When you're banned, you're gone. Kaput. Outta here. Forever. Even if we don't remember exactly why or what led up to the banning, that means something--that means you couldn't be reasonable enough to follow the rules. Even if you or others come back saying 'they've learned their lesson', by the time it gets to the point of banning, they should've learned their lesson. It's not like we ban people left and right around here willy-nilly. That's what suspensions/infractions/warnings are for.
I completely agree. From my understanding of how the system works, you have to actively TRY to get yourself banned. If that's the case, they were probably done with their stay here anyway, and want to act out and get banned so everyone knows they're leaving. Basically, attention-seeking.
The very idea of banning a person is to ensure that they don't come back to us. Why should we let people come back under a ban through the use of an alternate account? You speak of banning, and of "permabanning," but fail to see that there is only one flavor. This isn't a suspension, another punishment we utilize, this is full-on expulsion. If you'd like us to reconsider a ban with proper evidence, you may call for it, but until the ban is lifted, you cannot come back. It's the entire purpose of a ban. The idea of soft banishment and hard banishment undermines the idea of banishment in general.
Also agree with this post.
Banning is permanent, regardless of what label you give it. You're not making sure these banned people have learned a lesson by banning them for a few months/a year and then letting them back. They need to stay banned.
But obviously, I don't make the rules. I just live here.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I know it seems that I don't care, but something in me does I swear.
[gaymers]
founder of the MTGS Forum Pirates
'tar/banner by R&Doom.
Steadfast rules-following is the priority, and I'd say that kcw was banned under the rules if we allow for something akin to constitutional interpretation on the admin/mod team - which I think is completely reasonable so long as it's transparent. And we must punish, else MTGS users lose respect for punishment altogether and fall to anarchy. To allow people to come back on good behavior is to allow all users become nuisances to the point of banning at least once. I say no to this, and say that the suspension rules are sufficient.
Umm, no, ex post facto rules are not permissible given constitutional interpretation, either. You have two choices: either you can say that the mod team should only ban people under the rules that exist at the time, which is the way the US government does it (and which is also the way that AoK says they do not do it), or else you can say that the mod team can use a subjective means of judgment, and that the rules are merely guidelines.
In the case of the former, kcw should never have been banned in the first place. In the case of the latter, the basis of your argument is null. More to the point, we know that the latter is the case in the view of the admins, so we know that the basis of your argument is null.
Are you against the idea of banning in general? You can't really have it both ways, you know - either we ban people or we don't. Banishment isn't a light punishment, nor is it handed out lightly. We have mediating punishments through which bad behavior can be rectified. People change, sure, but only so much.
I could see bans expiring after something like 15-20 years, but if you think this site will be around and remembered by any banned individual... I think you're mistaken.
You seem to think that there's ome inherent benefit to making it impossible to go back on a decision, no matter how much the circumstances have changed. Do you really believe that? People are condemned to death once in a while in the USA, and have been shown to be innocent more than a few times. Everyone is fallible; making it so that you can't change your mind under any circumstances is a bad thing.
People don't only change so much, they change a lot, but that isn't even the point. Some people wouldn't have to change very much to come back without any problems. Paffim being kind of the obvious case in point.
What?! Look at the initial post; he is dead. Deceased. Kaputt. Indefinitely horizontal. In mafia games, you see, people are occasionally "killed off," and when that sad event occurs, he or she is no longer allowed to post, on account of rigor mortis and what-have-you.
'Welcome to Mafia Salvation', it said, 'Population: 3,660.' And someone, they never figured out who, had painted on the sign in red letters: '1,831 to lynch.'
People don't only change so much, they change a lot, but that isn't even the point. Some people wouldn't have to change very much to come back without any problems. Paffim being kind of the obvious case in point.
Well, some people change a lot. Some don't. But you're right, that's not the point.
Paffim/kcw doesn't seem to be a great example of someone who doesn't need to change much. He was banned originally because he showed a blatant unwillingness to follow the rules. At its core, that's why kcw was banned. Creating a gimmick to evade his ban shows that he's still unwilling to follow the rules. So the change required before the staff would consider lifting kcw's ban would seem at this juncture to be beyond him. Whether he can't or just doesn't want to is beyond me. And whether the change in this case is small or large, it still hasn't happened. At least not in a way demonstrated to the staff here.
Why is this even a topic of discussion, the rules are implemented to keep everyone here at MTGS in line, and kcw was banned because he stepped out over the line. He even did it again when he made Paffim. From my time here with kcw, he showed blatant immaturity and almost every post he made had some form of dissent in it, and could be responded to likewise, but my opinion doesnt matter in this regard. Regardless of his likeability here at MTGS he earned his banning, as every other banned member does, end of story.
On a second note, if you were banned, would you expect to be able to come back? Honestly I see most people arguing here for kcw simply because he was kcw, which is completely ridiculous. The mods and admins here doa great job of keeping everything in line and being fair to everyone, and by leaving unbanning him it would show special treatment to him, which is why it seems they all actively support leaving him banned, along with every other banned member.
