MY PERSONAL ISSUES WITH THE MODERATORS AND THE "IS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO" RULE

View previous topic View next topic Go down

MY PERSONAL ISSUES WITH THE MODERATORS AND THE "IS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO" RULE

Post by Deimi on Sun Mar 29, 2015 8:14 am

Before I begin, I would like to clarify that this thread is as exactly as it states in the topic. This is my personal account of what has been happening to me with the moderators and my personal distaste for the "Is, but not limited to" rule. This is not me Inciting the players against the staff or raging about people or the game. This is just me putting down what has been happening, what has happened and the details involved with what's been going on with me and why I do some of things I do.

I would also like to state that I have read the rules listed in both the game and here in the forums found at (--FORUM RULES-- Read before posting) In both lists of rules, neither state that anyone is not permitted to talk about the moderators, staff or any incidents that have happened in the game here in the forums. I also read the rules of the "WoB Staff Feedback" According to the thread this topic I'm going to be talking about is not appropriate for the thread and the rules stated there are only applicable to THAT threasd. This is not a baseless rant trying to get attention nor am I just spouting hate for WoB. I LOVE this game. This game has been a great experiance for me at one time. I meet lots of cool people here and I had a blast in my time here. Despite my current frustrations with some of the issues that I'm going to be addressing here, I wouldn't trade any of my time spent playing and talking with such great people for anything.

Now, with that out of the way, what I will be posting here is my current discussion with LSM about my personal experiances with a few of his moderators, the way they handled cases with me in the past, and my personal distaste with the "is, but not limited to" rule.

If you already know my infamous feeding frenzy a while back and what caused it, you can skip ahead to the current discussion with LSM  and I regarding to a few of his moderators, the way they handle their business and the "Is, but not limited to rule". The screenshot links are at the bottom of this post in sequential order with all the links pertaining to each one listed under them. If not, I'll go ahead and start with what began this whole fiasco.

A while back I was participating in an invasion of SS with the rest of us Hollows, back when I was still Espada 8. During this raid Sabo had already killed me 3 times in the span of maybe 15-20 minutes. During this time he was maybe 20 levels ahead of me and I was fighting him the way most players fight each other: Sitting still and trade blows until one of us dies. Having lost my last 3 with Sabo I knew I had to change my approach in fighting him. Anyone who knows me when I was still Deimi would know I have a reputation of fighting in smart ways, especially when it came to players who were stronger than me. So change my strategy I did. After careful review of the rules and changing my move-set, I set out and got caught by Sabo once more. In this fight I took advantage of my higher heal rate (Having my healing item and Espada seat item as well as my Ress heal) and set to work. Knowing that I couldn't just stay still and trade blows with him, I knew that he doesnt use any moves that has the width of 5, so I exploited this weakness. I would move to his diagonal blind spot and hit him from there knowing he couldn't hit back. He would have to come to me. When he moved forward I would move away 2-3 times (Depending if I got back in his blind spot to hit him again or not), when I ran out of turns to move away, I would hit him with my hardest hitting move I could dish out and then keep moving. By using this method I was able to keep dishing decent damage against him while recovering more of my HP to keep myself in the fight. This fight would continue until what looked like both of us were out of pools and my movement cost hit 950. It was at that moment when I did my last move that we both stopped moving that were were both out of each other's range. It was my hope that he had one more move forward in him when I saw his Bankai ran out, as well as mine. By this time we were at turn 3 of the move away and the must hit opponent counter. This stalemate continued for 4 turns, forcing both of us into BHing each other. It was right then  that Sabo had enough juice to close the distance and finish me of with one final blow.  

During this entire fight, other than at the end when we both were forced into BHing each other, we had a clean fight. No rules were broken.

This being quite possibly my most successful fight against Sabo to date, dealing the most damage I have ever done to him and lasting as long as I did, I was feeling pretty big of myself. So I did what any player does when they feel they did a good job against an otherwise formidable foe. I gloated a bit. Unfortunately this was very short lived for in just a few short minutes I was banned. I had no idea why until the next day when my ban was done that I found out that Mavis (At the time Satsuki) had banned me for BHing Sabo. Finding this out I sent out my side of the story as well as finding out that despite both of us forced into BHing each other, Sabo was not punished.

That concludes with my prequal to what will pertain to my current discussion with LSM. So when bring up my being banned for BHing with the "Is, but not limited to rule", remember that this is the fight we're refering to. The screenshots involved with my arguements with the moderators will be involved in my discussion with LSM so dont worry, you'll see the comments and information involved with my ban in the Sabo fight.
===================================================
The following links are screenshots of our discussion and have a lot of screenshots of my talking to moderators pertaining to my 1st ban under the "Is, but not limited to" rule and what helped make me the rather unpleasant player I am now. They are in sequential order as well as the links mentioned in each comment. Word of advice: Go to the bathroom, get something to drink or something to nibble on because there's quite a bit to read.

======================================
"Inciting the users against the staff"
http://prntscr.com/6mq82j

"Continuation"
http://prntscr.com/6mq83v
~http://prntscr.com/6jdwwv

"Really now?"
http://prntscr.com/6mq86f
~http://prntscr.com/6jhyw9
~http://prntscr.com/6ji1l0
~http://prntscr.com/6ji188
~prntscr.com/6ji2uj
~http://prntscr.com/6ji2yq
~http://prntscr.com/6ji34u
~http://prntscr.com/6ji3c9
~http://prntscr.com/6ji3dw
~http://prntscr.com/6ji3ku

"It was not undone"
http://prntscr.com/6mq8a3

"You didn't answer the question" Pt.1
http://prntscr.com/6mq8gs
"You didn't answer the question" Pt.2
http://prntscr.com/6mq2zd

"Your recount doesn't match your moderators" Pt.1
http://prntscr.com/6mq6m2
"Your recount doesn't match your moderators" Pt.2
http://prntscr.com/6mq8oy
"Your recount doesn't match your moderators" Pt.3
http://prntscr.com/6mq6n3
~http://prntscr.com/6mol6v
~http://prntscr.com/6molv3
~http://prntscr.com/6moqwy
~http://prntscr.com/6momtj
~http://prntscr.com/6mooip
~http://prntscr.com/6mom4r
"Your recount doesn't match your moderators" Pt.4
http://prntscr.com/6mq6oe

=================================================

To say again: I am not doing this to Incite users against the staff nor am I doing this to rage against the game. I love this game and the people who play it. If nothing else this is just me, sharing my experiances with whoever it may interest. The same as if I were to send it in a PM to people but with less work and everything already written in one place for whoever wants to know what's happing with me, why it's happening and the details behind it so that I dont have to constantly tell people in forums I cant talk about it and get banned for saying the rule that states why I cant talk about it.
If you have any comments, opinions or critisism feel free to post what you think. I dont really use the forums often so I may pop in every so often to post a comment. In the meantime, I'll keep this thread posted with the most recent responses me and LSM have.
Thank you for taking the time to read this and I hope to be playing with you wonderful people like I used to soon.


