The reason why our ToS needs to change

beegoratto · Jul 9, 2023

Daydreamer said: ↑

You can't claim that a specific group is "the vocal minority" without evidence to that. It doesn't make sense. "Vocal minority" is a label best applied retroactively. If only a small group of people are involved in a discussion it doesn't mean that the consensus is representative of a vocal minority, it means there is too small of a sample size for the consensus to represent any group of players.

I want to address directly your proposed examples. Look, let's not beat around the bush here, a lot of people are upset about Skarmory being banned and feel that 3.3.3 is overreaching. Given the reaction here and to other discussions of the topic, I think it's fair to say that this is likely a MAJORITY position of players who have any opinion on the topic. My understanding of harassment is that it involves either repeated unwanted interaction with an individual or repeated unwanted messages intended for a specific individual. Players fearing racism in-game because they see someone saying something racist in private (is that what you meant?) doesn't qualify as harassment. Making a mean comment about a player with no intention of them seeing it does not qualify as harassment. These things certainly become harassment when they target a specific player or occur in a public setting.

I think the basic worry of players is this: someone could say something which offends somebody or which is maybe not very friendly about a certain player in private with no intention of targeting a specific player and no intention of the comment going public or having a broader effect on the community and then get banned for it. Or somebody could say something they don't perceive as harmful in private and with no intention of targeting a specific player and then suddenly the staff is investigating their social media accounts and IRL life and putting their character on trial. I think it's pretty clear why these situations are alarming, and IMO a more narrow and explicit definition of harassment is the best way around this.

I think everyone here has the maturity to understand that if they're being attacked or belittled in, say, a guild Discord group, they should absolutely leave--this doesn't necessarily warrant a harassment ban. There are certain off-platform behaviors I think should warrant ban however. When an off-platform group is created purely to facilitate gossiping, blacklisting, or otherwise shaping people's opinions of players, staff should take action. Anything that involves stalking, inappropriate sexual behavior, or using off-platform channels to DIRECTLY CONTACT A PLAYER in an unwanted manner, that should warrant staff action. But is there any case beyond that which should constitute harassment? I have a hard time of thinking of anything that should.
Click to expand...

What a fantastic post

Nise · Jul 9, 2023

Daydreamer said: ↑

You can't claim that a specific group is "the vocal minority" without evidence to that. It doesn't make sense. "Vocal minority" is a label best applied retroactively. If only a small group of people are involved in a discussion it doesn't mean that the consensus is representative of a vocal minority, it means there is too small of a sample size for the consensus to represent any group of players.
Click to expand...

Hmm but from the 18 pages of threads, how many posts were about the four strike system? In a thread with 340+ posts, there are only 30 that mention the "strike system". Of which not all of them are against the 4 strike system. A quick breakdown would show us:

Those that see it a bit more favorably

PumpkinJuice (6 likes)

Raso (8 agree, 2 disagree)

Crash (14 agree 2 disagree)

PumpkinJuice (Expresses understanding of the 4 strike system)
https://forum.maplelegends.com/inde...-tos-needs-to-change.50553/page-9#post-342739

Raso (in favor of strike system)
https://forum.maplelegends.com/inde...tos-needs-to-change.50553/page-14#post-342900

Crash (not explicitly against 4 strike system)
https://forum.maplelegends.com/inde...tos-needs-to-change.50553/page-10#post-342766

Those explicitly against (traditional camp)

Fael (20 agree, 8 disagree), (5 likes)

Philip (2 disagree, 1 like)

Fael (Against four strikes completely)
https://forum.maplelegends.com/inde...hy-our-tos-needs-to-change.50553/#post-342479
https://forum.maplelegends.com/inde...hy-our-tos-needs-to-change.50553/#post-342487
Many more posts, but did not explicitly mention the strike system

Philip (against strike system)
https://forum.maplelegends.com/inde...tos-needs-to-change.50553/page-14#post-342897