PS. Xenphire was unbannd to help resolve a trading issue so dont even cite him as a source of viability for your arguments.
Umm, no, ex post facto rules are not permissible given constitutional interpretation, either. You have two choices: either you can say that the mod team should only ban people under the rules that exist at the time, which is the way the US government does it (and which is also the way that AoK says they do not do it), or else you can say that the mod team can use a subjective means of judgment, and that the rules are merely guidelines.
False dilemma, but I won't go into that as it wouldn't really be helpful.
But people complain when rules are changed because a given user is behaving in a way that most reasonable people would say is intended to be disruptive, and then punish a user based upon the new rule. Sorry, when we make rules just to pick on certain people. To work explicitly from the book and correct improper behavior only on that basis, expanding the book as needed, would cause the book to grow without bound - which you see in most law.
Put into Star Wars terms: "And what of the Rebellion? If the rebels have obtained a complete technical readout of this station, it is possible - however unlikely - that they could find a weakness, and exploit it." And exploit it they did.
Once you make all rules explicit, public, and obeyed to the letter, individuals will dance around the rules, gain exemption from punishment because of the exploited weakness, and disrupt our forums.
Also, you'll note that our rules already appeal to subjective judgment on the part of our moderators in determining what is and isn't spamming, flaming, trolling, or PG-13 content. There are no clear definitions of these things, nor should there be. The whole matter is extremely subjective.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[The Crafters] | [Johnnies United]
My anecdotal evidence disagrees with yours! EXPLAIN THAT!
False dilemma, but I won't go into that as it wouldn't really be helpful.
But people complain when rules are changed because a given user is behaving in a way that most reasonable people would say is intended to be disruptive, and then punish a user based upon the new rule. Sorry, when we make rules just to pick on certain people. To work explicitly from the book and correct improper behavior only on that basis, expanding the book as needed, would cause the book to grow without bound - which you see in most law.
Put into Star Wars terms: "And what of the Rebellion? If the rebels have obtained a complete technical readout of this station, it is possible - however unlikely - that they could find a weakness, and exploit it." And exploit it they did.
Once you make all rules explicit, public, and obeyed to the letter, individuals will dance around the rules, gain exemption from punishment because of the exploited weakness, and disrupt our forums.
Also, you'll note that our rules already appeal to subjective judgment on the part of our moderators in determining what is and isn't spamming, flaming, trolling, or PG-13 content. There are no clear definitions of these things, nor should there be. The whole matter is extremely subjective.
Have been reading carrion pigeon's posts at all?
Like, it just seems like you've completely missed the point. I'd suggest you carefully reread this thread without any preconcieved notions about what a ban should be.
False dilemma, but I won't go into that as it wouldn't really be helpful.
But people complain when rules are changed because a given user is behaving in a way that most reasonable people would say is intended to be disruptive, and then punish a user based upon the new rule. Sorry, when we make rules just to pick on certain people. To work explicitly from the book and correct improper behavior only on that basis, expanding the book as needed, would cause the book to grow without bound - which you see in most law.
Put into Star Wars terms: "And what of the Rebellion? If the rebels have obtained a complete technical readout of this station, it is possible - however unlikely - that they could find a weakness, and exploit it." And exploit it they did.
Once you make all rules explicit, public, and obeyed to the letter, individuals will dance around the rules, gain exemption from punishment because of the exploited weakness, and disrupt our forums.
Also, you'll note that our rules already appeal to subjective judgment on the part of our moderators in determining what is and isn't spamming, flaming, trolling, or PG-13 content. There are no clear definitions of these things, nor should there be. The whole matter is extremely subjective.
I don't disagree with anything you say here. In fact, your point here is a step towards what I'm trying to say:
You're saying that mods should use a subjective means of judgment when determining punishment. And I agree that that is a very viable option.
However, in previous posts (notably not this one), you've suggested that this freedom of subjective judgment should only apply up to the point of banning. Not only is this an inconsistent viewpoint, given the above, but apparently, an entirely baseless one as well.
@Mikey: I made my case for why kcw's decision to make a MUP might ought to be reconsidered as an automatic justification to keep him banned, on the first page. I'd be interested to hear if that impacts your opinion on that facet of the situation, and why/why not.
What?! Look at the initial post; he is dead. Deceased. Kaputt. Indefinitely horizontal. In mafia games, you see, people are occasionally "killed off," and when that sad event occurs, he or she is no longer allowed to post, on account of rigor mortis and what-have-you.
'Welcome to Mafia Salvation', it said, 'Population: 3,660.' And someone, they never figured out who, had painted on the sign in red letters: '1,831 to lynch.'
Like, it just seems like you've completely missed the point. I'd suggest you carefully reread this thread without any preconcieved notions about what a ban should be.
I read. I'm not directly responding to his arguments, but posting criticism of his suggestions as it comes to me, usually as it's prompted by what he's said. We've already made direct arguments, and I find that we disagree on fundamental levels and think we both acknowledged as much. Direct argument from the basis isn't meaningful, so I'll take to indirect argumentation.
