Um, I was adding precision and accuracy to your comparison, you over-simplified the judiciary system incorrectly. Where's the split of hairs if I may ask?
I didn't say anything of the sort, please reread all my posts and indicate where I stated exactly what you're assuming.
Wrong, I had warned/banned that person many times before. I can ban someone without warning if the person banned has already been warned for that particular infraction in the past.
That's splitting hairs. You are now going into personal examples to make a point when I was speaking in general. On some circumstances, what I say is wrong, but in the majority, I stand by my point.
Personal? Generally personal experiences gathered are the personal experienced used as examples to derive a point, are you saying I can't use personal examples to prove a point? For some reason you brought up real life legal system... when we were ( or at least I was ) discussing video game policy and justifications to administer punishment. Certainly on official servers, with all their rules and regulations, for the most part, people don't get warned before they are punished, instead its the exact opposite.
So to make a long story short.
I have the Evidence, You did the Crime, You do the time. Seems fair enough ;o
This is contradicting. You can use personal experiences to gather a point, but there it's subjective and based on your memory, since the banned user isn't here to tell me the story as well (from a different) perspective, I cannot fully acknowledge your case, especially since it's circumstantial and I was speaking in general (meaning that despite certain occurrences that you or anyone else has experienced that branch off from what my main argument).
The legal system was introduced when you stated this: you do the crime, you do the time. A general saying used for criminals and was soon invoked a lot on Television shows and films. As cunning as this may sound, it's lacking and should be not be used as a "motto" or sentence to conclude a point, no matter how witty you think it sounds.
In actuality, your conclusive sentence, once again partial and indefinite should ring more: "I have the evidence that proves you did the crime, however there are possibilities in which I may have overlooked or ignored, so you may present your case. Though, anything said that isn't the truth without substantial evidence will cause you to lose more and more credibility." Mind you, this doesn't include those who truly have done the crime or their reasoning is purely silly/ fully their fault, but being withheld to even speak or voice their opinion on the matter is injust for everyone, including the truly condemned.
Yeah, not as sly as your wording, but that was what I was getting at.
However, you have totally deviated from my original post.
Okay it would seem we are discussing my screenshots so Whoever the person is that got banned, has the full right to request any additional information regarding their ban on the forums, not in-game. Going on other in-game accounts to cause problems, as stated in my written rules ( at the time ) would be ban evasion, and this person was full aware of all the rules as I personally made sure they read through each and every rule. In other words, I had to babysit those two particular players and the majority of their guild.
You also assume that I "overlook" things, I do not. You are clinging onto the assumption that my administration of punishment toward players who violate the rules, is possibly wrong... Which not only is a diluted way of thinking, but quite frankly an incorrect one. I take GREAT care into who I punish and what I punish them for. So don't assume that I go willy nilly punishing whoever, for the smallest thing.
The people punished in those screenshots had violated the rules countless times and all had received continuous warnings and not to mention punishments and they still did not get through their heads. Which again, them understanding basic rules, is of no consequence to me. However their violation of the rules is of consequence to them.
All rules that I advocate are rules that are written, I would not ever punish someone for rules that do not exist.
Rule 14. Punishment Evasion
If you have an account banned due to rule violation then all other accounts owned of the same category whether they are tagged as banned or not, are considered off limits until the original ban sentence has completed. This is including but not limited too the muting and jailing of characters as well as iRC equivalents.
Logging on other accounts to dodge these sentences will be considered evasion and as such be subject to increased sentence periods with an addition to all other account(s) involved in the evasion. Setting up chats in order to speak publicly while muted can also be considered evasion.
Any violation of the rules above can and may lead to the following consequences without warning:
a) The removal of your post(s), character(s) or item(s).
b) The muting and or jailing of your character(s).
c) The temporary suspension of your account(s).
d) The permanent suspension of your account(s).
e) The permanent suspension of all things AeriaRO.
Amongst other things, you seem to be an anti-authoritative figurehead, an anarchist perhaps... so feel free to correct me if I am wrong. So just incase, sorry to say, but the world does not work that way. I fail to see your argument, you are defending those who break the rules even though you do not know the full story, I simply posted those to show how insulting people can be to others they do not even know. I did not post them to justify or unjustify my decisions or their actions, Do I make sense here?
Like I said, anyone who is banned can go to the forums and post a formal protest in the appropriate section, as long as it falls within the confines of the rules. I will then, submit the evidence of their infraction and they will get a chance to discuss their situation, however, the chances of them being innocent are slim to none, at most we can only modify the punishments in which they received.
The only people that may have a banned lifted, are the people who possibly did not know English well enough and somehow got caught as a bot due to them acting exactly or near exact as one.
So in ending, sir, I am not asking for your approval of my bans, thanks~
PS: I have not deviated from your "original post" merely the conversation has become more complex than your initial 2 sentences. So I do not understand why you are trying to make it seem like I am at fault.
Edit: I just read your post on this page, missed it... But I'm to lazy to modify my post accordingly ;p I will say, it takes two to tango and whether or not you think its illogical, you contributed to that "illogic"