Those against the system (-ovv camp)

Mostly just -ovv

-OVV (Against strikes, but for an alternative reason, not really in the same camp as Fael)
https://forum.maplelegends.com/inde...-tos-needs-to-change.50553/page-3#post-342552
https://forum.maplelegends.com/inde...-tos-needs-to-change.50553/page-4#post-342574
https://forum.maplelegends.com/inde...-tos-needs-to-change.50553/page-6#post-342627
https://forum.maplelegends.com/inde...-tos-needs-to-change.50553/page-6#post-342639
https://forum.maplelegends.com/inde...-tos-needs-to-change.50553/page-6#post-342648
https://forum.maplelegends.com/inde...tos-needs-to-change.50553/page-14#post-342865
https://forum.maplelegends.com/inde...tos-needs-to-change.50553/page-15#post-342932

No opinions expressed

Mageor (playing devil's advocate)
https://forum.maplelegends.com/inde...hy-our-tos-needs-to-change.50553/#post-342501

Tigre (commets on the 4 strike system, but not explicitly expresses their stance on it)
https://forum.maplelegends.com/inde...tos-needs-to-change.50553/page-14#post-342896

Unrelated

Toon (not about 4 strikes, but more so previous case & staff decisions)
https://forum.maplelegends.com/inde...-tos-needs-to-change.50553/page-5#post-342616
https://forum.maplelegends.com/inde...tos-needs-to-change.50553/page-10#post-342771
https://forum.maplelegends.com/inde...tos-needs-to-change.50553/page-13#post-342856

Alyosha (not about 4 strike system, but more about Skar ban)
https://forum.maplelegends.com/inde...tos-needs-to-change.50553/page-13#post-342839

Based on that, I'd still stand by my assessment of the four strikes system mostly being a vocal minority.

Will try to draft up a response on the other half of the post later in the day though!

ryanlights · Jul 9, 2023

Nise said: ↑

Do forgive me if I don't reply to some important posts that warrant a reply. Because of having to sift through a lot of purely emotional responses that added nothing to the crux of the conversation (which is how should the ToS be improved) some posts might've gotten lost on me. *NOT TO MENTION, while typing up this reply another two pages popped up fml.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken about my understanding of how the discussion has gone so far:

Section 3's four strike system - while there is some backlash, I feel like there are also a decent number of people who understand the necessity of this. Vocal minority seems to be the ones who currently have a concerning number of strikes.

Community harassment 3.3.3 is still too far reaching

One major camp seems to be against the inclusion of off-platform information in ANY sense

Another major camp seems to be against (or maybe concerned with is the right phrase) the vaguness of the last requirement for a 3.3.3 ban, which would be "a noticeable impact within the MapleLegends community"

Less rules by -ovv - unfortunately would have to see this as a contrarian opinion, which has been very interesting to read, but there doesn't seem to be neither enough popular support from other players, nor enough merits for the staff team to adopt that kind of approach. Sorry man

I wonder, would the community find it more acceptable if we did specify what kind of noticeable impacts within the MapleLegends community we'd be looking for? Examples would probably be:

Player feels fearful of sexual harassment in-game (due to the recurring off-platform behaviors)

Player feels fearful of their own safety, perhaps due to doxing (due to the recurring off-platform behaviors)

Player feels fearful of racism in-game (due to the recurring off-platform behaviors)

Player feels accused of having violating ToS by memebers of the community (due to the recurring off-platform behaviors)

(Eg) Player A is painted out to be a RWTer by multiple members of the community, to the point that everyone believe he is

(Eg) Player B is painted out to be a racist/sexist by multiple members of the community, to the point that everyone believe he is

Misc Things I'm Going to Reply To

Per our new Section 5, if a player does reveal the facts and details of their appeal in a manner that it becomes public, it will be a waive of player-staff confidentiality. However, as this is a new clause, I'm not certain how players feel about staff relying on this clause. Especially when the player themselves weren't the ones that made it public (and it was instead other people). Food for thought.

