Staff Guidelines

I am aware of the difference between facts and opinions. What I'm getting at is that none of us will always have access to 100% of the information in most situations - an announcement might be made about an update to the server, but problems come up during the development process that cause a delay. The original timeframe for the change is now wrong, but it wasn't a lie.

Even in the post you added with "proof" for each point, the major contention you have is this statement:

Even going so far as to say (emphasis mine).

But that's a really big assertion to make if you don't have all of the available facts. As far as I'm aware, there's no requirement for staff to reveal every offence a user has made on the server when asked. There's a multitude of reasons why a staff member might not divulge all of the facts in a situation - and not all of them are "being wrong" or "lying".

I did read what you wrote, I should've trimmed the quote since the main sentence that stuck out to me was this one,

which prompted the reply. In order to rectify my error, I will take an opportunity to respond to the actual point slightly further down.

The subject of an investigation is not always a reliable source of information. Nor are they always necessary. I've yet to meet a person (myself included) who wasn't capable of rationalizing why they did something they knew was wrong, but that doesn't mean their rationalizations are worth listening to. We can imagine a situation where an inappropriate build is reported - a build of a swastika. Confronting the user might lead to a stream of proclamations of their Hindu or Buddist faith, but if their skin has a distinctive moustache and a red armband, it might not be worth hearing them out at all.

I guess I'm glad to know it's not a common occurrence. This one we might just simply agree to disagree, but I think there's certain behaviors (such as the example you listed) where I think a ban is justified even if something isn't explicitly against the rules at the time, but it's obviously wrong. Granted, I have to imagine those circumstances are extraordinarily rare.

 

All this aside, I never wanted to bring any particulars into it, all that does is create discussions that stray from the original suggestion and take the thread off topic.

As I stated in my original post the suggestions, that is the bolded text, should be judged on their own merit.

 

My guy, you clearly had no issue bringing particulars in earlier:

Or in this essay of a post made no more than 48 hours after the creation of this thread.

But carry on, I guess.

 

I'd mentioned that to give reason for suggestion number 7 which I added at the time.

I explained in that post my reason for referencing particular instances and my reluctance to do so.
Essentially Noobcrew agreed with a post that challenged whether there were any instances where staff hadn't acted as per the suggestions. Had I not shown that there were, this thread would have just gone down a different rabbit hole.

 

Well, seeing as Noobcrew saw this thread and agreed with creationism, that probably means that this thread is not going in the direction it was supposed to go. I will, however, keep all my opinions that I left in my previous post that I made here and the fact that the points that Drogo mentioned that I put in my post are the ones I agree with the most, and relate to the most, and I’m also keeping my support (mainly for the ones that I stated). Other than that, good luck Drogo.

 

Despite a number of people believing this was just an opportunity to point out staff problems, the purpose of the suggestion is to ensure more fairness and less aggression between staff and players, so it will be the server as a whole that loses out if it's not adopted.