Last edited by Hitori on Sun Mar 29, 2015 4:24 pm; edited 5 times in total

Deimi
Human
Human

Posts : 12
Join date : 2013-05-06

Character sheet
Name:
Title:
Race:

Back to top Go down

Re: MY PERSONAL ISSUES WITH THE MODERATORS AND THE "IS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO" RULE

Post by Lsmjudoka on Sun Mar 29, 2015 5:19 pm

Since I have been the one replying to a lot of these I'll put a statement here. As Lilas is openly discussing her past, I'm inferring that she has no problems with the details of her record being posted here. If this is not the case, let me know and I will remove any such parts from my post.

The initial incident in question that this all seems to have stemmed out of is from September of 2014. Lilas was indeed banned for battle holding, for two parts: 1) Repeated moving to drag out the battle, 2) Her social post indicating she had the intent to stall out the battle: http://prntscr.com/4mfadk

Up until a couple weeks before the incident, the rules had included this section:
http://prntscr.com/6mwa2x

Due to a mishap with an update, that section had been accidentally removed from the rules. Since it was accidental and not on purpose, the moderators had not been informed of the change in rules. Thus Satsuki/Mavis made her decision based on her working knowledge of the rules which included the "intentionally prolonging a battle" which Lilas strongly implied she was doing, combined with the observed actions of pushing the limits of moving away multiple times between attacks, which by itself is not taken to be prolonging a battle without some other type of evidence of intent.

Due to previous warnings on record, Lilas received a ban for the battle holding, which she appealed. When the ban appeal came to my attention, I reviewed it and initially reached the same conclusion as Satsuki, but I double-checked the rules because I remember the recent mishap with them and discovered that part wasn't there. Since technically the rules did not specifically outline that type of behavior as banned, I removed the ban.

As a side note involving battle holding rules, I've discussed them somewhat in social before but they are a two-edged sword. Too strict, and they choke down on legitimate strategies, too loose and people dance around for hours in battle and it becomes a headache to try and even fight. The real solution to the issue is to change the design of the battles so that battle holding does not provide any type of advantage, and actually provides a disadvantage, but this requires the large-scale changes to the system that I can't do yet. In the meantime we're constantly working on revising the rules to try and more specifically state what people can and cannot do, but it's a delicate task.
avatar
Lsmjudoka
Administrator
Administrator

Posts : 465
Join date : 2010-01-22

Back to top Go down

Re: MY PERSONAL ISSUES WITH THE MODERATORS AND THE "IS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO" RULE

Post by orosan on Sun Mar 29, 2015 5:19 pm

So i'll add in a few inputs of this. don't take it too much to heart if you do not like what i say, what i say also does not say anything else about the rest of my co-workers ,this is strictly only from me.

-you seem to be holding a really unhealthy long grudge about this incident, since the matter has been solved and the ban was removed from your records and cleaned up, i don't see why continuing this is needed, you are really just upset about how it was handled it seems, must i remind you sometimes the way things handled cannot always be perfect and mistakes can be made we do try our best to not make mistakes.

-you have some point, we should definitely ASK first before assuming the worst of someone, i do personally encourage giving ppl the benefit of the doubt first and look more into the matter before just hastily banning someone. but if there is a very very big proof someone is INDEED breaking a rule, a very important rule too then this kind of stuff has to be handled quickly, there is no need to look further deep into it when it clearly shows a broken rule, it depends as well on certain things/factors.

- i think you are also upset is why you are the ONLY one who received the punishment when the other person you were also fighting did not get anything, this may seem like you are being treated unfairly and i hope you understand as a staff member i do not believe in judging someone and being biased to one side at all, i do not condone this type of behaviour nor do i support it, if sabo was not punished then it seems because he did not intend to prolong the battle at all while you did, and also admitted to it as well hence why actions were taken against you alone.
avatar
orosan
WoB Moderator
WoB Moderator

Posts : 436
Join date : 2011-09-18
Age : 67
Location : Somewhere in time~

Character sheet
Name: Ωρωσαν
Title: Κωωκυ
Race: Fullbring

Back to top Go down

Re: MY PERSONAL ISSUES WITH THE MODERATORS AND THE "IS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO" RULE

Post by Deimi on Sun Mar 29, 2015 8:10 pm

In response to Oro's post.
The act of removing my Ban from the record was not the only issue I had with this incident, it was the actions of the staff/mod community that I had to deal with that has me upset with this. the conversations I was having between Satsuki, Haru and LSM were all in the span of the same half hour.

You had Mavis/Satsuki say that the rule I broke was the rule that was not there after which she refused to return my PM when I pressed the issue.

You had Haru who I gave the details of the fight used the comment I made as the admission of guilt. When shown that the rules no longer had this, he changed the reason to my going over 6 turns rule. I had already told him what happened in the fight so he already knows the details from my first message to him. In the rules posted at the time, and you can see it for yourself above, even with the "Purposefully" rule absent, your Head Moderator states that it doesn't matter if it was "Intentional or not" being unable to attack forcing you into the 6+ must attack rule is still breaking the rule. With my support ticket submitted and answered by LSM regard that matter, he stated that what Haru stated was in fact false, this does not constitute as BHing when you're using the wait feature, which was also not put in the "Not attacking rules". So on top of my comment being an interpreted as an admission of guilt that the rules at the time didn't have, LSM saying that using the wait feature past the 6 turn of the "Not attacking" rule being unapplicable to this situation, your Head moderator resorts to the magic rule that fixes everything. "Is, but not limited to". Again, even after pointing out the the rule was not present that both reasons used against me were not applicable to the rules set in place at the time, he has to use the "Is, but not limited to" rule just to say that it doesn't matter if it's in the rules or not. As long as we FELT like you were BHing, that's all the justification we need.