I don't disagree with anything you say here. In fact, your point here is a step towards what I'm trying to say:
You're saying that mods should use a subjective means of judgment when determining punishment. And I agree that that is a very viable option.
However, in previous posts (notably not this one), you've suggested that this freedom of subjective judgment should only apply up to the point of banning. Not only is this an inconsistent viewpoint, given the above, but apparently, an entirely baseless one as well.
I don't remember suggesting that at all, and looking at my posts in this thread I'm not sure where you picked that up.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[The Crafters] | [Johnnies United]
My anecdotal evidence disagrees with yours! EXPLAIN THAT!
@Mikey: I made my case for why kcw's decision to make a MUP might ought to be reconsidered as an automatic justification to keep him banned, on the first page. I'd be interested to hear if that impacts your opinion on that facet of the situation, and why/why not.
The only problem with that standard of operation is that the logic implied there is only relevant in cases where someone makes a new account in short order. Note that the rule you're appealing to is the exact rule I'm suggesting be changed.
Making a new account after 1 year or so of being gone could be anything from simple forgetfulness about what's required to not wanting to dredge up history which shouldn't matter anymore.
The point is that Paffim, as a unique person from kcw, never did anything banworthy (or even infraction-worthy, AFAIK) despite having been given literally hundreds of opportunities to do so. You can't fairly say that Paffim is "unwilling to hold to our rules," given that evidence. Just because that evidence wouldn't exist under normal circumstances doesn't mean it shouldn't be given any weight.
I'm not sure why you think the logic of the gimmick-while-in-exile rule only makes sense if the gimmick is made in a short time. The rule is there to prevent users we've deemed problematic from prematurely escaping their time in the penalty box, so to speak. Whether that time is temporary (a suspension) or permanent (a ban), if you're given time away from the forums as punishment, we can't very well allow you to subvert that. If we allowed gimmicks in such cases, there'd be absolutely no point in doling out suspensions or bans at all. That's true a few hours after the punishment begins, a few days, a few weeks, months and even years. If we don't want you here, we also don't want you snaking your way back in with a gimmick (thereby subverting our authority). That's why the staff sees the rule as essential, creating a gimmick to escape our punishment not only negates the punishment, it subverts our authority and shows a blatant lack of respect for the job we're trying to do (maintain order in the forums).
kingcobweb making the new account a year later was not a case of simple forgetfulness. Don't think for a second that it was. He knew the rules better than some mods, it's why he was able to flirt with disaster for so long without getting burned. You can make a case that he was shrugging off history that he thinks shouldn't matter anymore, but he's wrong. That history still very much matters, especially if the staff has reason to believe history would repeat itself. We of course don't know that, but our position understandably has to be one of extreme caution unless proven otherwise.
Even if a user doesn't like the rule, doesn't agree with it, doesn't remember it, whatever, the simple fact of the matter is that the staff does believe it to be a logical and essential rule. So subverting it on one hand and trying to argue that you ought to be allowed back on the other just doesn't work. We do have proper channels and ignoring them in favor of bringing yourself back with a gimmick is not a smart way to convince the staff that anything has changed.
Which is where I'm at with this. I would love to be able to argue on kcw's behalf, but I just don't see any line of reasoning that would be compelling to the staff in light of his recent actions. The best ways to get a ban lifted would be to argue for a lack of merit in the original ban (and we've been down that road, kcw's ban was a culmination of far too much misbehavior that I don't see the staff at all deciding it was a bad move) or that there has been significant progress made on the part of the poster and that the user, if allowed to return, would not be the problem they once were. Clearly, the latter is the logical argument to make, but the Paffim gimmick creates a rather troublesome wall. The very existence of the gimmick suggests that nothing's changed, the actions of the gimmick (he was problematic, perhaps less so than kcw, but problematic nonetheless) again only serves to suggest that nothing has changed. From the staff's perspective, even given a year, kcw hasn't changed enough to warrant considering lifting his ban. You can argue about Paffim's relative unproblematic nature as a poster unique from kcw, but I don't see it. Even on his own, Paffim wasn't clean. Which would be moot anyway because they aren't unique from each other. I get what you're trying to say, it's just not especially true. If kcw was using a gimmick to prove he'd changed, it really only had the opposite effect.
Simply put, as a moderator once stated it: The current forum policy is BANNED=BANNED. Since the TFE debacle, if I am not mistaken, no one has been unbanned. Ever.
Xenphire was once unbanned, I believe. And unbannings are not ever going to be that common. We've discussed them, but there's just never been a compelling reason to unban any particular candidate.
If this [gimmicks] isn't the proper way to come back, what would be the proper way?
Contacting a staff member, pleading your case, giving us reason to believe that you've changed enough to reconsider your ban. It's not complex yet virtually no one goes about it this way, largely I suspect because people know they haven't changed or they don't believe the staff will change their minds. And I won't lie, we often don't change our minds, but in such cases it's because we haven't been given any reason to.