That said, this kind of post feels like a very obvious case of ryanlights wishing to waive their confidentiality regarding the abuse report they submitted. Fortunately though, I don't even need to rely on our new 5.2 clause to refute this point.

Staff team already issued out a response to you victimizing yourself as "being sexually harassed" in: https://forum.maplelegends.com/index.php?threads/pb-accountability.49480/page-4#post-335696

"They conclude based on the evidence submitted by Ryan, there were no comments that were sexual or could be considered harassment. There were no actual screenshots supporting what Ryan initially described in my DM and in the report."

Being hit on is NOT sexual harassment. Based off an old message Mirrors said to you in her DMs (when she did not know all the facts or had even seen the evidence), you've been claiming to have been "sexually harassed on ML with the staff doing nothing". Multiple staff members took a look at the evidence you presented and we concluded there was NO sexual nature and NO harassment that took place. Stop self-victimizing yourself as its not fair and extremely disrespectful to those who have actually been the victims of sexual harassment.
Click to expand...

For the record, I submitted the report only after Mirrors herself confirmed it was sexual harassment. This is why I waited so long because I was not sure of the severity of the situation until she pointed it out to me clearly.

I trust her judgement so I filed the formal report.

beegoratto · Jul 9, 2023

ryanlights said: ↑

For the record, I submitted the report only after Mirrors herself confirmed it was sexual harassment. This is why I waited so long because I was not sure of the severity of the situation until she pointed it out to me clearly.
Click to expand...

For what it's worth, it's entirely possible she assumed the situation was worse than it was based off your description, as she hadn't seen the evidence at this point, and said it's harassment, but after a formal Staff review they concluded it wasn't actually worthy of harassment.

I think telling someone as an initial answer "This could be harassment, submit it and let's review" is the right call. Maybe the word "definitely" wasn't warranted, but peoples' wording isn't always going to be perfect.

ryanlights · Jul 9, 2023

beegoratto said: ↑

For what it's worth, it's entirely possible she assumed the situation was worse than it was based off your description, as she hadn't seen the evidence at this point, and said it's harassment, but after a formal Staff review they concluded it wasn't actually worthy of harassment.

I think telling someone as an initial answer "This could be harassment, submit it and let's review" is the right call. Maybe the word "definitely" wasn't warranted, but peoples' wording isn't always going to be perfect.
Click to expand...

Staff are to be trusted and when Staff give you instructions you follow them or risk things getting worse.

When Staff told me to firesell my HT items within 48 hours or risk getting banned, I did it. Even though it was against my HT groups's best interest, I had no choice but to listen to Staff.

Its not worth losing for being non-compliant.

Nise · Jul 9, 2023

ryanlights said: ↑

Staff are to be trusted and when Staff give you instructions you follow them or risk things getting worse.

When Staff told me to firesell my HT items within 48 hours or risk getting banned, I did it. Even though it was against my HT groups's best interest, I had no choice but to listen to Staff.

Its not worth losing for being non-compliant.
Click to expand...

This is an old case, but being misrepresented. Using the 5.2 discretion, I'd like to correct this for the public. Never at any point were you threated to firesell your HT items. I quote the response from your appeal:

"We believe this is a misunderstanding and wish to clear the situation up. The only way to prove that you haven't been engaged in such behavior is to pay out all outstanding splits as soon as possible and proving that you have the [insert amount] mesos owed (as we stated previously) in cash. Failure to present or prove that you have [insert amount] mesos on hand available for immediate pay out would be evidence of your misappropriation of splits, and thereby making you guilty of scamming."
Click to expand...

I've redacted the amount since I don't think that needs to be publicized. Your own sheet at the time said you successfully sold and had [insert amount] mesos. The items you had not sold at the time was not included into that total. We asked that you prove that you owned [insert amount] mesos. We also said:

"To get an extension on the 48 hour period we stated, we need you to notify us of the account that you manage splits on so that we can verify that you do have the mesos on hand."
Click to expand...