And now we move to my issue with how LSM handled the matter. In his last PM he stated that I was given a warning about BHing 2 months before this incident. I've only had 1 moderator give me an unofficial warning. The moderator in question was in fact the person I was fighting and it was after my fight with said moderator that he gave me the unofficial warning. The rules that you had in place in regards to your moderators issueing Unofficial warnings made it clear that if your moderator was directly involved with the fight, then he/she was not allowed to issue any warning, punishment relating to the fight becuase of their involvement. To do so would mean that the moderator would have an unfair bias over the matter because he was an involved party so it has to be issued by a moderator that was spectating the fight. No unofficial warning came from any other moderator before or after that incident. There were tips and advice that were given but none were in the Unofficial/Official capacity. Secondly, he even stated that I was CLOSE to breaking the rule and that was grounds for the unofficial warning. It doesn't matter if I had broken the rules, as Haru also pointed out, as long as I was CLOSE to breaking the rules, this is grounds for punishment.

As LSM stated for that incident as well, the rules were currently being reworked, so the rule that he had FORGOTTEN to put in had been forgotten for 2 months. This was not a matter of weeks, this was a matter of months. Plenty of time to fix this omittion considering I was given an unauthorized unofficial warning that I ASSUME were given no details pertaining to the incident other than "I gave this person this because they were close to breaking the rules." with no details of the matter. That's all I ever saw in your Staff social, every moderator can attest to this.

Now with the Sabo case. With both of his moderators shown and proven that they had no actual rules in place to justify their punishment made to me, and LSM disproving that their using the 6+ not attack rule was not applicable to the matter, they had to use their "Is, but not limited to" rule. When addressing this issue with LSM, he said that the rule they were trying to use was forgotten to be put in place. Which I have already addressed the absence of this rule with the Head Moderator and LSM admitted that this rule has not been on there for "several weeks". Your moderators have had several weeks to take a look at the rules to see what has changed and what is still there, and 2 of them made it clear that they both missed this. This is a failure to educate your staff on the specifics on what has changed in the rules and left them to make their own assumptions.

"The rules have only been in a state where it is not indicated to be disallowed behavior for a matter of weeks" So what this statement says is that the way that the rules were at the time, even with rules removed or changed, what was not allowed before is not allowed now... So paraphrasing it would mean "It doesn't say it's ok or not now but becuase it wasn't ok before then it's not ok now. It doens't HAVE to be there for the rule to still be in effect." Soon after which you put in the rule that your moderators needed to justify their ban against me. From me, the players perspective, this looks like the staff are making things up to cover for their moderators mistake. The first indicator being you putting in the rule that they needed to justify their ban, secondly the fact that you HAD to put it in there becuase of your moderators failure to educate themselves of the rules they're there to enforce when they have full access to it at all times with just a single click, and thirdly was your erasing the record of my ban. That action by itself can be seen as 2 things. The first is that, yes, the ban should not have happened, why have that in their record if it really was a hiccup on the moderators part. But the second way, I see this as well as the first way, is that you are erasing any evidence of your moderator doing something they shouldn't have to begin with. So yes, I was punished for educating myself with the rules and yes, I got punished for a rule that was removed until you found that it needed to come back. However, removing the record of my ban is not an acceptable answer. The fact that it was still done has not been remedied. I still lost time, I still had 2 moderators give 3 different reasons why I was banned, to which was solidly ended with their using the "Is, but not limited to" rule and now I have the creator of the game saying that just becuase a rule wasn't in the rules, doesn't mean that you can break that removed rule and erases the evidence of the ban happening with my still having been banned and nothing fixed about it.

Now brings me to my current delema. Becuase you made it clear that you can break the rules when you FORGET to put them on there and it's still a punishable offense to break rules not on the rule board, and those 2 moderators showing that it doesn't matter if you were wrongfully punished as long as you can use the "Is, but not limited to" rule to fall back to, now lets look at something more recent that in my opinion is just begging to do this whole incident all over again.

Take a look at the rules posted now. It was updated a few weeks ago (Same as last time). There has been plenty of time for everyone to read the rules, understand what is and not allowed, and plenty of time to put in any rules that were "Forgotten". So anyone who looks at this can know that what they can and cannot do. There have been adjustments to the rules to address how I fought last time and put a limit to how many times you can move 3 times and not attack 6 times, kudos to you. Now with the rules that are currently in place, take note that the "Purposefully BHing" rule is not present (Just like last time) I already pointed out to you (You can see in my responses to LSM) that this rule was not there. What's to stop your moderators from witnessing a fight, see that both players fought a clean fight, but find one comment that if interpreted in a certain way could mean "I know I was fighting how the rules say I can fight, but I was really BHing you without breaking the rules". If your moderators do what they did with me, they would have to invoke the "Is, but limited to" rule again. It has already shown with my case that it doesn't matter if you fight the way the rules say you can fight, if the moderators FELT like you were BHing EVEN AFTER WATCHING AND SAYING THAT YOU WEREN'T, then that's all the reason they need to punish you and let the "Is, but not limited to" rule be you automatic fallback plan to cover for your bad reasons for banning people.

In your response to "It was not undone" you stated "If I tell you 'purposely BHing someone wouldn't be banned because it's within the rules' you will most likely take that as a license to go BH and annoy users., and then when they complain, say in social "I'm just following the rules."

THIS VERY STATEMENT YOU MADE IS CONTRADICTING THE REASON OF HAVING RULES TO BEGIN WITH!

If it states in the rules that a certain action is not BHing, THEN ITS NOT BHING. You shouldn't be banned "Because it's in the rules" because, guess what?, YOU'RE FOLLOWING THE RULES. Of course there are some things people will do that will annoy you, but that's what makes the game so much fun. There are attacks that if you're not prepared to fight back against, then that will annoy you. If you're using your release, they're not and they refuse to sit still all the while chasing after him without turning off your release: This is also annoying. But this is not "Purposefully draining their pools". This is that person clearly not looking ahead of the side effects of not turning off his release, because all he has to do is pool out so he can file a report saying "This person kept running away until I ran out of pools. Ban him for purposefully 'Forcing me' to keep my release on until I ran out of pools.

The last half of your response to "It wasn't undone" states "On the other hand if I say 'purposely battle holding someone would be against the rules if we have text evidence to back it up' then you'll complain about numerous situations where this has happened and hasn't been banned. "

This statement is just talking about semantics. You say what happens if we have proof that you were BHing, then cool you have proof. But what happens in those cases where the player has proof that they were wrongfully punished? In my case I have shown and used your own words to show that what your moderators have been doing have been using rules that do not exist and when PROVEN that they had no reason to ban me, used the "Is, but not limited to" rule to purposefully avoid saying "You're right. What we did was wrong" and instead say "Well, if the first 2 reasons for banning you were wrong, then lets use the "Is, but not limited to" rule. We can use this so that we can say even if we said you're following the rules, you were breaking the rules.