Honestly, the criticism on post-ban gimmick accounts sounds really hypocritical to me. If BANNED=BANNED, the only alternative for a banned member that still wants to participate in this forums would be to do EXACTLY what kcw did: Creating a gimmick account after a year or so and hoping to stay under the radar. Duh...
But BANNED=/=BANNED. At least not in any absolute way, not since our policy change to replace many bans with extended suspensions. It's an uphill battle, but I don't see bans being absolute if there's due cause to have one overturned. But YuanTi's point is a good one, if we wanted you banned, we probably won't want to see you back. I tend to allow for the option of an unbanning, even if the chances are slim of it happening.
And no, the only alternative is not to create a gimmick. If a user wants to participate in these forums, their alternative is to change their ways, follow the rules. If that's not a realistic alternative, then no, that user can stayed banned.
(please note that this has nothing to do with the case of posting with a gimmick account while suspended. I agree with autobahns there. As MikeG put it, these are different cases).
I never said that suspension-gimmicks and ban-gimmicks are different. I actually said that they're both the same. Both represent a user trying to subvert the punishment we've given them.
- Firstly, admitting that the moderator team is not infallible
Have we ever claimed to be infallible??
Am I the only one to be critical over the fact that the user PetroleumJelly got banned after he received two really questionable infractions from a moderator who later on showed some very unstable emotional behavior over here, ultimately leading to its own banning?
Yes, you probably are the only one. I don't think I've heard that username in a year. Not entirely sure why you're even bringing it up now, unless you're using this discussion to reheat your pet cause.
- Secondly, admitting that the what makes the strength of this community is to allow for very diverse people, with different levels of maturity, self-restraint, and beliefs, to coexist peacefully over here.
Yes, except you're forgetting that some users don't peacefully coexist with the rest. They don't coexist with the rules, which is why they get into trouble, and ultimately removed from the forums if they don't shape up.
There's limits here and there's only so many levels of maturity, self-restraint and beliefs that jive with our rules.
a) Having people like sneaky doing some snarky/borderline spam posts. Yes, probably it doesn't contribute too much to some discussions, but (speaking for myself) it has the advantage of leaving me in a very good mood. I mean, who doesn't love sneaky's threads in technical grounds?
Heck, I even enjoy some snarky comments from the moderators when they warn/infract/suspend/ban people... That's why everyone loves reading the "currently banned/suspended thread"....
Snark can still contribute to a discussion. When it doesn't, it's spam. Even if it left you in a good mood.
b) Having people who sometimes behave like ****heads around here doesn't mean that necessarily they cannot bring some positive input to the forums (Ixidorsdreams gimmick SleepingVillain in the storyline forum comes to mind).
I mean, don't you guys what House from time to time?
Just give the chance for some valuable people to grow some maturity and self-restraint before utterly banning them...
We do allow people to grow maturity and self-restraint. We give them multiple warnings and infractions, gradually lengthening suspension, and every opportunity to change. If a user in one year manages to get several warnings, a dozen infractions, a week-long suspension, a month-long suspension and then a three-month suspension, I think they've been given ample time and inspiration to change a bit. If they don't, we get less and less inclined to keep them around, despite any other positive contributions they may put forth.
Contributing does not excuse bad behavior. At all.
I felt that kingcobweb had a lot to contribute to the forums, he did so on a regular basis. But I couldn't use that to argue away all the ways in which he behaved poorly. It just doesn't work that way.
I would see two different archetypes.
A) The bank office: It's a place for serious business. Around there you behave or you leave (or you get dragged out by the cops).
B) The local pub. You go there to relax and have a good time. Sometimes a guy has a few too much beers, but the barman let's him be as long as he does not start being obnoxious to other customers. Only at this time the bouncer comes and throws him out of the pub.
It's a bit more complex than that. Salvation is a lot like a university, there are those who take it seriously, those who think it's a joke, those who never misbehave, those who constantly do, some fit in, some can't help rebelling. And just like a university, you break he rules enough and you get bounced.
We have just a more relaxed view on what is borderline around here. Our main belief is: If it's funny, then it's not spam of intractable behavior.
Wow. You're wrong. Amazingly wrong.
Someone can flame the hell out of another user and have it be funny, it's still a flame and still very much against the rules. A post being funny does not in any conceivable way make it immune to the rules of the forum.
In the end, regarding my idea of extended suspensions, discussed some months ago, I still think that the moderating team could have gone a little bit farther:
Rule A: bots, linking to porn or so, trade scams: AUTOBAHN. (or BANNED=BANNED).
Rule B: People who were active contributors or returning customers (say with at least 300 posts): Autobahn should always be replaced with 1 year suspension, no matter the crime, pending that Rule A was not broken. This would avoid problems like the one we are discussing.
I am fairly certain that we will see positive results examining the first probations of the 4 months suspension: 50% would have left, 35% will now behave, and 15% will get autobahned...
Who determines what an active contribution is? Why should having 300 posts count for anything? Is this even all that different from the policy we have in place right now?