How all this can be interpreted and changed to a simple "staff told me to firesell my HT items within 48 hours" is beyond me.

beegoratto · Jul 9, 2023

Nise said: ↑

How all this can be interpreted and changed to a simple "staff told me to firesell my HT items within 48 hours" is beyond me.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, what was the 48 hour period stated for?

Mirrors · Jul 9, 2023

I really did not want to post again and I even unsubscribed from this cursed thread but here we are. It's 1am and I'm tired, my memory is not the greatest, but I guess I'll go address this anyway. If there are any errors I apologize in advance.

beegoratto hit the nail on the head. ryanlights What you described to me was what I considered sexual harassment, which is why I encouraged you to submit a report so it could actually be reported and investigated thoroughly. I did not speak for staff as a whole, as I was just giving advice to you as a concerned friend and as someone who knew the reporting process well. I admit my language might have caused miscommunication, and for that I apologize.

But like Nise said, in your official abuse report, you did not submit any evidence backing up what you claimed to me in your original DM, and what evidence you did submit, was not considered sexual harassment or bannable. It's not like Staff suddenly thought sexual harassment is okay and decided to ignore your report, but after the whole team reviewed it thoroughly, it was concluded that your report did not show what you initially described to me.

Also with regards to this:

ryanlights said: ↑

Staff are to be trusted and when Staff give you instructions you follow them or risk things getting worse.
Click to expand...

I was just supporting you as anyone would support a friend if they thought their friend was a victim of sexual harassment.

I asked you if there was anything I can do to support you. I gave you advice on how to handle it in the future, and comforted you. Of course, I would not want my friend to experience this in the future, which is why I suggested reporting it if you felt comfortable doing so. Comparing this situation to when staff officially advised you to sell your HT stuff is comparing apples to oranges.

That's all I have to say about this. And honestly, I don't even know why this is being brought up again. I'm tired of my words being used as ammo to prove that "staff are hypocrites who don't care about sexual harassment". If you want to blame anyone, blame me then, and leave staff out of this.

Nise · Jul 9, 2023

beegoratto said: ↑

Out of curiosity, what was the 48 hour period stated for?
Click to expand...

A deadline was initially stated because we needed to verify whether or not he currently held the proper amount of mesos. As his liquidity was spread across various accounts, we needed him to check and verify it on our behalf, in case we missed a handful of accounts. Additionally, due to a personal reason he cited, and our consideration of it, he was given a period of leeway to manage his IRL matters first and then log onto the game.

However, after our message of asking him to provide us proof of his liquidity, instead of providing an answer, he paid everyone back before the 48 hour time period elapsed.

Nise · Jul 9, 2023

Just a gentle remember this is about how the ToS is currently worded. Referring to old cases are important to know how we could improve things going forward, but they should be directly linked to how to improve the ToS right now.

Now, to get the thread back on topic of course, I still don't think I've heard enough direct responses regards to what was suggested.

Kimmy said: ↑

Elements Required for a Community Harassment Ban
1. The existence of an offended party
2. A series of repeated actions or recurring behavior across various platforms or different points in time

► Intention of the offending player does not matter (even if it was meant as a joke)
3. A series of actions or recurring behavior
4. The individual must have contributed to the creation of an unwelcoming or unsafe environment

► The standard for “feeling unwelcome or unsafe” is based on what a reasonable and objective person would feel
5. The actions do not need to be done exclusively on a MapleLegends Platform (in-game, forums, or Discord) so long as there is a noticeable impact within the MapleLegends community
Click to expand...