Bottom line. The rules tell you what is or isn't allowed. The existance of the "is, but not limited to" rule only serves the purpose of making the rules that are already written completely irrelivant, as was shown in my case. The fact that you only ENCOURAGED this behaviour was when you said that just because I forgot to put it in the rules, it doesn't mean you can do it. If it's not in the rules, THEN IT DOES MEAN WE CAN DO IT. THAT'S WHAT THE RULES ARE FOR. LOOK AT THE RULES. IT'S ENTIRELY MADE UP OF THINGS YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DO. There's nothing in the rules that say what you CAN do, only what you CANT do.

If the rules are going to be consistantly updated to cover situations that you feel need to be addressed, then do that. There's no purpose in having the "Is, but not limited to" rule if that is the case. If there was an incident and there were no rules in place for it, update the rules so that it covers it. You've already updated the rules that addressed how I used to fight. I know people used to groan about that all the time, but it was always allowed with the rules that you actually written down. The existance of the "Is, but not limited to" rule makes any rules of what you're not allowed to do lose any reason of being there. Because the power of the "Is, but not limited to" rule, as already shown, is above whatever rules are already written.


Last edited by Deimi on Sun Mar 29, 2015 8:11 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Needed spacing.)

Deimi
Human
Human

Posts : 12
Join date : 2013-05-06

Character sheet
Name:
Title:
Race:

Back to top Go down

Re: MY PERSONAL ISSUES WITH THE MODERATORS AND THE "IS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO" RULE

Post by Manchu on Tue Mar 31, 2015 1:21 am

Excited i am the first player to review this and i actually read all this went over the screenshots and my eyes hurt -_- but can we change the ban for Pvp another player? how about you guys just disable there pvp for a few hours instead of banning them. doesn't that sound kinda more calm and relax. Be like Martin Luther king. Don't aim to be Hitler ^_0 Also this happen wayy before i cam onto this game. i was laughing that you got banned Again for talking in the chat. i remember when you was talking in the chat. you never told us why you was mad. so you kept it a secret. now i finally now. Also Lsm Help a Brother out man. check my support ticket. i am stuck with a weak aura . i know you on vocation and all.. but you know money is serious and i am not that rich that 30$ bucks is all i had Sad and i hope you come back Lilas. and put all this Behind us and everyone Forgive and Forget and you receive a apology if it makes you feel better. Sometimes i think if a mod is a shinigami. and if a strong Hollow is messing up. i see it as a chance to help my race out and get some of this strong hollows gone. (BUT WAIT) no people i am not saying this happen cause she was a hollow so get your head out of the water xD and Mavis cool she nice mean you should get to know her. and Love Ya guys and girl Peace

(Just a Loser looking at the whole thing don't mind me)
avatar
Manchu
Human
Human

Posts : 30
Join date : 2014-12-26

Back to top Go down

Re: MY PERSONAL ISSUES WITH THE MODERATORS AND THE "IS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO" RULE

Post by Deimi on Tue Mar 31, 2015 4:07 am


Manchu brings up another possible solution that could very well fit nicely with the case (with which I would have prefered to being full on booted from the game from the "MISUNDERSTANDING"). You already have a system where if someone is causing trouble in social to ban them from using social. Why not have a ban that prohibits someone from fighting? Make the punishment actually fit the crime.

If someones being unpleasant in social then yes, they have no business talking in social and ban them from it. If someones BHing in a fight, then ban them from fighting. This can also be applicable to people who's harassing people through PM's: Ban them from sending messages. Make the punishment actually fit the crime. Dont just have a partial ban for talking but full on kicked out of the game until further notice for BHing or other reasons. Reserve that for people who are actually going out of their way to break the rules every day/other day.

As LSM said in my case. There was a 2 month gap since the last time anyone had sent anything about me BHing (Otherwise I would have gotten another warning). For 2 months I kept my act straight in fights. This is not a player BHing just for the heck of it, this is a hiccup from trying to fight in accordance to the rules. Any of your moderators who saw what you saw should have at least seen the time stamp from the last time I was BHing and thought this. (Even if I was following the rules with the absence of the "Intentional stalling" rule in the Sabo/Mavis incident)

I still believe that the "is, but not limited to" rule should be removed but even just implementing a PvP ban for breaking rules in regards to BHing would in my opinion be a step closer to helping this problem.

In regards to how the PvP ban could be used, there are several ways of going about this.
1) You could prohibit ANY PvP with this player
*Much like with the social ban, it removes the player from the thing that they're having issues with the rules while still allowing them to play the game in other ways*
2) You can prohibit that player from INITIATING PvP
*This could be used for those players who actually chase down strong opponents to stall them*
3) You can prohibit PvP INVOLVING THE PLAYER AND A SPECIFIC PLAYER.
*This would probably be more pertaining to issues between 2 players. If there has been a history of the same player filing reports for BHing against the same player over and over again, why not separate the two at least for a certain amount of time?*

Deimi
Human
Human

Posts : 12
Join date : 2013-05-06

Character sheet
Name:
Title:
Race:

Back to top Go down

Re: MY PERSONAL ISSUES WITH THE MODERATORS AND THE "IS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO" RULE

Post by Juuzou_Suzuya on Fri Apr 03, 2015 2:34 am

well, after looking through all of this and what sabo, and everyone else said about this case awhile back, aren't we allowed to fight how we choose? Bhing is one thing if you are just trying to avoid their attacks and waste their pools all together, but that doesnt seem or look like bhing, cause i do that in survival all the time. To be honest we are already penalized for bhing cause of the pool system, but everyone constanly complaning about ow someone fights is like me complaining on how lsm codes.
avatar
Juuzou_Suzuya
Human
Human

Posts : 19
Join date : 2015-03-23
Age : 18

Character sheet
Name: Raion
Title: Man who wields the Chains of fate
Race: Fullbring

Back to top Go down

Re: MY PERSONAL ISSUES WITH THE MODERATORS AND THE "IS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO" RULE

Post by straywolf174 on Fri Apr 03, 2015 2:53 am

Ugh...Strategy is apart of the game. Its not about stayig in one spot throwing out an attack. Move. Use things other than N\A. This is after all PvP. Players will fight differently, have different plans and move sets etc.
Dont complain about a battle because they "Take too long". That just allows you to counter with eqaul thought provoking strategy.

