as "pro-Trump" (even though he said he won't be voting for Trump IIRC!) while my posts were very anti-Trump. Also, I don't believe any posts from Desertman or from me were even moderated when we were banned. Also, plenty of people were being combative in the thread before and after we were both banned from the GDB. So I think Desertman and I were banned for other reasons, probably for the way we play (or played) the game and for our willingness to critique the way the game is run. However, our gameplay isn't bad and our criticisms aren't without merit, so ruffling feathers in a political thread was a convenient excuse to attempt to exert control over us. If the staff truly feels that the opinions and passions posted in the political threads on the GDB are somehow bad for the game, then they should just ban politics from the GDB! Similarly, if they don't like the way Desertman or I play the game then they should just ban us from the game. It's their game, they're allowed to do with it whatever they want (regardless of the consequences)!
|
|
|
|
Post by RogueRougeRanger on Nov 2, 2016 14:04:12 GMT -5
Having just looked through the Next Prez thread (or whatever)... Not really sure how you standout compared to others. Also from the few pages I read, it's primarily left leaning commentary at the end so... I'm not sure where the hostile disagreement is. Yep, I agree. As I just posted, I obviously can't know for sure but I think that the political thread was just a convenient excuse. |
|
Jeshin
GDB Superstar
Posts: 1,516
|
Post by Jeshin on Nov 2, 2016 14:08:47 GMT -5
=( is Nergal really pof Raleris? We straightup discussed IC active plots once upon a time on AIM. How could such a rule violator and conspirator like pof Raleris who played MTG with me online and discussed IC THINGS (OMG) be staff nao? Surely there is favoritism in the Armageddon Justice Department.
|
|
|
|
Post by desertman on Nov 2, 2016 14:25:21 GMT -5
Some of what you posted in the past seemed very "bait-ish" in my opinion. However, that is my opinion.
I haven't actually read anything you posted on that account in a very long time. I couldn't say if anything you posted recently merited a banning, but the general consensus seems to be it didn't. (They are probably right.) Ironically if staff actually didn't moderate your posts, then that is ALSO their opinion, which is kind of funny.
Even if you posted something in the past that WAS trollish/baiting that doesn't mean they get to hold a grudge and ban you for something you actually didn't do NOW/in the present.
Either ban you for what you posted initially, state the exact reason and quote the exact post, since it was worth banning you for, or let it go.
If you are going to enforce a rule, enforce it.
It seems like the trend now is to slowly let your resentments for someone build up over time until you snap and end up banning them for personal dislike reasons, and not because their recent post/posts actually broke any rules.
If it were me I probably would have banned you for some things I saw you post in the distant past I felt were intentionally baiting other posters, sometimes rudely. (Not a permanent ban though. Probably just a week. Even the things I thought were trollish/baiting weren't really THAT bad. It's not like you were personally insulting or threatening people.)
With that being said, they don't get to accumulate everything you have ever posted into a "HateForRogueRangerAccount" and then finally cash it in once they have had enough on a personal level.
(The fact your posts and mine were never even moderated proves the posts in question weren't the issue. It was specifically a personal dislike/personal agenda/personal feelings issue related to the posters in question overall, and not what they were posting.)
Either ban people for things they have actually done, and reference the actual posts in question and why they are against the rules, or don't.
Anything less is petty, unprofessional, and bad for the community. |
|
Jeshin
GDB Superstar
Posts: 1,516
|
Post by Jeshin on Nov 2, 2016 14:35:41 GMT -5
I don't know, I certainly think cumulative toeing the line does matter when finally an infraction is made. At least in my experience there is a pretty hard to resist bias to that effect. Like when OR 1.0 was running along with activity there were a few people that were unpopular with the team. I'm like yeah they're shitheads or annoying or whatever but they haven't actually violated a rule. So every once in awhile someone on the team would raise a post or thread to me and be like. Okay what about now? I'd look at it, shrug and say I didn't see anything wrong but since I appointed a community manager let him look at it.
Eventually the disliked person(s) did break the rule and they got a warning and then very quickly a temp ban. It's just a fact that once they cross the line from a policy perspective even if it's tiny, then you finally have an outlet for all the near the line stuff they've done. So it tends to be swift and merciless implementation of whatever rules are going on in the background. Because of that built up posting history of the user. Then you have someone who crosses the line, it's their first time, you kind of warn them, then they cross the line again and you're like well it's not a big deal. Maybe you don't give them a temp ban right away because they've only fucked up two posts with no other "close calls"...
TLDR - I think it's hard to get away from cumulative posting affecting policy enforcement. Now if they never make a post that actually violates a policy and it's always just on the edge, then yeah suck it up and leave them alone. If they do finally break a policy that they've been teasing for awhile then bring the thundah. As long as it's written in your public policies what the THUNDAH is.
|
|
|
|
Post by RogueRougeRanger on Nov 2, 2016 14:43:56 GMT -5
Some of what you posted in the past seemed very "bait-ish" in my opinion. However, that is my opinion.