I've reworded the suggestion from the previous post. The suggestion would be to add an additional requirement to the existing clause which would read something like:
6. Application of this clause is restricted to only the following situations where a player would reasonably feel fearful in-game of:

Being the target of sexual harassment

Their own personal safety (perhaps due to doxing, stalking, etc)

Becoming the target of discrimination due to the spreading of falsehoods

(Eg) Situations where a player is portrayed by members of the community to be a racist/sexist/sexual predator, when there was no evidence of it

Toon said: ↑

My suggestion:
3- Completely rework or eliminate section 3.3.3 in a way that prevents leaks from private Discords from being used as grounds for banning, especially when the content was not intended to be shared with the offended party, except in cases involving racial slurs, gender/sexuality discrimination, life threat, doxxing and sexual harassment, like it always been
Click to expand...

Daydreamer said: ↑

IMO a more narrow and explicit definition of harassment is the best way around this.
Click to expand...

This was what I was going for with my previous post (linked above). Do the edits I made above seem more in line with what you guys would like to see with our 3.3.3 clause?

Vowels said: ↑

This is the specific I have more problems with, which corresponds to my first post in the thread. You can see the post got a lot of agrees, if that means anything.
While we are against harassment, a lot of us believe that 3.3.3 reach is invasive and the negatives outweigh the benefits.
Click to expand...

Luu said: ↑

Honestly I don't even really think you need 3.3.3 as a standalone rule. Just emphasize that behavior "on or in connection with MapleLegends" are covered by the ToS. That should provide enough leeway to cover other platforms, without the concern of private discussions being held against you from unrelated parties. That and... well, as far as I can tell it's pretty standard across MMOs.
Click to expand...

Daydreamer said: ↑

I want to address directly your proposed examples. Look, let's not beat around the bush here, a lot of people are upset about Skarmory being banned and feel that 3.3.3 is overreaching. Given the reaction here and to other discussions of the topic, I think it's fair to say that this is likely a MAJORITY position of players who have any opinion on the topic. My understanding of harassment is that it involves either repeated unwanted interaction with an individual or repeated unwanted messages intended for a specific individual. Players fearing racism in-game because they see someone saying something racist in private (is that what you meant?) doesn't qualify as harassment. Making a mean comment about a player with no intention of them seeing it does not qualify as harassment. These things certainly become harassment when they target a specific player or occur in a public setting.
Click to expand...

How does the suggestion look with regards to your concerns? Does this make it far less invasive and more justified? Or would you prefer it to become even narrower?

Pelinsu · Jul 9, 2023

I think this update resolves the general negative feedback towards 3.3.3 overall. Great job!

Nightz · Jul 9, 2023

Moderator Post

philip said: ↑

Waiting for Arthur to reply to core questions. day 2.

At this point, I am starting to suspect you have no idea about what rules you implemented and the vagueness of boundaries is even unclear to Supervisor moderator and probably also the rest of the moderator team if you are unable to state clear boundaries its also fair to state that 'you do not have or shows the necessary skills to do something successfully'. Time to go back to the drawing table Arthur. Or maybe it is just really convenient to have extremely vague rules
Click to expand...

Your replies have been rather rude and uncalled for, if you are looking for answers then maybe begin by posting well thought out replies and asking proper questions.

Nise has been making an effort to listen to people and communicate back and forth, there's no reason to be a dickhead

Kimmy · Jul 9, 2023

Moderator Post

philip said: ↑

Waiting for Arthur to reply to core questions. day 2.

At this point, I am starting to suspect you have no idea about what rules you implemented and the vagueness of boundaries is even unclear to Supervisor moderator and probably also the rest of the moderator team if you are unable to state clear boundaries its also fair to state that 'you do not have or shows the necessary skills to do something successfully'. Time to go back to the drawing table Arthur. Or maybe it is just really convenient to have extremely vague rules
Click to expand...

Your post is the reason why sometimes we rather just say nothing at all.

Nise · Jul 9, 2023

philip said: ↑

Waiting for Arthur to reply to core questions. day 2.

