|
Post by Fleece on Nov 26, 2016 5:17:49 GMT
I'm kinda surprised by this banning honestly. Given that he brought me here I do have a bit of a bias, so i'd ask that the other staff review over the presented material and evidence. I personally believe a warning was due but don't believe a 0-100 ban was appropriate. Given that I doubt Emer would return after this point either way, but I believe that it should still looked at for the sake of policy going forward.
I believe a 0-100 permaban should only be used in cases where members are literally in danger because of another person. I'd also like to point out that the banning of Kaula was contested (and I am on the side of thinking she got hit with double jeopardy and disagree with that ban as well), and she had many many warnings prior.
|
|
Vi-Poi
Administrator
Premier of Earth
PL: 434,410
Soul(x40P), Overdrive(x43)
Zeni: 1,247
Tag: @vipoi
Posts: 2,833
|
Post by Vi-Poi on Nov 26, 2016 5:35:58 GMT
I'll begin the review process for this, and will update when parties have been contacted and decisions have been made.
|
|
Zucceta
Administrator
PL: 379,083
Oozaru(x10) MSSj(x15) S.Ooz(x22) SSj2(25x)
Zeni: 2290
Tag: @admin
OOC Name: therevolution
Posts: 2,309
|
Post by Zucceta on Nov 26, 2016 11:20:21 GMT
At the time of warning, I was furious that Emer was attempting to manipulate both me and another member in the manner he did. Maybe 0-100 was rough.
It's come to my attention, however, that Emer originally did have a 40%. he then proceeded to delete that account, and when he re-made we never gave the warning level back.
Emer was conspiratorial in nature. He didn't ask me to look into Marcel, instead he played on emotionality and told me that he was disgusted by it due to an event with his niece. Additionally, once he sent that personal message he told me in the cbox "sent you a thread idea" as opposed to simply "sent you a PM"--he wanted me to play in to this subterfuge to get Marcel in trouble.
I will not stand for that shit.
With a more level head (despite not regretting my previous choice to take him all the way to the end of the road for sending me a baffling and disturbing message regarding crimes against a possibly-fictitious niece) I could much more easily justify a 40%-100% regarding his actions, further solidified in post-ban threats of staging 'strikes' or even somehow managing to delete the site.
"Jake: -shrugs- Just leave it where is. I think I'ma get a small strike going with around 20+ members leaving. Or take the site down myself."
|
|
|
Post by Fleece on Nov 26, 2016 14:56:30 GMT
Warnings under 50% decay at the rate of 5% a month.
|
|
Zucceta
Administrator
PL: 379,083
Oozaru(x10) MSSj(x15) S.Ooz(x22) SSj2(25x)
Zeni: 2290
Tag: @admin
OOC Name: therevolution
Posts: 2,309
|
Post by Zucceta on Nov 26, 2016 15:05:23 GMT
Warnings under 50% decay at the rate of 5% a month. This is untrue. Each Month, your warning will drop by 5 points *if* it is above 50. You will never be able to reduce your warning level below 50 though.That is the information displayed about warnings, published (without edits) November 22nd 2014. So long as I've been adminning since I returned with Zucceta as my new character last year, warning levels have not decayed if they're 50 or lower.
|
|
Nicolas Mclendon
Moderator
The Hero of the Cosmos: CAPTAIN NOVA!
PL: 145,482
Intense Struggle (x3); X-Factor (x6); Amazing Captain Nova (x16)
Zeni: 2336
Tag: @nicolas
OOC Name: Nicolas
Posts: 1,010
|
Post by Nicolas Mclendon on Nov 26, 2016 15:05:26 GMT
Warnings above 50% decay. The first 50% is permanent.
|
|
|
Post by Fleece on Nov 26, 2016 15:16:40 GMT
My mistake, misread the rule.
|
|