There is no proper way to come back. Once you're banned, thats it, you're gone, no more chances. We have suspensions, and we have bans. The fact is, if you're banned, we don't want you to come back.
This is completely, utterly incorrect and I'm flumoxed by how many people in this thread share your misguided opinion about this. Unbelievable!
But if no-one has been unbanned since where is the alternative to creating a gimmick? Unless of course you are masochistic and you enjoy pleading your cause to moderators "ad nauseam" just to hear "No." indefinitely
As I said, the alternative (and the rule-abiding and therefore moderator-endorsed) way is to change your ways. If you've been banned, you in all likelihood had some sort of problematic behavioral issue (in regards to our rules at Salvation), addressing that would go a long way to helping your case.
Well see mikeyG, generally I like your snarky comments when you are generally punishing offenders. Still, as I think I have been discussing these issues rather politely (at least I hope), I just don't see the point for this patronizing attitude.
I'm sorry if you feel I'm being patronizing. I'm actually being straight with you. When it comes to serious discussions about site issues, I rarely feel it appropriate to snark on those I'm discussing with. In this case, I merely want to lay out for everyone my perspective on the issues of bans and gimmicks.
I have an idea. Why don't you IP check me? Maybe, just maybe I am possibly a 1 year-latter gimmick of PetroleumJelly. Then you can just proceed to simply ban me (with a snarky comment I hope), and you will not have to bear obnoxious and dissenting posts from myself anymore....
I think this is a prime example of snark that doesn't have anything to contribute to a discussion.
Well, bypassing the "ad hominem" part of your reply, I will simply state that I do not consider flaming as funny. As a matter of fact I find it rather annoying.
And there are times where I chuckle even as I'm issuing the flame infraction. Just goes to show that there's a serious flaw in the "If it's funny, then it's not spam of intractable behavior." mindset. That flaw being humor's innate subjectivity. If a mod finds a particular post funny, does that negate any rule breaking in that post? In my opinion, no, it absolutely doesn't.
Who determines? You guys of course... 300 posts is just a number out of my head... Bearing in mind that statistically, probably more than 90% of the banned users of this forum do not even manage to reach 100 posts...
Considering the overwhelming majority of banned users are adbots, I don't think your statistic is far off the mark.
Because it's the self-righteous attitude of the previous posts from YuanTi and yourself that I sometimes find annoying in the moderator team.
I'm not sure where you're getting the self-righteousness from my posts in this thread. Posters had concerns and questions and I've been trying to answer them without being sanctimonious or intolerant of what others have to say.
Like if a simple 100 posts user wouldn't be capable of suggesting anything useful regarding the rules of this forum,
I don't think anyone even so much as insinuated that.
I have nothing against KCW and BB, I have talked to them on AIM from time to time, and I do miss them here.
However, the policy of this website, as it is now, is that we do not unban members.
KCW unfortunately proved the reason why in making his new account, and getting two infractions on it rather quickly.
To make it even simpler, Hannes usually does not weigh in on forum policy, but ideas like this bring him out of his Kitty-infested cave to speak. He has been much against this in the past. (One of the many reasons we can't even entertain this prospect.)
Our suspension-banning system was already heavily changed due to the last round of discussions on this.
Case in point: I could have seen SapphireTri being banned under the old system, but instead he was recently suspended.
The above suggestion of 'third party litigator' is kind of out there. When was the last 'questionable' banning we had here?
It is just not needed. We have systems set in place for discussion between members and staff concerning appeals of infractions and moderations, and the administration team is not trigger-happy in the least when it comes to bannings.
Honestly mikeyG, there is no alternative. In all truth, you do have the more moderate stance (no pun intended) regarding all the moderators posts.
Which is hilariously ironic given that I was a major opponent of our extended suspension policy given that I then (and now) believed that people won't change. Not that they can't, but that they won't. As many chances as we give them, they'll keep screwing up so it'd all just be easier if we got rid of problematic posters as needed. And yet here I am, championing a banned user appeals process that apparently doesn't exist. Hilarious, if only to me.
Still, I still find your above paragraph contradictory: To summarize the above comment you say that "changing your ways is going a long way to helping your case". However you are still remaining banned.
If you remain banned. Which has been my point all along. If a ban is to be overturned at all, clearly you're going to need one hell of a case so why ruin your chances?
Case 1: You change your ways, get around the issues that got you banned in the first time. Still you remain banned.
Case 2: You don't change your ways because you register with a gimmick. Well, you also remain banned.
The outcome of case 1 and 2 is the same.
Yes they are, but only if your appeal is denied. And despite some comments here, I firmly believe that a ban has a decent shot of being overturned if a person has changed. Since the extended suspension policy is based upon the capacity for a person to change and all.
For now we have the following stance:
"Just look at these gimmick accounts... Don't these guys ever learn to behave? Just goes to prove that they cannot get any maturity"
when instead you could be more sincere:
"You can make all the amends you want. You were banned forever and we stopped caring about you the first day you were banned. (shrugs)".
