The reason why our ToS needs to change

Well this is completely false if you get a tainted criminal record depending on how severe the case is it will be cleared in x amount of years. Well, I know for a fact you keep grudges when being a GM and after you stepped down or was auditted and you just admitted to being two-faced and not being honest so there is that.
What makes you think I won't learn from the first strike? what happened to me was not even written in the ToS(well is not since two days ago). What I don't like is how staff can specifically bully one individual, which they deffinetly have done. Depending on who you are staff can make the boundaries smaller or even wider for others depending on how they feel. The fact that staff hasn't claryfied either 3.3.3 and what "following" "uncomfortable" exactly means in theese casses might mean staff have no idea themselves.
I feel like it is so easy to say if you get 4 strikes that is it and it sounds reasonable however staff isn't always very logical and can act of of how they feel instead doing the right thing. saying 4 strikes and you are out sounds good and makes sense, but when GM's bullies a specific individual starts tweaking the meaning of their own words, starts asuming things that doesn't make sense or never happend.

 

Do you have any examples of where I kept grudges while on staff, and actively used that in my handling as staff? Cuz if I did, I shouldve been reported for that and disciplined. What I do on my non-GM character is not related in any way than what I did on my GM character, and you should not get those things mixed up. I also have no idea where i "admitted to be two-faced and not being honest". If you want to make a point, or accuse me of anything, please properly back it up and not keep it vague. Perhaps youre simply mad at me because we removed you from our alliance. But honestly, that wasnt personal and not related to anything that may or may not have been done to you by staff.

Sidenote, I retired because people started to take out their grudges against staff on my alliance members and some personal reasons unrelated to cases staff has handled. These "audits" you mention, should be (and for as far as im concerned are) a constant thing within staff. Individuals within the team cannot and should not abuse their power or misbehave without consequences.

Regardless, lets stay on topic and keep discussing the ToS itself, rather than circling around in personal matters.

 

I do have to disagree with you there. Less serious crimes are usually expunged from your criminal record after a set time of good behaviour. For example, its 7 years where I am from
"If you committed a less serious offence more than seven years ago, you may be able to get a ‘clean slate’. This will automatically happen if you have no further convictions and meet all other criteria"

What about the opposite to this, where you refuse to join any content someone you dislike is on, to the point where multiple runs cant go ahead because slots wont fill.. If one person joining, causes more regulars to not join (within a guild group / Boss server), is it then okay to stop that person from joining content in the future, so runs can actually happen? Does the fun of the few outweigh the fun of the many?

 

You can ask clean-slating after 7 years in NZ police, but this is ML, not NZ government.

Runners freedom to choice 'which runs to join or not' MUST BE respected, and any other reasons can't make runners 'be forced' to join unless runner agreed on such terms. Raso isn't a dumb. If she notices there's a player who personally blacklisted, she'll inform host she'll boycott the run itself, and ask host to choice between two. At this point, host will decide what to do - to try to merge them together persuading, or, just culling one. 'You should attend for others, for better goodwill, sacrificing yourself even if you don't want to join' is most hated logic from myself aswell. I'd just cancel run itself if run can't even launch because of only one persons boycotting.

Yes, it does, sometimes.

 

This was in relation to the statement made that was "Your criminal record in real life won't fade either" which is blatantly wrong, and have given evidence to prove it. It's a bad faith argument as to why ToS violations shouldn't have an expiry date.

They were giving reasons not to do that. With how vague the ToS is at the moment, is it not in the hosts best interest to quietly blacklist a runner, and refuse to invite them to any content, as opposed to telling them straight up they are not welcome on runs? I mean, this is similar to what happened for one of Skarmory's violations, so why take that risk? You can't get a harassment strike if you don't communicate with/about them.

Edit: If its the same group of runners that are constantly not taking the person, maybe they should get the hint and realise they are not welcome within that group. There are plenty of other groups/guilds to involve themself with

 

As a former pb host, I understand the pains of people not willing to run with other people. It makes party organization a challenge and forces hosts to jump through hoops. As a matter of fact, I also had to deal with this specific issue when I attempted to recruit you for 1 pb run, but I was able to negotiate my way out of it.

