>Zulgh was maligned? I always thought he was a favorite even
>among those who generally dislike the staff.
>
>I have never made any claims about Jalims, so I can't speak on
>that. Though I did confirm some claims about Jalim and Sam in
>this thread, it was my duty as the trusted reader.

My apologies. I had been trying to summarize my thoughts on generally the entire thread into my post, so that was referencing other posts and other posters. My comments towards your posting were near the bottom in the civil discussion part.

>"and until these threads had no idea it was Matrik who got
>banned."
>
>From what I've seen anyway, I actually didn't think the imms
>at the time, let alone the community, did know that it was
>Matrik who got banned. That's why I'm glad he posted the log,
>because regardless of what happened, if it lost someone like
>Matrik it's worth examining. At least we should be aware of
>it.

As far as I'm aware, the log I've seen is a secondary RotD, in which the Immortal was able to determine that Matrik had apparently circumvented his ban (intentional or accidentally). From Matrik's perspective in that log, he seems to have thought he was just unbanned, but the Immortal is more or less just closing up whatever gap Matrik had used. As far as what got his original ban, I won't go into the RotD aspect of things, but when a player is rolling lvl 1 characters that are problems, denying them isn't going to solve anything, which means a ban is about the minimal level needed to end the issues.

>"that's part of exactly why Matrik got the punishment he
>did - because he got punished based exactly on his actions,
>and nothing to do with who he is or isn't"
>People don't want players to get in-game hookups based on who
>they are. But, people getting individual, reputation based
>treatment ooc is already a well-established thing.
>Right? Or else you can't say "No, that's Krilcov, he doesn't
>get to play here anymore." Your reputation for rule-breaking
>(I have to admit I am surprised this kind of thing is
>apparently considered more serious than cheating though) has
>everything to do with whether or not you are allowed to play,
>nothing to do with in-game rewards. That makes perfect sense
>to me.

If I understand you correctly, I'm in somewhat of an agreement. Overall, the goal is always for rewards/punishment to be based on the character or current situation as much as possible. Beyond that, we get into more long-term situations, where a player's reputation has more of an impact. Applying to the staff, for example, or in this particular situation reference - appealing to have a ban removed. In that, I think yes, you do consider the reputation as you're concerned with whether there's going to be repeat instances. But keep in mind - the ban happened based on the situation. Asking to get off, to me, would have multiple considerations - player's reputation (likelihood to cause more problems), time since offense, severity of offense, etc. Though we're also arguing over theory, since I'm not aware of anyone who's recently asked to come off (though if they went to IMPs, I wouldn't be aware).

>I'm not still posting about it because I expect Matrik to be
>unbanned or get an apology (he said he's done and I haven't
>known him to say it before), but because many of you are at
>least making an effort to hear out the dissent, I know many
>people feel the same way and I wish someone easier to get
>along with (not me) would speak up, because I hope this can
>turn into something positive.

I, at least, have generally taken it as such. There's certainly a tone of "Bring Matrik back" that is clear people have, but the thread has been much of a discussion and voice.

>I'm also not saying freak-outs are okay but I have a feeling
>you guys would see a lot less of them if you just treated the
>people you bring there like adults.

I'll admit, there's times this can be difficult. Overall, I believe I try to approach a situation with this in mind, but even I often have the feeling a player's trying to take advantage of it, or that I'm being too soft. I deal with this sort of situation frequently in my RL job, and when you're going into situations that say...80% of people or more are lying to you, it's difficult to be interested in holding a discussion. Consider any time you've played a Tribunal, and people start arguing their flag. You're sure they did it, else you wouldn't have placed it, but they're swearing up and down you're wrong. How often do you ever unwarrant someone? Not very often, I'm guessing. Most of the time, by the time an Immortal pulls a person into the RotD, we're doing it because we're confident there's a problem. If we weren't certain, we're much more likely to watch or investigate to become certain.

>Or maybe you generally do and when that doesn't happen it's a
>slip-up. Because hey, that happens. Maybe everyone on both
>sides can remember that and make an effort to take a deep
>breath.

Probably a good note to end on.