Feedback Kotsu's Flame

[Airou]

Id like to suggest temporary locking Kotsus thread until hes unbanned and can actually defend and continue to backup what he's said. Seeing as hes on read-only for 5 days, without a doubt the thread is going to go to shit, and i understand he broke the rules but i feel its a little unfair to let his thread go on without the op being able to defend it.

 

[Tyrath]

While we're on the subject I'd like to ask what rules he broke.

An in game screenshot about a talk of an online relationship is not "real life"...

 

[JP]

While we're on the subject I'd like to ask what rules he broke.

An in game screenshot about a talk of an online relationship is not "real life"...

Same thing I'm thinking, I saw no RL in this. I also think it should be locked for the time til he's unreadonry.

 

[StanDarsh]

While we're on the subject I'd like to ask what rules he broke.

An in game screenshot about a talk of an online relationship is not "real life"...

Agreed.

About Odon's posts, albeit they were funny as can be, that pertains to real life.

Ohhh Sixpa*I mean Jamal, whatever would we do without you?

 

[Nycon]

Agreed. And and explanation would be nice mods.

 

[Hitaru]

Supposedly e-relationships count as real life?

 

[Bluefrost]

It's not really identifiable though.

 

[Audino]

There was a couple instances of RL attacks and one instance of RL ID'able material. Both were removed as soon as they were noticed. There's your explanation. The E-Lationship comment wasn't what was ID'able, just for the record.

 

[Audino]

And also, I agree that it should stay locked until the RO is over. The thread will proceed after that.

 

[Tyrath]

There was a couple instances of RL attacks and one instance of RL ID'able material. Both were removed as soon as they were noticed. There's your explanation. The E-Lationship comment wasn't what was ID'able, just for the record.

Ok. Thats acceptable.

Next question. So why was the e-lationship SS deleted then...twice?

 

[Miros]

E-lationships are something that can be considered an RL item. Nobody can deny the fact that they can extend outside of the game. Hell, I've been dating someone one the game for 3 and a half years. It started out as an e-lationship, however if anybody brought it up on the flameboard I would consider it and RL flame.

When you take it higher then between something that happened in game between an LS and something that has the ability to flourish. For those reasons that is why we consider it an RL thing.

 

[Nycon]

E-lationships are something that can be considered an RL item. Nobody can deny the fact that they can extend outside of the game. Hell, I've been dating someone one the game for 3 and a half years. It started out as an e-lationship, however if anybody brought it up on the flameboard I would consider it and RL flame.

When you take it higher then between something that happened in game between an LS and something that has the ability to flourish. For those reasons that is why we consider it an RL thing.

Was Jamal banned or on Read only or given an infraction for modding my vm about my own E-lationship(yeah yeah i have one too )? Just want to make sure it goes both ways.

 

[Audino]

Ok. Thats acceptable.

Next question. So why was the e-lationship SS deleted then...twice?

I would answer that for you, but I wasn't the one that axed that.

Also, I apologize to people for posting after the lock. I was in the middle of a response and because of the mod-ship, it went through. If anyone's upset about it, I can remove it and re-post after the RO term is over.

 

[Hitaru]

remove it then, until it's open for discussion.

 

[Tyrath]

E-lationships are something that can be considered an RL item. Nobody can deny the fact that they can extend outside of the game. Hell, I've been dating someone one the game for 3 and a half years. It started out as an e-lationship, however if anybody brought it up on the flameboard I would consider it and RL flame.

When you take it higher then between something that happened in game between an LS and something that has the ability to flourish. For those reasons that is why we consider it an RL thing.

I understand that. It can go over into RL. But unless the specific case has (which i don't believe it has) I see no reason to treat it as such.

 

[Makelith]

Was Jamal banned or on Read only or given an infraction for modding my vm about my own E-lationship(yeah yeah i have one too )? Just want to make sure it goes both ways.

The thing about that was that we had no idea it was Jamal that was doing it, and when Miros found out that it was actually him, he was already on Read Only.

Although just consider what he did with editing your VM's part of the reason that he is a sanctioned user.

 

[jyakotsu]

Was Jamal banned or on Read only or given an infraction for modding my vm about my own E-lationship(yeah yeah i have one too )? Just want to make sure it goes both ways.

If that is the case and we are playing that card honestly, then Kelyon and Rannoch should be put on the chopping blocks as well for the stuff they said about Skanya and I. The commentary on VM, the Rep comments and the flameboard content was worse than anything that Jamal said.

 

[Miros]

I understand that. It can go over into RL. But unless the specific case has (which i don't believe it has) I see no reason to treat it as such.

The part where you say you don't believe is the reason mainly that this was sanctioned. Since it's one of those things where somebody can come back and say "But I have met so and so irl and we are actually moving in today!" then we have to really treat it as much.

Although just consider what he did with editing your VM's part of the reason that he is a sanctioned user.

I just wanted to re-emphasize this.

 

[Tyrath]

The part where you say you don't believe is the reason mainly that this was sanctioned. Since it's one of those things where somebody can come back and say "But I have met so and so irl and we are actually moving in today!" then we have to really treat it as much.

Ok. I don't really agree with it, but its somewhat sensible I guess.

But on that note, I think there should be something about e-lationships under the RL clause in the flameboard guidelines. If I missed it feel free to point it out to me. Otherwise handing out punishments for what most people wouldn't really think of as RL might seem kinda unfair.

 

[Miros]

Ok. I don't really agree with it, but its somewhat sensible I guess.

But on that note, I think there should be something about e-lationships under the RL clause in the flameboard guidelines. If I missed it feel free to point it out to me. Otherwise handing out punishments for what most people wouldn't really think of as RL might seem kinda unfair.

I can surely see your point, and I believe you are correct. We should be putting some sort of example for items into the flameboard guidelines. I'll speak with the staff and work on getting those in.

We really aren't here to just pass out bannings and read only left and right, which is mainly why the 5 day read only you see is just a read only and not a 2 week ban or something harsher.