That being said, I still think people should be free to run with or not run with whoever they please because forcing them to do otherwise will just create more problems. A lot of the time these people choosing to not run with certain people is actually the responsible choice, because being in same group as certain people could spark additional harassment that ultimately leads to an unfortunate ban.

If you truly dislike someone on maplelegends, the best way to avoid conflict with the other person is to avoid them all together and hosts will have to deal with the situation the best that they can.

 

This definitely doesn't feels right. My girlfriend, Bishop lvl 200, was invited to a 6man HT run by the hoster of the run, some time later the same hoster contacted her saying that he was canceling the invitation because the player X who was going to the run, which my girlfriend doesn't even know and never talked to this person before, said he wouldn't run with her and if she went on the run he would leave. Result she stopped being invited because of a person she doesn't even know. That definitely wasn't fair.

 

That's why I stick on my principle so strong - first come, first serve, no regular previlige.
DM me who was that so I can avoid too kek

 

People should change not TOS. Proof me wrong

 

Now take this example and transpose it into any other real life situation. Would it make sense for the purview of the ToS to extend into real life 'content'? If I exclude another player from attending a social gathering and tell my friends why, does staff have any grounds to ban/strike me? Because that's what 3.3.3 is attempting to do. Call it harassment of another player - I'm entitled to dislike someone. If I express reasons of discrimination - sure, that's a separate offense. But barring someone from running content with me is my right. It's laughably entitled to say you deserve a spot in content that you aren't hosting for yourself.

Going to Staff because you're being excluded from content is hilarious. How about some introspection first? So quick to point fingers and say "don't be a dick" yet you wonder why you're getting excluded from stuff. As the saying goes, if shit stinks everywhere you go, maybe check your shoes.

 

When this batch of staff retires and is replaced by the next batch, how could you ensure these same precedents are followed if not by text? 3.3.3 applies for true statements too, so APQ analogy still doesn't work

 

You understand the fallibility in this reasoning, right?
If staff decides that someone is not at fault due to inconclusive evidence, are players required to simply accept that ruling?

This assumes Staff is 100% correct, which is false.

 

With proper and exhaustive investigation, because context matters and Staff doesn't have access to the history, intricacies and particulars of private environments.
I have reasons to doubt the investigations are made properly, one is that I was never requested context or testimony for the two bans that happened with screenshots of my server and the other one is having word of someone clue to one of the investigations that they never were approached for verification either. In fact in that ban appeal Staff put words in the mouth of that person to make the accusation sound more severe (Staff said that the person was coerced to do something and when I asked this person they denied they were coerced and they said they were never approached by Staff, so they didn't validate Staff interpretations). Staff even invented facts attributing the hosting of a run to someone else.

If Staff isn't willing to do it, then 3.3.3 is not only invasive but faulty.
And is scandalous that Staff own lecture of events take priority over significant witnesses and people involved.

 

It sure is, but you would agree with me that not all knowledge is passed down from one person to the next, causing interpretation of rules to change drastically over time. Happened quite a lot during covid and afterwards. What is the bar for spamming nowadays vs when population was 3k? I'm sure that entire clause just sits there and look cute while people carry out whichever convo using smega

 

If a person starts talking to everyone in the guild, ally, buddylist, acquaintances and even through discord that he doesn't like player X and doesn't want them to do content with him and all these people answer his request and don't get involved with player X simply because that person asked for it, don't you think it would have already escalated to a point where it reached many people? This would definitely negatively affect the game environment and experience for player X with the other players not interacting with him because a single individual asked for it, leading the person to feel excluded and even consider leaving the game.

As you said, take this example and apply it to a real life situation, do you realize how serious and tense things can get and the things that can lead a person to do when they feel excluded in the environment they live in?

 

This happens all the time in real life. Do you go to the police for that too?

 

defamation and slander are applicable, yes, including the fine is heavy

(using a figure of speech)

 

lmfao