I read through all of this and all i see is staff members conforming to players who complain when their one hit k.o fight style is beaten easily by an intellectual using the other commands or moves.

Its just plain embaressing. Thats my opinion though. In my personal opinion, i also would like to suggest to everyone who enjoys pvp, to try and be more informed on what battle holding is Because obviously...some dont. This causes issues...and annoyance.
avatar
straywolf174
Senior Squad Member
Senior Squad Member

Posts : 475
Join date : 2011-03-06
Age : 19
Location : Eating, Sleeping, or Raving

Character sheet
Name: Shinamori, Sara
Title: Tri-Breed Renegade
Race: Hollow

Back to top Go down

Re: MY PERSONAL ISSUES WITH THE MODERATORS AND THE "IS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO" RULE

Post by Deimi on Sat Apr 04, 2015 10:58 pm

LSM's response to "Your recount doesn't match your moderators"
http://prntscr.com/6pn0wb
http://prntscr.com/6pn0yf
http://prntscr.com/6pn104
http://prntscr.com/6pn118
==============================
In my opinion, it looks like LSM has drastically changed his tone compared to his prior responses (Probably because his words are now for everyone to see)
However, one thing remains the same. He's not fixing the problem that is the "Is, but not limited to rule" and the problems that come from using this as a reason to ban whoever they want.

Here's my response to LSM's reply. I apoligize again for my long responses to LSM's answers, but I have to clarify everything I think and show that I'm looking at each word he and his staff are saying very closely.
http://prntscr.com/6pn19f
http://prntscr.com/6pn1am
~http://prntscr.com/6pmgbf
http://prntscr.com/6pn1bx
==============================
As you can tell from the dates between LSM's response and my own, I had to do some reviewing and think carefully about what to say. I took quite a bit of time choosing my words so that they could reflect that I'm listening to what they say and showing how what they're saying is not matching to what they're doing.

Please feel free to voice any comments, opinions or critisism relating to this conversation. I want people to feel free to share what they think. I'm making it clear that I want the "Is, but not limited to" Rule gone, what do you think?
I'll put in any more responses That LSM and I have regarding this.

Deimi
Human
Human

Posts : 12
Join date : 2013-05-06

Character sheet
Name:
Title:
Race:

Back to top Go down

Re: MY PERSONAL ISSUES WITH THE MODERATORS AND THE "IS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO" RULE

Post by Lazria_nakayami on Sat Apr 04, 2015 11:45 pm

I remember being here for when this all happened, not knowing the exact specifics of course until it was conversed with me but here are my thoughts.

The ban was a bit sketchy and it was unfortunate to have occurred, the rules being a bit abuse-able at times then constricting as LSM has currently stated. I am often on the receiving end of battle-holding and never really went for that route myself due to it being a huge disadvantage not having any regen passives myself.

That being said, I believe situation that unfolded was an unjust ruling, as it was from her recount, her first time trying to prolong the battle to fight Sabo. Her other times being direct typical confrontations. If the ruling of the battle-holding was due to the last set of turns where they were both out of pools, then it was still an unjust ruling. If she was watching the fight from the start (Although she would supposedly have no reason to from Lilas' recount) then the terribly extended battle may have infringed on the Intended set of rules. Although as it has been stated, was already confirmed to have been missing at the time the punishment occurred.

Now that being said, It was an unfortunate event on Lilas' side that it ended up like that. She was exploring her battle strategies and ultimately was punished for it then ended up venting quite profusely about it with those around her for some time. Probably an outrage from her perspective and I can't help but feel for her. But this whole debate over 'this' particular incident has gone for far too long.

What needs to be established is what are we going to do about it in the future? LSM has already stated he has plans to fight battle-holding and make the rules more concrete. Alright, so what is this thread supposed to be about at this point?

The 'corruption' of staff?

The unreliable ever changing rules and rulings?

The fact that every act of Battle-holding isn't caught and punished?

This thread's purpose is dying fast and being nothing more than a recollection of past events. Tragic perhaps, but definitely an event that has been long discussed and debated on.
avatar
Lazria_nakayami
Human
Human

Posts : 48
Join date : 2014-04-03

Back to top Go down

Re: MY PERSONAL ISSUES WITH THE MODERATORS AND THE "IS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO" RULE

Post by ShadowEx24 on Sun Apr 05, 2015 12:08 am

I can't say I know ALL of the details of this since I wasn't present when this occurred, but I do feel like the ruling was not done properly in this case. At least from the information so far. Hearing Sabo's side of this case would really help speed up this process. I don't feel like moving in order to yourself an strategic advantage warrants any banning. There's been several cases during invasions that people have seriously battle-held yet no one watches those fights and nothing (to what I know) is done about them. The focus here is all wrong. The staff needs to focus on the serious battle-holding that occurs yet such minor cases are being pursued.  Needless to say that mistakes happen and the staff are only humans. I can't blame Mavis for such a minor (in my eyes) mess-up. I feel like the staff puts in valuable time and a few mistakes are inevitable. Regardless, I do believe we should move on from this specific topic just like Rize suggested.


Last edited by ShadowEx24 on Sun Apr 05, 2015 12:10 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Grammar error.)

ShadowEx24
Human
Human

Posts : 1
Join date : 2012-08-12

Back to top Go down

Re: MY PERSONAL ISSUES WITH THE MODERATORS AND THE "IS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO" RULE

Post by Deimi on Sun Apr 05, 2015 12:59 am

Lazria_nakayami wrote:What needs to be established is what are we going to do about it in the future? LSM has already stated he has plans to fight battle-holding and make the rules more concrete.
I agree with this. LSM indeed stated that he was going to make the rules more concrete in regards to BHing. However, with my incident with Sabo and Mavis, the rules that were already written and concrete, didn't amount to anything when faced with the overwhelming might of the "Is, but not limited to" rule. They were acting on a rule that didn't exist at the time and when confronted about it changed their reasoning to the one rule that can be applied to any of their judgements. With the existance of the "Is, but not limited to" rule, there's not point in having other rules as was shown in my last response to LSM. All 3 of my bans were made under the "Is, but not limited to" rule, and this has ruffled my feathers quite a bit. So because I was not allowed to talk to anyone about this I made this thread.

Lazria_nakayami wrote:Alright, so what is this thread supposed to be about at this point?
The 'corruption' of staff?
The unreliable ever changing rules and rulings?
The fact that every act of Battle-holding isn't caught and punished?