Thanks for telling me how I feel, but I thought I'd been honest enough to this point that you'd know how I feel already. And that's not it (well, the second one at least, the first one is more or less correct).
I am going to jump in here and pretend I know what I am talking about.
My guess is that if KCW had PM'ed a mod and had said "I am really sorry. I messed up. Its been a year, I have thought about what I did, and I am sorry. Can I come back? If I get an infraction, you can just ban me again, but that will not happen because I am not the person I was."
I am guessing there is a solid chance that the mod's would have let him come back. But, that's not what he did. He broken the rules and made an alt account. Which, apparently, worked. He made lots of posts and started to establish his new self on the forums, and made friends with CP. Everything was cool.
But,
Then he went and got some infractions on the debate section(he is not dumb, I bet he knew he was skirting the line when he said what he said). His IP was checked, and he was re-banned.
He did EVERYTHING he should NOT have if he wanted to come back, OR to prove he had changed. He did not ask, he could not EVEN keep his head down.
Not only was there a chance that he could come back, he DID. And he might have stayed back, but he ****ed up, and proved that he should stay banned.
A good definition for hilariously ironic is also seeing you contradict yourself in solely one post.
He didn't contradict himself. In the first part, he says that people, in all likelihood, won't change. In the second, he says that if they did, then they'd shot at be unbanned.
Maybe you do have a pessimistic and misanthropic view on people's behavior. I dunno. I can give you my own example of seeing people getting into university in 1st year, with lots of immaturity and then leaving 5 years after with a diploma and much more maturity. I do believe that people can change/grow up and I am glad that I will continue believing it. That said, its just my personal beliefs.
I'd say there's a difference between real life and this forum. Whether a person takes this forum seriously or not is much less likely to change than whether that person takes traditional life responsibilities seriously or not. Pressures aren't on people to say "the Internet is serious business," but they are on to say "life is serious business."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[The Crafters] | [Johnnies United]
My anecdotal evidence disagrees with yours! EXPLAIN THAT!
This still strikes me as inconsistent. If one believes that people aren't capable of changing, what's the point of believing that bans can be overruled (if people do change, something he has ruled out)?
I still see a faulty logic.
He thinks they're capable, just that it's a rare event. What a person is capable of and what a person realizes are vastly different. From what I read, to him it's that a person changing is rare enough that extended suspension serves very little purpose, as those people will be banned anyways, and what few people would actually change can contact the staff to review their ban; why bother with extended suspension?
I don't agree fully, but the argument's fairly sound.
We've given at least one banned user a second chance. That, coupled with the noticeable fact that most all gimmick accounts from banned users get infractions very quickly, shows that the current system works for most cases. And remember, this is a privately-run little forum with no real impact; we don't need to err on the side of lenience for the sake of protecting the innocent as even the strongest possible punishment we can enact, banishment, doesn't amount to much in a person's life.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[The Crafters] | [Johnnies United]
My anecdotal evidence disagrees with yours! EXPLAIN THAT!
He thinks they're capable, just that it's a rare event. What a person is capable of and what a person realizes are vastly different. From what I read, to him it's that a person changing is rare enough that extended suspension serves very little purpose, as those people will be banned anyways, and what few people would actually change can contact the staff to review their ban; why bother with extended suspension?
That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Hence why I specifically said:
Which is hilariously ironic given that I was a major opponent of our extended suspension policy given that I then (and now) believed that people won't change. Not that they can't, but that they won't.
I think person who's properly motivated and committed can certainly change, but the number of people who don't try or for whom change doesn't stick is much larger. That's why I support the idea of appeals but was never sold on the efficiency of extended suspensions. Time will ultimately tell if I was right or wrong. I hope I am wrong, believe it or not.
I don't really see the reason for KCW or older members who haven't caused trouble to still be banned. I think the staff is being pretty hypocritical to refuse to allow banned members a chance to come back and show that they can be productive. Some staff members at MTGS have had problems at other forums, or even on this forum, and have managed to still become productive members.
In the grand scheme of things, this is just a forum. The worst case scenario of unbanning kcw is that he insults a couple kids via the internet and maybe hurts their feelings for about five minutes. Then the staff can press a button and reban him in about two seconds. The upside, and most likely scenario, is that he becomes a productive member and adds another piece to this community, which is a small price to pay. There's just no point in trying to withhold some imaginary internet principles to a situation like this when it's clear the person banned is ready to come back and be a member.
I don't really see the reason for KCW or older members who haven't caused trouble to still be banned.
...
The worst case scenario of unbanning kcw is that he insults a couple kids via the internet and maybe hurts their feelings for about five minutes. Then the staff can press a button and reban him in about two seconds.
At this point, I feel compelled to mention yet again that KCW's gimmick in question had accumulated two flaming infractions in the last couple of weeks.
You're speaking as if there's no evidence that KCW would continue to cause problems on this site, but the staff already has that evidence from Paffim's posting record.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am no longer on MTGS staff, so please don't contact me asking me to do staff things. :|
Simply put, as a moderator once stated it: The current forum policy is BANNED=BANNED. Since the TFE debacle, if I am not mistaken, no one has been unbanned. Ever.