At this point, I am starting to suspect you have no idea about what rules you implemented and the vagueness of boundaries is even unclear to Supervisor moderator and probably also the rest of the moderator team if you are unable to state clear boundaries its also fair to state that 'you do not have or shows the necessary skills to do something successfully'. Time to go back to the drawing table Arthur. Or maybe it is just really convenient to have extremely vague rules
Click to expand...

For "transparency" I'd like to mention I did answer your question on Day -1 in your DMs (pretty much right when this thread was made).

philip said: ↑

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.
Click to expand...

Also I've mentioned it in a number of posts here that I do apologize if I miss out on things, there's nearly 20 pages / 350+ replies on this thread. All of which I'm taking my own time as a volunteer to read and respond to in the most diplomatic and civil way possible.

ryanlights · Jul 9, 2023

Mirrors said: ↑

I really did not want to post again and I even unsubscribed from this cursed thread but here we are. It's 1am and I'm tired, my memory is not the greatest, but I guess I'll go address this anyway. If there are any errors I apologize in advance.

beegoratto hit the nail on the head. ryanlights What you described to me was what I considered sexual harassment, which is why I encouraged you to submit a report so it could actually be reported and investigated thoroughly. I did not speak for staff as a whole, as I was just giving advice to you as a concerned friend and as someone who knew the reporting process well. I admit my language might have caused miscommunication, and for that I apologize.

But like Nise said, in your official abuse report, you did not submit any evidence backing up what you claimed to me in your original DM, and what evidence you did submit, was not considered sexual harassment or bannable. It's not like Staff suddenly thought sexual harassment is okay and decided to ignore your report, but after the whole team reviewed it thoroughly, it was concluded that your report did not show what you initially described to me.

Also with regards to this:

I was just supporting you as anyone would support a friend if they thought their friend was a victim of sexual harassment.

I asked you if there was anything I can do to support you. I gave you advice on how to handle it in the future, and comforted you. Of course, I would not want my friend to experience this in the future, which is why I suggested reporting it if you felt comfortable doing so. Comparing this situation to when staff officially advised you to sell your HT stuff is comparing apples to oranges.

That's all I have to say about this. And honestly, I don't even know why this is being brought up again. I'm tired of my words being used as ammo to prove that "staff are hypocrites who don't care about sexual harassment". If you want to blame anyone, blame me then, and leave staff out of this.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, thank you for being there for me to support me, I appreciate you.

I'm going to stop posting.

akashsky · Jul 9, 2023

Nise said: ↑

Just a gentle remember this is about how the ToS is currently worded. Referring to old cases are important to know how we could improve things going forward, but they should be directly linked to how to improve the ToS right now.

Now, to get the thread back on topic of course, I still don't think I've heard enough direct responses regards to what was suggested.

I've reworded the suggestion from the previous post. The suggestion would be to add an additional requirement to the existing clause which would read something like:
6. Application of this clause is restricted to only the following situations where a player would reasonably feel fearful in-game of:

Being the target of sexual harassment

Their own personal safety (perhaps due to doxing, stalking, etc)

Becoming the target of discrimination due to the spreading of falsehoods

(Eg) Situations where a player is portrayed by members of the community to be a racist/sexist/sexual predator, when there was no evidence of it

This was what I was going for with my previous post (linked above). Do the edits I made above seem more in line with what you guys would like to see with our 3.3.3 clause?

How does the suggestion look with regards to your concerns? Does this make it far less invasive and more justified? Or would you prefer it to become even narrower?
Click to expand...

I would prefer if 3.3.3 was narrower and limited purely to the items that 3.3.2 (discriminatory harassment) covers in the ToS. What you have described here is essentially discriminatory harassment with the addition of safety.

If there is going to be no change in what constitutes harassment as per ToS, I would like to see as beegoratto mentioned, a removal of account ban in favor of longer bans, with punishment just capping out at a 1 to 3 month ban.