The thread is as the title of the thread and my first post stated. It is about my personal issues with the moderators and the "Is, but not limited to" rule. Everything that I have said both here and in my discussion with LSM has not changed from this topic. You are right, this is a recollection of my past events, I said this on the very first post. I have also said that this would consist of my discussion with LSM and show how the "Is, but not limited to" rule has and continues to be a repeated use for every punishment that I have and keep going through.
As for the Corruption of staff, I have not suggested this even once. I have been expressing that the existance of the "Is, but not limited to rule" has been given so much power and authority that in each ban that I have been given, they had to change the reason of the ban to fall under the "Is, but not limited to" rule. The existance of this rule has made not just the moderators now, but the staff LSM and Hitori lazy when passing judgements in each of my bans. It has become a safety net so that when all else fails, they can always pull this rule out of their metaphorical hats.
To the "Unreliable changing of the rules and rulings": I have no issues with the rules changing. In fact, I encourage the occasional change of the rules. Like I said in one of my responses to LSM, the rules need to change so that things that the players have issues with can help fix these issues. LSM changing the rules so that it addressed the limitless use of moving 3 times, attacking, then moving again IS A GOOD THING. Putting a cap on how many times you can do that forces people to rethink their strategies and keeps the game interesting and at the same time addresses peoples cries of help regarding people doing this. It's now in black and white that you cannot do this. HOWEVER, that being said, the rulings part of it needs to be changed. As my discussion goes with LSM, there is no communication not just between the players and the staff, but between the moderators with each other and the staff. Each person from Mavis to Haru to LSM just in my BH ban alone has shown that there is no accountability of any kind in regards to what happened in an incident and the details that lead up to it. The two reasons for the BH ban was:
1) Not attacking for 6+ turns (Which in my question to LSM regarding that, he says that as long as you were using the WAIT action, you do not break this rule)
2) Purposefully stalling (Which has also been addressed that because with the rule not being present, even under the authority of the "Is, but not limited to" rule, this was also not applicable to the ban = Why LSM erased any record of my ban from happening)

However, the purpose of the thread remains the same. To express my personal issues with the moderators (Unfortunately it's now including the staff) and my repeated issues regarding the "Is, but not limited to rule.
You're right, this is a recollection of past events and has been long discussed. However, what you have yet to see that these past events are now repeating themselves through the continuous misuse of the "Is, but not limited to" rule and the complete disregard of the rules already in place. As I have already addressed to LSM: The moderator in question did not familiarized herself with the rules when passing her judgement, there is and has not been any actual process to make sure that the judgement fits the crime (Or to confirm that were was in fact any rules broken) and that the existance of the "Is, but not limited to" rule makes the Moderators and the Staff blind to actual rules being broken.


Last edited by Deimi on Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:04 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Typo needed fixed)

Deimi
Human
Human

Posts : 12
Join date : 2013-05-06

Character sheet
Name:
Title:
Race:

Back to top Go down

Re: MY PERSONAL ISSUES WITH THE MODERATORS AND THE "IS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO" RULE

Post by Sveti_Diabhal on Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:48 am

I'm rather reserved about posting on this thread for some reason cause at this point i can step on to many toes.

But that being said. I personally feel that this, issue, has gone on way to long for anyone to not have a concrete solution that can make Lilas happy, mods happy, staff happy, and the players happy. at this point the continuation of the subject itself is just going to dredge and harbor ill feelings.

For Lilas, I feel you may have been a bit abused by the ban hammer, but I feel at this point this subject is becoming unhealthy and potentially has been and may continue being self destructive for you. I know I kinda got involved at one point and since have kind have avoided you. I appologize for that by the way.

For Mods (in General), it's a leadership role of sorts, leadership IS NOT bashing people in the face and saying your wrong, your, fired, get out, or whatever expression you want to use. It's about leading someone to the right path. whether it's by teaching them or conversing with them over an issue or if the talking doesn't work and trends continue THEN action is taken. From personal experiences in life and games, no one understands that KEY element to leadership anymore.

For Admins, ummm yea basically same as mods, but seriously if the rule is absent or needs to be changed thats one thing. To avoid an issue all together is another. a resolution of Comprimise and or a concrete ruling in my opinion should have been reached by now.

For players, hi, how are ya'll....hopefully by the end of this thread we can all have a better understanding of Battle Holding and can teach our peers and or learn from the recent events to keep this kind of situation from happening again.

In Summary. None of this is specificaly aimed at anyone, except the bit to Lilas. The mods (in General) is kind of a generalization because i don't have all the information of how someone goes about their 'job' or 'business' nor do i feel like actually getting to know how y'all do things. However i will say this particular event has gone on a bit long and has been a bit blown out of proportion and in general is not conducive to a fun loving environment.

Sveti_Diabhal
Human
Human

Posts : 7
Join date : 2015-03-09
Age : 29
Location : Texas

Character sheet
Name:
Title:
Race:

Back to top Go down

Re: MY PERSONAL ISSUES WITH THE MODERATORS AND THE "IS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO" RULE

Post by straywolf174 on Sun Apr 05, 2015 2:18 am

Lets see...where to begin.
Well, upon reading through everything, studying everything of use i could put in at an attempt to resolve issues, and then sparraticly being overloaded with thoughts and eventually accidentally typing a crap ton of possible spam...if not unrelated mega rant...i put it in a spoiler, and decided to put my much shortened, logical answer below it, along with links to several suggestions relating to the spoiler, and the topic in general, not so much Deimi's problem, but WoB's problem, as i always have the game's needs at heart.


Spoiler:
Prologue of thoughts:
Well...it seems i have returned to this issue at hand. Whether it is because of wandering or a summoning of greater need, i shall continue to attempt in verbally resolving said crisis which is, in hind sight, both not on my power and not in dirrect force an issue for me. Still, i do beleive this consistant variety of problems having to do with game updates and staff managment a bit...unnerving, when thinking of the game's upcoming future and succsess. I would like to think my words can help, as that is all i can offer at the moment other than real-life money donations and crappy advertisement videos on youtube.

Please understand before i even begin to adress to this, that my statements, variable they may be, and solutions are both opinions of my own veiws and beleifs. This said, do not interpret my text as bashing on any members, rules, staff, etc.

I may be blunt and...lets face it, rude as hell, but i do not purposefully insult people with the goal of offending, it's just my naturally hostile mind-set. So, i humbly ask you to excuse such offensive statements if they do, in fact, anger you or shock you in any way.



