About the restructuring

[Grimmwolf_GB]

QUOTE (Dengaroth @ Apr 24 2007, 10:39 AM) Do the judges in Germany find their verdicts overruled by Parliament members on a daily basis?

No, but in germany the police only arrests and the judges write the verdict. In Allegiance the police is the judge and that is my problem.

QUOTE (Dengaroth @ Apr 24 2007, 10:39 AM) It is a senate created problem, because by revisiting/overruling bans handed out by people who have authority over the domain, you're subverting that authority, thereby forcing the need to create something said enforcer can wave in your face and say "See? I went by the book. Now go away and let me do my job."

If you give away part of your authority to someone else and expect them to follow your own judgement everytime, why give away that authority? If you want puppets, call them puppets. If you want to hand over autority, don't be pissed, when they don't agree with you.

QUOTE (Dengaroth @ Apr 24 2007, 10:39 AM) Sure... but when "it's fun" is the first reason for its existence that comes to your mind, that indicates a problem, don't you think?

Nope, not at all. This is a game forum and I expect some sort of fun from participating in it. Playing the game has no higher meaning, other than having fun. My work in the helpline was done for no other reason. I enjoy helping people with their technical problems.

[Tigereye]

Grimm, there WAS warning, and the senate WAS told about it.

All @Allegs and Senators were brought into a meeting before this happened. You were not a senator at the time, so did not attend the meeting.

--TE

[Grimmwolf_GB]

TE, yes, a two day warning ahead of time. For a project that was in the works for several months. Thank you.

[TheBored]

QUOTE (Tigereye @ Apr 24 2007, 03:54 AM) Grimm, there WAS warning, and the senate WAS told about it.

All @Allegs and Senators were brought into a meeting before this happened. You were not a senator at the time, so did not attend the meeting.

--TE

/glare.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":glare:" border="0" alt="glare.gif" />

I completely disagree with this (not the situation, just the post). The meeting went like this:

1) Small @Alleg stuff
2) OMGZ THAL IS HERE `4`4`yh
3) BV: "The Senate will not exist in 24-48 hours. Questions?"
4) Questions-comments

Don't get me wrong here, I only have a small problem with removing the Senate. I *DO* have a problem though with saying that the Senate had any sort of opinion in the matter. We were given as much warning as a car horn before an accident.

My only beef with the whole situation regards perma bans. In the future, people will be banned with *no* chance of appeal. Had this happened last October, both Night and GreyV would be on perma bans right now.

TB

EDIT: Punctuation /tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":P" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" />

[Semarin]

QUOTE (Grimmwolf_GB @ Apr 24 2007, 04:51 AM) No, but in germany the police only arrests and the judges write the verdict. In Allegiance the police is the judge and that is my problem.

That was my only real concern with the new system as well. As well as there being no apparent recourse should things south for a player. But this issue has been ignored throughout the entire thread.

[spideycw]

If you disagree with a ban why not PM Thal and explain why you think a perma ban is not warranted? It will be solely up to him of course but if you make a good case he just may listen

[MadAccountant]

The discussion about ban times and appeals has merit but you still have to realize people aren't paid for any of their service here. If someone is taking up a lot of their time by being a dick then the people having to deal with it can either say good-bye or enforce a penalty stiff enough to dissuade those individuals from doing it again.

Getting into a debate about it is rather moot until we see it actually happen. It's not like these things can't be reversed. Permanent can change to 3 months by a few keystrokes after all.

Again though, don't be a @#(! disturber and you don't have to worry about anything.

[Raveen]

QUOTE (TheBored @ Apr 24 2007, 05:08 PM) My only beef with the whole situation regards perma bans. In the future, people will be banned with *no* chance of appeal. Had this happened last October, both Night and GreyV would be on perma bans right now.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the senate vote for perma-banning Night which was downgraded by Thal? In which case the situation would be exactly the same now as it was then.

[Typhoone]

QUOTE (Grimmwolf_GB @ Apr 24 2007, 02:51 AM) In Allegiance the police is the judge...

Judge DREDD! "Emotions... there ought to be a law against them. "

Ty.

[Pook]

It's true that not much warning was given. I think what the Senate missed out on was their chance to debate the issue, but then again this isn't really something the Senate needs to debate anyway.

The Senate was originally a "Voice" for the community. By the time it was disbanded, the Senate had transformed itself into a group of "overseers". The constitution that they'd debated for months was a set of rules governing their own behavior, and was in my opinion wasted effort.

All along, the Senate should have been doing things to foster a better community. Tournaments, Training programs, Reference materials, and so on. Several times I asked that they do just that, but I suppose the Senate didn't see that as its role. Others in the community created those things outside the Senate, and it's those people that have had the more substantial impact.

So, the question was asked, "Why do we need the Senate?". They didn't create @Cadet, they didn't organize tournaments. They didn't run the academy and they didn't proofread our helpline documentation. The only answer people could give was "They're the people you run to if you get banned." All I can say is, the opinion of the public on the matter has always had a more substantial effect on my decisions than the Senate - and I expect it will continue to do so.

Someone above said there's no higher meaning in this gaming community than to have fun. Well, it's no fun for me to watch as a few people make it their "hobby" to ruin the fun for others. To this day there are people who think it's "fun" to harass others, even when asked to stop. Their response is that it's somehow OUR problem that we don't tolerate them better... well that's just wrong.

To specifically answer your question: What recourse does a player have if an administrator bans that player?

There are now three administrators that make enforcement calls, not one. If someone believes they were banned improperly, those three can investigate it and either make an adjustment themselves, or forward their findings to Thal and let Thal make the final decision. Once Thal makes a decision, it's final.