Am i the only one who can recall the unbanning of a certain 'cadet' of sorts? Although, that definitely had other circumstances
Am i the only one who can recall the unbanning of a certain 'cadet' of sorts? Although, that definitely had other circumstances
Yes, yes it did. So don't compare a user banned at their own request (which we now no longer comply with for this very reason) for a user banned for excessive poor behavior. They're not at all similar. And you're not going to get traction on the latter by using the former as an argument.
Am i the only one who can recall the unbanning of a certain 'cadet' of sorts? Although, that definitely had other circumstances
Yes, it definitely had other circumstances, and led to the fact that we not will not ban you by your own request. We'll suspend you by your own request instead.
I think we need to unban MD while we are at it .... he just got mad about somethin dumb and would not shut up. He was a good poster otherwise.
Air Force...
All right, as someone who dealt extensively with MD before his banning, I will tell you that while yes, he did know his stuff, particularly in the Legacy forums, his flaming, trolling, and general disregard for authority outweighed his good points. We gave him a LOT of chances to shape up, and he didn't...
And yes, no incantatrix for you. Or anyone. That class makes puppies cry. Mostly because they are the former Big Bads who have been Baleful Polymorphed into said puppies. By you. Because you're an incantatrix.
Quote from Yukora »
This is Deraxas we're talking about.
Remember, the girl that just killed an aspect of herself before literally consuming her?
Yeah, I don't see her handling a pissing match in any way other than a duel.
Quote from RedDwarfian »
Yes mistress...
Quote from About epic-level D&D »
There are only so many epic, psuedonatural barbarian/blackguard half-dragon akutenshai vampire balor paragons they can throw at you, right?
Quote from Concerning breeding habits of humans in fantasy games »
I suppose it's true. Though the logistics implied in a human/Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon pairing makes me shudder.
...Something tells me that even should all arcane casters in the world unite, that the Grease spell would NOT be sufficient.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I completely agree. From my understanding of how the system works, you have to actively TRY to get yourself banned. If that's the case, they were probably done with their stay here anyway, and want to act out and get banned so everyone knows they're leaving. Basically, attention-seeking.
Also agree with this post.
Banning is permanent, regardless of what label you give it. You're not making sure these banned people have learned a lesson by banning them for a few months/a year and then letting them back. They need to stay banned.
But obviously, I don't make the rules. I just live here.
I know it seems that I don't care,
but something in me does I swear.
[gaymers]
founder of the MTGS Forum Pirates
'tar/banner by R&Doom.
Umm, no, ex post facto rules are not permissible given constitutional interpretation, either. You have two choices: either you can say that the mod team should only ban people under the rules that exist at the time, which is the way the US government does it (and which is also the way that AoK says they do not do it), or else you can say that the mod team can use a subjective means of judgment, and that the rules are merely guidelines.
In the case of the former, kcw should never have been banned in the first place. In the case of the latter, the basis of your argument is null. More to the point, we know that the latter is the case in the view of the admins, so we know that the basis of your argument is null.
You seem to think that there's ome inherent benefit to making it impossible to go back on a decision, no matter how much the circumstances have changed. Do you really believe that? People are condemned to death once in a while in the USA, and have been shown to be innocent more than a few times. Everyone is fallible; making it so that you can't change your mind under any circumstances is a bad thing.
People don't only change so much, they change a lot, but that isn't even the point. Some people wouldn't have to change very much to come back without any problems. Paffim being kind of the obvious case in point.
Mafia MVP BM Mafia
Mafia MVP Matrix Mafia
Well, some people change a lot. Some don't. But you're right, that's not the point.
Paffim/kcw doesn't seem to be a great example of someone who doesn't need to change much. He was banned originally because he showed a blatant unwillingness to follow the rules. At its core, that's why kcw was banned. Creating a gimmick to evade his ban shows that he's still unwilling to follow the rules. So the change required before the staff would consider lifting kcw's ban would seem at this juncture to be beyond him. Whether he can't or just doesn't want to is beyond me. And whether the change in this case is small or large, it still hasn't happened. At least not in a way demonstrated to the staff here.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
On a second note, if you were banned, would you expect to be able to come back? Honestly I see most people arguing here for kcw simply because he was kcw, which is completely ridiculous. The mods and admins here doa great job of keeping everything in line and being fair to everyone, and by leaving unbanning him it would show special treatment to him, which is why it seems they all actively support leaving him banned, along with every other banned member.
PS. Xenphire was unbannd to help resolve a trading issue so dont even cite him as a source of viability for your arguments.
But people complain when rules are changed because a given user is behaving in a way that most reasonable people would say is intended to be disruptive, and then punish a user based upon the new rule. Sorry, when we make rules just to pick on certain people. To work explicitly from the book and correct improper behavior only on that basis, expanding the book as needed, would cause the book to grow without bound - which you see in most law.