------A bit of History-----

The game World of Bleach is and always has been one of the best rated Bleach rpg game's in it's time.
I joined in 2010, shortly after it's kick off, and stayed a total of two years before taking leave for my own personal life crisis.

While on for those two years, i watched Players and staff come and go. Give and take. Ballance and unballance the game in efforts to make it a better, more enjoyable, and challengingly unuiqe enviroment for fans to gather and beat the coded crap out of each other, like all online friends do.

I even scared off possible new players many times because i was apparently "Too violent and mean" in social. How that is possible, i am unsure, but that can be decided for yourself.

Anyway, in closing, the game has reached high's and low's, but has always come out ahead, drawing in more players and making my Home a larger, more interesting place.

Then...it seems people became carried away.
So many pretty updates and petty complaints were thrown out, making staff, again, conform and old players die out from so many uneeded or unwanted changes to their favorite game.

Now, it has become apparent that the overload of updates, newbies, and such things have become very...crammed in, and not very supervised.

Even if Lsm and Hitori were to watch and fix things even more, the stress of doing it alone would ultimatley cause the game to be closed down because, lets not forget, he has other games AND a life.

I fear this could even end the game before petty down falls do, and that could possibly be the worst way in my mind!

To close off this section...

I beleive this constant updating, complaining, and fixing, has caused WoB to generally have too many un-informed, un-fixed, and...sadly...un-tested updates resulting in too many bugs, unsupervised staff and players, and imballances that cause the above problems to become even worse over time. Making the game a wreck, and the staff and members an arguing and-or debating, most likely stressed out, mess of a drama filled...whatever this even turned into!

-----My Personal Thoughts on recent Posts ------

Note: The reason i include all of them up until now is because i want to avoid as much confusion as possible, and include any thoughts and solutions i may have missed or had not added previously.

~ In response to Deimi's first reply to this thread... ~

Upon reading your first few texts again, i went back to the said rules referenced, and read over them once more to see for myself if anything in them may state something of use. This is not out of mistrust, more so out of caution. Afterward, i continued to read...and tried my best to both empathize and think rationally over the first issue mentioned; The ivasion's alleged "battle hold" with Sabo.

Before i comment on what is below that, here is what i have studied and qouted in all the rules available. I was going to pm Lsm in a friendly manner and ask cautious questions, but as i type this in my cell's notepad, i beleive at the moment it is uneeded at the present time.

Short Notice Edit: After scrolling through endless texts of rules and forum guidlines, i noticed Lazaria had an interesting reply.

A majority of this is simply recalling unfair happenings, and i personally agree, despite my veiw of the end result hoping to be a better outcome. Therefore, i will not list replies for all the posts above, unless someone else beleives my veiws on each will help. I will instead, for now, list them all very bluntly.

1. The unjustices done to Player's, meaning more than just Deimi, are unfortunatley, not a rare occurence.

I have repeatedly suggested methods that may help, including in a recent suggestion called "WoB Idiocy: Would you like a side of fries with" blah blah blah.

However, from the responses in links, and in general, it seems that no matter what is done, if staff think it an unimportant enough matter to change things and fix things, or make it easier for themselves and others (Ref. to Testers,) then there is nothing we can do but provide pointless blocks of text. However intelligent or unintelligent it may be.




--------Mind Flip Final Edit--------

I know the attitude of this and the shortly above typed up is very different, but in thinking this, i also have come to the conclusion that we could put in as many of our personal opinions and issues as possible...but if staff do not care...then i, and many others, cannot do anything more than this.

That said, my final problems are listed as follows...

1. Staff do not care.

For the game, perhaps. For the Players who are unfortunatley kicked around by the lack of insight in said issue, information of the game, and over powered Ego...no. It seems they have more pressing matters, though i cannot fathom what, other than more pointless, untested updates and non updated rules, etc. that result in this same bickering to occur.

That said...what is there to do we have players have already done?

We could always work together and avoid misunderstandings but, that can be hard depending on the person you try to work with. Even with that asside, if Players would have to avoid staff's unjust punnishment and force themselves to take completely unfair crap...just to enjoy a game?

Um...no...just...no.
That is not how it should be, and if you understand what i am trying to say without my thoughts combusting themselves so much, thank you for staying with me on this. To translate number one; If staff don't care to act as staff, player's are forced to monitor themselves, stay in hiding, quit, bicker endlessly over what is right and wrong...and destroy what once was a great game.

Over thinking. Maybe, but i always keep WoB's future in mind. So my problem isn't this one subject, but what it shows as a whole.


2. Players have no power.

I understand staff have game powers to fix things and watch over things. If this isn't happening, then there is no point in having such things.
Still, in many suggestions, i have proposed idea's to accomodate (Which i implore you to take time and look over, because i grow tired of mentioning them...). In fact, in one of them, i was suprised to see only one reply. Despite the title, it should have at least had some other input from someone, i assume. However, the one who replied, amusing enough, was a staff who i noticed through haunting WoB and forums durring my ghost years...sadly became power hungry, and ruined to Rp. (In my opinion, not in actual fact; Not meant to talk badly, but if you were to look through the past, i assure you...there is little room to disagree.)

This reply also.did not cover anything relating to player power or anything as far as fixing the game...only the one actual fix free update...is this...a joke?

This clarifies that a small majority staff do not pay attention to player needs, nor' do they agree with eqaul treatment. If this is veiwed as going too far, i can understand why. However speaking more to help understand would lead completely off topic and even into a staff bashing, and i would hate that, as i often try to respect both as little and as much they may or may not do.


3. The game is dying

I will cover this very breifly, as i desprately want to get to my main point without diverting this topic entirely...which i fear i may already subconciously have done.
As i have numerously stated, many things (Incapable members, a variety of unfixed updates, conforming and unfair issues, a variety of misfit complaints or suggestions treated as "unimportant" or ignored entirely, lack of attention twoards game happenings, playability issues, etc.) that may cause the game's unfortunate death, all of them continue to add up without anything being done, in result meaning both number one and two are unintentionally being ignored and deliberatley shut out - in turn, making problems arise, staff annoyed, players upset, and the game a growing storm of issues unsolved.
This...is going to be bad if not fixed, and the suggestions constantly given by me, Deimi, and many others not adhered to could cause this very sad, unfortunate, incomprehensible thing to happen.