TORONTOTOKYO · Jul 9, 2023

akashsky said: ↑

If there is going to be no change in what constitutes harassment as per ToS, I would like to see as beegoratto mentioned, a removal of account ban in favor of longer bans, with punishment just capping out at a 1 to 3 month ban.
Click to expand...

maybe make it longer, 1 to 3 year ban

Dimez · Jul 9, 2023

TORONTOTOKYO said: ↑

maybe make it longer, 1 to 3 year ban
Click to expand...

im in favor of this

Nise · Jul 9, 2023

akashsky said: ↑

I would prefer if 3.3.3 was narrower and limited purely to the items that 3.3.2 (discriminatory harassment) covers in the ToS. What you have described here is essentially discriminatory harassment with the addition of safety.
Click to expand...

There is another difference, which has to do with spreading of falsehoods though. If I go to various ML communities spreading lies about how you're a sexual predator or a murderer, and it affects you in-game. Wouldn't you want some sort of recourse? As none of the existing sections (3.3.1 or 3.3.2)) would cover this type of behavior.

I think you are in support of the personal safety idea, but just in case others might not be on the same boat. I'd like to reference something that happened to myself and another staff member (separate instances from separate people). After they disagree with us, they start spamming our DMs with themselves holding a gun, sending other messages intimidating or threatening you. If this were to happen to another player and the perpetrator is still on the ML platform, I'd argue there should be some sort of recourse available to the player.

TORONTOTOKYO said: ↑

maybe make it longer, 1 to 3 year ban
Click to expand...

A 2 year ban on ALL accounts? Or just their main accounts?

fael · Jul 9, 2023

akashsky said: ↑

I would prefer if 3.3.3 was narrower and limited purely to the items that 3.3.2 (discriminatory harassment) covers in the ToS. What you have described here is essentially discriminatory harassment with the addition of safety.

If there is going to be no change in what constitutes harassment as per ToS, I would like to see as beegoratto mentioned, a removal of account ban in favor of longer bans, with punishment just capping out at a 1 to 3 month ban.
Click to expand...

1~3 months ban sounds definitely reasonable, of course depending on the offense. Just can't be account ban, specially considering all the fking SILLY REASONS.
I appreciate all the effort Nise and everyone else from the Staff, that's something really important for the server imho.

Log in or Sign up

The reason why our ToS needs to change

beegoratto Zakum

Nise Supervisor Staff Member Supervisor Game Moderator

ryanlights Windraider

beegoratto Zakum

ryanlights Windraider

Nise Supervisor Staff Member Supervisor Game Moderator

beegoratto Zakum

Mirrors Zakum Retired Staff

Nise Supervisor Staff Member Supervisor Game Moderator

Nise Supervisor Staff Member Supervisor Game Moderator

Pelinsu Timer

Nightz Supervisor Staff Member Supervisor Game Moderator

Kimmy Administrator Staff Member Administrator Game Moderator

Nise Supervisor Staff Member Supervisor Game Moderator

ryanlights Windraider

akashsky Horntail

TORONTOTOKYO Windraider

Dimez Stone Golem

Nise Supervisor Staff Member Supervisor Game Moderator

fael Nightshadow

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Useful Searches

The reason why our ToS needs to change

beegoratto Zakum

Nise Supervisor Staff Member Supervisor Game Moderator

ryanlights Windraider

beegoratto Zakum

ryanlights Windraider

Nise Supervisor Staff Member Supervisor Game Moderator

beegoratto Zakum

Mirrors Zakum Retired Staff

Nise Supervisor Staff Member Supervisor Game Moderator

Nise Supervisor Staff Member Supervisor Game Moderator

Pelinsu Timer

Nightz Supervisor Staff Member Supervisor Game Moderator

Kimmy Administrator Staff Member Administrator Game Moderator

Nise Supervisor Staff Member Supervisor Game Moderator

ryanlights Windraider

akashsky Horntail

TORONTOTOKYO Windraider

Dimez Stone Golem

Nise Supervisor Staff Member Supervisor Game Moderator

fael Nightshadow

Share This Page