I haven't actually read anything you posted on that account in a very long time. I couldn't say if anything you posted recently merited a banning, but the general consensus seems to be it didn't. (They are probably right.) Ironically if staff actually didn't moderate your posts, then that is ALSO their opinion, which is kind of funny.
Even if you posted something in the past that WAS trollish/baiting that doesn't mean they get to hold a grudge and ban you for something you actually didn't do NOW/in the present.
Either ban you for what you posted initially, state the exact reason and quote the exact post, since it was worth banning you for, or let it go.
If you are going to enforce a rule, enforce it.
It seems like the trend now is to slowly let your resentments for someone build up over time until you snap and end up banning them for personal dislike reasons, and not because their recent post/posts actually broke any rules.
If it were me I probably would have banned you for some things I saw you post in the distant past I felt were intentionally baiting other posters, sometimes rudely. (Not a permanent ban though. Probably just a week. Even the things I thought were trollish/baiting weren't really THAT bad. It's not like you were personally insulting or threatening people.)
With that being said, they don't get to accumulate everything you have ever posted into a "HateForRogueRangerAccount" and then finally cash it in once they have had enough on a personal level.
(The fact your posts and mine were never even moderated proves the posts in question weren't the issue. It was specifically a personal dislike/personal agenda/personal feelings issue related to the posters in question overall, and not what they were posting.)
Either ban people for things they have actually done, and reference the actual posts in question and why they are against the rules, or don't.
Anything less is petty, unprofessional, and bad for the community.
Hey man, they're political threads, not beanbag! I've tried to keep my personal insults limited to only what people post (such as trying to claim that Obama is stupid! while not bothering to edit the post for spelling or grammar or, say, without bothering to learn the difference between gross job gains and net job gains) and I've never threatened anyone in any context on the GDB. I've disagreed with much (maybe most!) of what you've posted in the political threads on the GDB, but I can't recall anything you've posted that would require a BAN.
Ultimately it's all beside the point, as you acknowledge. The politics is merely a pretext, IMO.
I've very much enjoyed reading your posts on the Shadow Board about Koman Locke. I think my last PC Htaniya the templar interacted with him a bit, and tried to hire him to hunt down Tulukis for their star tattoos as part of the "Red Hunt" (and I think you turned me down, you bastard!). If the staff manages to drive you away from the game they'll be losing a great asset. Everyone has different theories about what makes (or made) Armageddon so fun, and mine is essentially that great PC leaders are what really make the difference. They're the sine qua non. But the players that can play them are rare and it's even rarer that such players DO play those leaders and when they do it's a crapload of work so they don't do it often, so losing one of those another of those players would be a major loss.
|
|
|
|
Post by desertman on Nov 2, 2016 14:50:26 GMT -5
I've very much enjoyed reading your posts on the Shadow Board about Koman Locke. I think my last PC Htaniya the templar interacted with him a bit, and tried to hire him to hunt down Tulukis for their star tattoos as part of the "Red Hunt" (and I think you turned me down, you bastard!). If the staff manages to drive you away from the game they'll be losing a great asset. Everyone has different theories about what makes (or made) Armageddon so fun, and mine is essentially that great PC leaders are what really make the difference. They're the sine qua non. But the players that can play them are rare and it's even rarer that such players DO play those leaders and when they do it's a crapload of work so they don't do it often, so losing one of those another of those players would be a major loss.
I really enjoyed Htaniya. This was a great Templar. Yes Locke had to turn her down for the "Red Hunt" due to the T'zai Byn's ties with Tuluk. As a player though I thought this was awesome and a great example of trying to mix things up and create plotlines and things for people to do.
I'm still playing the game and enjoying it. It's still a great game. I played for years without posting on the GDB and arguably enjoyed it more. I don't need to post as part of the community on an OOC level to enjoy the game.
There are plenty of staffers still on staff whom I personally like and think are awesome and whom personally like me. There is a very small minority that has an issue with me, but they are on top (for now), so, it is what it is.
I'll still create accounts to post in clan boards like I always have but just not participate in the day to day conversations there and have personal relationships with the people in that community on an OOC level.
More and more I'm realizing that isn't such a big loss sadly.
|
|
|
|
Post by RogueRougeRanger on Nov 2, 2016 15:00:06 GMT -5
I've very much enjoyed reading your posts on the Shadow Board about Koman Locke. I think my last PC Htaniya the templar interacted with him a bit, and tried to hire him to hunt down Tulukis for their star tattoos as part of the "Red Hunt" (and I think you turned me down, you bastard!). If the staff manages to drive you away from the game they'll be losing a great asset. Everyone has different theories about what makes (or made) Armageddon so fun, and mine is essentially that great PC leaders are what really make the difference. They're the sine qua non. But the players that can play them are rare and it's even rarer that such players DO play those leaders and when they do it's a crapload of work so they don't do it often, so losing one of those another of those players would be a major loss.