Instead of juggling games, my first own suggestion.is to focus on this one, fix things, give it a good staff team, and if it looks much better, or at least better enough to maintain itself for 48 hours, then go out and practice on a new project. This poor, beautiful project - one no other Bleach rpg has come close to acheiving in succsess and enjoyment, is being ignored just like the players.
Its time to go back to the roots, and make it right...but thats enough ranting. I think this could even be considered spam, and i am very sorry if it does. I am just...so upset with all this.

Seeing a game i practicly grew up with and adored for many reasons over such stupid, fixable things.


Le 'sigh...on to the actual reply...


It was messaged to me that my opinion was appreciated in this thread, and so in the spoiler, i over thought things in a failed attempt to provide a good outlook. With that realised, i put it in said spoilers to reply in a more logical, rational term, as we all know i am not good at keeping my grey matter in one place.

My statement concerning this thread has boiled down to this: In great respect and love for WoB, its members, and the majority of staff that may or may not try to help and support the game, i would like to say pointless debates and arguments followed by or as a result of constant ignorance, or simply brushing off the problem at hand, cannot solve the issues implied.


Staff and Players must work as a unit to provide the game enjoyment.

Staff and Players must not misuse their abilities as said unit, treat each other as lesser beings, discuss things differently in different situations in hopes to maintain an image, and generally act in favor to themselves before others.
This will ruin the respect levels for said members, the playability, enjoyability, game co-exsistance, and actually, the game in general.

That is a summed up version of my many thoughts.

Concerning the issue of Deimi's particular problem, i have already said my thoughts on PvP, and the strategy used. If players run out of pools while using strategy than it cannot be battle holding, especially if both used attacks, movements, activity, responses, etc. in general.
Because both ran out of pools, both were forced into a stability until one regenerated. In result, it hit a time limit. So, as far as that, i suggest having no time limit to end this stupid, blown up issue because staff refuse to see and fix this.

If battle holding happens...

* Bans should not be a punnishment. An "opponent- ban" may be acceptable if the option of black listing for PvP could be chosen by a player, similar to social black listing. Even if this could not be implemented, which i implore for it to be, then instead of that, allow a Player to click a button in PvP to trigger a "Turn warning" so after a set "Six turn rule" is triggered in the instance, and a player does not attack, THEN the battle is forfetted (forcefully ended system wise,) by both, and small gains are given just for enterring the battle. If this is too hard for staff as well, then as a final proposition, allow said battle holder to just have a two day pvp restriction, instead of a ban. This way, gains may still be given without a complete restriction of game features.

* If confusion with staff choices occur, or an unfair punnishment be given out, then the punnishment be uplifted by an admin until it is PROVEN that the staff had the right to do such a punnishment. Because despite being staff...they are not and should not be allowed to do things that would in most cases be abhorred in a game. Because this results in...well, threads like this that clearly state Staff favoratism and blind sided punnishment that is, in reality, an unessesary punnishment to begin with, for any player to deal with while trying to play a game.

Those are my two most basic, logical solutions.
For those who wish to delve into the spoiler, be warned it is very long and somewhat confusing because of all the thinking and rethinking put into it, with the effort to provide reasonable resolve.

Please excuse it unless extra thought is required or you are curious, and read it at your own risk.
The links to other suggestions that list both mine, and others i thought were good, are in it at the very bottom as well. (Note: Before posting, and in themiddle of final editing and linking, i thought adding new threads would bespam, so i did not. Still, you should look over other player ideas anyway.i have seen several that could bring the game to life and tons of activity, if not new enjoyment.)

This concludes my seccond response by unpopular demmand. Thank you for reading.

- Straywolf174

Final edit: After having just finnished, i looked once more and found my nomming friend Sveti in this as well. To sum up very quickly, my general agreement with his response is absolute, despite the few, rare disagreements in perhaps one or two regards.
Thanks sveti, for posting right after i finnish XD
avatar
straywolf174
Senior Squad Member
Senior Squad Member

Posts : 475
Join date : 2011-03-06
Age : 19
Location : Eating, Sleeping, or Raving

Character sheet
Name: Shinamori, Sara
Title: Tri-Breed Renegade
Race: Hollow

Back to top Go down

Re: MY PERSONAL ISSUES WITH THE MODERATORS AND THE "IS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO" RULE

Post by Juuzou_Suzuya on Sun Apr 05, 2015 3:55 am

and if lilas was getting banned for "avoiding the inevitable" then i should be banned too techinically. everytime i go to do something and i get attacked i stand there and dont attack. ask anyone in rank6 Trollface
avatar
Juuzou_Suzuya
Human
Human

Posts : 19
Join date : 2015-03-23
Age : 18

Character sheet
Name: Raion
Title: Man who wields the Chains of fate
Race: Fullbring

Back to top Go down

Re: MY PERSONAL ISSUES WITH THE MODERATORS AND THE "IS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO" RULE

Post by Deimi on Sat Apr 11, 2015 1:43 am

This is my final support request and perhaps my last post here. It's become clear that this thread changes nothing. Support is no better... I'm done

This is LSM's only response to everything. Even if he answered nothing.
http://prntscr.com/6s9umi

My last support post.
http://prntscr.com/6s9sva

I'm sorry for putting you all through my tantrums.

Deimi
Human
Human

Posts : 12
Join date : 2013-05-06

Character sheet
Name:
Title:
Race:

Back to top Go down

Re: MY PERSONAL ISSUES WITH THE MODERATORS AND THE "IS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO" RULE

Post by straywolf174 on Sat Apr 11, 2015 3:39 am

This...must be taken under a different course.

I for one aplreciated the dedication you took to challenge the game, in order to provide a more fair outlook (Even with alleged tantrums,) so...i am truly upset that Staff did nothing to act other than giving robotic monotones.
avatar
straywolf174
Senior Squad Member
Senior Squad Member

Posts : 475
Join date : 2011-03-06
Age : 19
Location : Eating, Sleeping, or Raving

Character sheet
Name: Shinamori, Sara
Title: Tri-Breed Renegade
Race: Hollow

Back to top Go down

Re: MY PERSONAL ISSUES WITH THE MODERATORS AND THE "IS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO" RULE

Post by Deimi on Fri May 15, 2015 5:09 pm

So great news. The "Is, but not limited to" rule has finally been removed. You guys should be seeing more of me now that I can take to the battlefield once more. Thank you all for your help and consideration during probably my darkest time on WoB. See you guys later ^_^/

Deimi
Human
Human

Posts : 12
Join date : 2013-05-06

Character sheet
Name:
Title:
Race:

Back to top Go down

Re: MY PERSONAL ISSUES WITH THE MODERATORS AND THE "IS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO" RULE

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum