Staff Changes

[Bbeta]

Thank you for the update. I agree that anyone who loves the server deserves second chances and the ability to play or help give back. Sirken loved the server and so do I. This post gives me hope that second chances and communication are possible here.

Long live Project 1999

[Jimjam]

Good to hear Sirken is still keen to be and will continue to be involved in the project.

My sympathies to the agent if he has been sent to do penance in that circle of hell known only as 'ip exception requests'.

[1203jjt]

Originally Posted by Jimjam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

My sympathies to the agent if he has been sent to do penance in that circle of hell known only as 'ip exception requests'.

That sounds pretty fitting haha...

Thanks for the update and clarification Rogean. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Fragged]

Heya Rogean.

Thank you very much for your time, and giving us a place to have fun day after day, year after year.

I think the reason that people didn't bring this up with staff is that they were simply afraid. People didn't know how deep the rabbit hole went and thus chose to tread with caution.

In regards to some of the forum bans. Please take into account that some of the comments were made by people who are simply passionate about this project. They felt unjustly treated (timers given to the opposition and so on) and felt powerless to do anything about it and thus started to vent some of their frustrations in an unproductive maner.

There have been some very good people banned like Naethyn and Aalpha/Bbeta, and I am very happy to read that you guys will be looking into things.

Again. Thank you very much for your time and thank you very much for letting us all know whats going on.

<3

[Nexii]

Seems that I have some minor story retconning to do. Redemption arc might be a thing though I've kinda moved on.

[aaezil]

Soo basically people made up a bunch of fake allegations and only 1 was true? What a bunch of scumbags whoever did that.

[Legday]

Originally Posted by Rogean [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Regarding any past disciplinary actions, this event does not change the reasons or outcome of those decisions. I don't want to see an influx of ban appeals for people who were legitimately disciplined for breaking rules. With that said, some of the bans specific to forum rule violations, or violations relating to staff bashing in the past, may have resulted in harsher punishments for first offense than intended. We will evaluate those situations on a case by case basis. But don't get me wrong - If you are toxic to my staff, I personally believe you don't have a place here. That includes passive aggressive public comments as well (I happen to think those are worse)

Thanks Rogean for the response and props for this bit in particular.

[Rang]

King in the north!

[Triangle]

First comment re this issue, although I have been following it. First, just commenting that I think this was generally well handled, and thank you to Rogean and Nilbog.

However, with the more serious allegations having been shown to be false (and, indeed, defamatory - the person who made this shit up, if known, should be perma-banned), the punishment is too harsh.

Not that my opinion has any weight, but I would suggest there be no demotion. Instead, there should be a second person, or third, if two good people can be found, with equal authority. This will take some of the pressure off Sirken and will make it less likely that any one of those three will abuse his or her authority.

I haven't raided in awhile, but I am aware that there are player made agreements that GMs are occasionally required to enforce. Yet, I do not know if the below suggested rules are already in place, so ignore them if they are.

There should be a tiered system of punishment when a GM has to be involved:

1) increasing levels of punishment for violations of the player made agreement;

2) increasing levels of punishment for petitions of conduct that was not in violation of the player made agreement and the petitioner knew or reasonably should have known that the conduct was not in violation of the agreement; and

3) increasing levels of punishment for threats to petition conduct that was not in violation of the player made agreement and the threat maker knew or reasonably should have known that the conduct was not in violation of the agreement (this is important - scaring guilds into conceding when they did nothing wrong should be punished, thereby making it less likely such threats will occur).

Ideally, with those rules in place, the GMs will have to deal with far less petitions and the petition system, at least for raid conduct, will be used cautiously.

[loramin]

Thank you Rogean for the update. I'm sure I can speak for the server and say that everyone appreciates your transparency and willingness to communicate with us (despite having no obligation to do so).

Originally Posted by Rogean [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Personally, I'm quite pissed off that I have to find out things like this from a post on an external website. As if nobody actually thought to themself, hmm I think it would be a good idea for Rogean or Nilbog to take a look at these screenshots.

With all due respect, I think you should be pissed at them for making up false charges, not posting information elsewhere.

Sirken was the head GM. Just as a general rule, making no comment about Project 1999 whatsoever, when something affects someone so high on the "org chart" in any organization, I don't think a reasonable person would trust official channels.


P.S. Did you just get that new avatar? I feel like you had the old Peter Griffin one forever.