I really enjoyed Htaniya. This was a great Templar. Yes Locke had to turn her down for the "Red Hunt" due to the T'zai Byn's ties with Tuluk. As a player though I thought this was awesome and a great example of trying to mix things up and create plotlines and things for people to do.
I'm still playing the game and enjoying it. It's still a great game. I played for years without posting on the GDB and arguably enjoyed it more. I don't need to post as part of the community on an OOC level to enjoy the game.
There are plenty of staffers still on staff whom I personally like and think are awesome and whom personally like me. There is a very small minority that has an issue with me, but they are on top (for now), so, it is what it is.
I'll still create accounts to post in clan boards like I always have but just not participate in the day to day conversations there and have personal relationships with the people in that community on an OOC level.
More and more I'm realizing that isn't such a big loss sadly.
I admire your optimism! From reading your posts, your experience and criticisms of how leader PCs are treated in the current game are very similar to mine. Do you think your negative experiences were merely a matter of which staffers you were working with at the time, or a more fundamental shift in the way the game is now administered, or maybe something else? Despite your experiences do you still intend to take on leadership roles?
|
|
|
|
Post by desertman on Nov 2, 2016 15:16:27 GMT -5
I really enjoyed Htaniya. This was a great Templar. Yes Locke had to turn her down for the "Red Hunt" due to the T'zai Byn's ties with Tuluk. As a player though I thought this was awesome and a great example of trying to mix things up and create plotlines and things for people to do.
I'm still playing the game and enjoying it. It's still a great game. I played for years without posting on the GDB and arguably enjoyed it more. I don't need to post as part of the community on an OOC level to enjoy the game.
There are plenty of staffers still on staff whom I personally like and think are awesome and whom personally like me. There is a very small minority that has an issue with me, but they are on top (for now), so, it is what it is.
I'll still create accounts to post in clan boards like I always have but just not participate in the day to day conversations there and have personal relationships with the people in that community on an OOC level.
More and more I'm realizing that isn't such a big loss sadly.
I admire your optimism! From reading your posts, your experience and criticisms of how leader PCs are treated in the current game are very similar to mine. Do you think your negative experiences were merely a matter of which staffers you were working with at the time, or a more fundamental shift in the way the game is now administered, or maybe something else? Despite your experiences do you still intend to take on leadership roles?
It seemed to vary greatly depending on which staffer was over me at the time. I must have gone through a dozen governing staffers with Koman Locke alone.
Seidhr, Ath, Raehnvyn, Rathustra, Xalle, Wug, Calavera, Talia, Italis, Rahmi, and Morgenes were all great to work with. These are just the ones I can think off of the top of my head. They may not have always given me what I wanted, but they always spoke to me like I was a person and with no noticeable condescending demeanor. I didn't always agree with them, but I always approved of the way they conducted themselves. (I'm probably forgetting some here. If I am I apologize. Like I said, I went through SO MANY between multiple clan changes and staffing changes over RL years.)
(I'm also not saying the above are saints and that they are above possibly being snarky to someone else. I don't know that. All I am saying is they were always kind and professional to me personally.)
Some staff however seemed pretty intent on just shitting on me and were usually very hard to work with. I won't name any names but they know who they are anyhow.
I got the feeling some other staff were simply either overworked or just lazy in general. On more than a handful of occasions I would send in requests asking questions etc and the only thing I would get back would be:
"noted"
With nothing else and they would close the report.
That doesn't make me believe you:
A) Give a shit about what you are doing. B) Are competent. C) Are a good staffer.
They also know who they are.
With that being said, yes I absolutely intend to keep playing leadership roles when I get the fire for a specific role.
I know I may not be super easy to work with on everything when I'm a leader. Then again, I like to think that someone who just "goes with the flow and doesn't try to shake things up/mix things up" is exactly the sort of personality you DO NOT WANT BEING A LEADER.
We've all seen T'zai Byn Sergeant #532 played repeatedly.
If I were a staffer I would want the guy who came to the table and said, "I have some crazy shit in mind. You might not let me do all of it, but, it won't be because I didn't try.".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2016 15:30:21 GMT -5
FWIW I always thought Cutthroat (Raleris) became Mordiggian not Nergal. His player never seemed the type that would harbor ill feelings like RRR suggested over his PC but staff has corrupted people before. Desertman's post reminds me how many staff go through an area at a time. Honestly, it seems rare to NOT go through at least 4-5 staff over you in just one year. It kills momentum to have a plot rolling and then be told HI I'M YOU'RE NEW STORY TELLER, LET ME KNOW WHAT PLOTS ARE GOING ON  only to send an update, not hear back for weeks then get another one a month later. |
|
only to send an update, not hear back for weeks then get another one a month later.