Put into Star Wars terms: "And what of the Rebellion? If the rebels have obtained a complete technical readout of this station, it is possible - however unlikely - that they could find a weakness, and exploit it." And exploit it they did.
Once you make all rules explicit, public, and obeyed to the letter, individuals will dance around the rules, gain exemption from punishment because of the exploited weakness, and disrupt our forums.
Also, you'll note that our rules already appeal to subjective judgment on the part of our moderators in determining what is and isn't spamming, flaming, trolling, or PG-13 content. There are no clear definitions of these things, nor should there be. The whole matter is extremely subjective.
Have been reading carrion pigeon's posts at all?
Like, it just seems like you've completely missed the point. I'd suggest you carefully reread this thread without any preconcieved notions about what a ban should be.
I don't disagree with anything you say here. In fact, your point here is a step towards what I'm trying to say:
You're saying that mods should use a subjective means of judgment when determining punishment. And I agree that that is a very viable option.
However, in previous posts (notably not this one), you've suggested that this freedom of subjective judgment should only apply up to the point of banning. Not only is this an inconsistent viewpoint, given the above, but apparently, an entirely baseless one as well.
@Mikey: I made my case for why kcw's decision to make a MUP might ought to be reconsidered as an automatic justification to keep him banned, on the first page. I'd be interested to hear if that impacts your opinion on that facet of the situation, and why/why not.
Mafia MVP BM Mafia
Mafia MVP Matrix Mafia
I don't remember suggesting that at all, and looking at my posts in this thread I'm not sure where you picked that up.
I assume you're speaking of this?
I'm not sure why you think the logic of the gimmick-while-in-exile rule only makes sense if the gimmick is made in a short time. The rule is there to prevent users we've deemed problematic from prematurely escaping their time in the penalty box, so to speak. Whether that time is temporary (a suspension) or permanent (a ban), if you're given time away from the forums as punishment, we can't very well allow you to subvert that. If we allowed gimmicks in such cases, there'd be absolutely no point in doling out suspensions or bans at all. That's true a few hours after the punishment begins, a few days, a few weeks, months and even years. If we don't want you here, we also don't want you snaking your way back in with a gimmick (thereby subverting our authority). That's why the staff sees the rule as essential, creating a gimmick to escape our punishment not only negates the punishment, it subverts our authority and shows a blatant lack of respect for the job we're trying to do (maintain order in the forums).
kingcobweb making the new account a year later was not a case of simple forgetfulness. Don't think for a second that it was. He knew the rules better than some mods, it's why he was able to flirt with disaster for so long without getting burned. You can make a case that he was shrugging off history that he thinks shouldn't matter anymore, but he's wrong. That history still very much matters, especially if the staff has reason to believe history would repeat itself. We of course don't know that, but our position understandably has to be one of extreme caution unless proven otherwise.
Even if a user doesn't like the rule, doesn't agree with it, doesn't remember it, whatever, the simple fact of the matter is that the staff does believe it to be a logical and essential rule. So subverting it on one hand and trying to argue that you ought to be allowed back on the other just doesn't work. We do have proper channels and ignoring them in favor of bringing yourself back with a gimmick is not a smart way to convince the staff that anything has changed.
Which is where I'm at with this. I would love to be able to argue on kcw's behalf, but I just don't see any line of reasoning that would be compelling to the staff in light of his recent actions. The best ways to get a ban lifted would be to argue for a lack of merit in the original ban (and we've been down that road, kcw's ban was a culmination of far too much misbehavior that I don't see the staff at all deciding it was a bad move) or that there has been significant progress made on the part of the poster and that the user, if allowed to return, would not be the problem they once were. Clearly, the latter is the logical argument to make, but the Paffim gimmick creates a rather troublesome wall. The very existence of the gimmick suggests that nothing's changed, the actions of the gimmick (he was problematic, perhaps less so than kcw, but problematic nonetheless) again only serves to suggest that nothing has changed. From the staff's perspective, even given a year, kcw hasn't changed enough to warrant considering lifting his ban. You can argue about Paffim's relative unproblematic nature as a poster unique from kcw, but I don't see it. Even on his own, Paffim wasn't clean. Which would be moot anyway because they aren't unique from each other. I get what you're trying to say, it's just not especially true. If kcw was using a gimmick to prove he'd changed, it really only had the opposite effect.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
Xenphire was once unbanned, I believe. And unbannings are not ever going to be that common. We've discussed them, but there's just never been a compelling reason to unban any particular candidate.
Contacting a staff member, pleading your case, giving us reason to believe that you've changed enough to reconsider your ban. It's not complex yet virtually no one goes about it this way, largely I suspect because people know they haven't changed or they don't believe the staff will change their minds. And I won't lie, we often don't change our minds, but in such cases it's because we haven't been given any reason to.
But BANNED=/=BANNED. At least not in any absolute way, not since our policy change to replace many bans with extended suspensions. It's an uphill battle, but I don't see bans being absolute if there's due cause to have one overturned. But YuanTi's point is a good one, if we wanted you banned, we probably won't want to see you back. I tend to allow for the option of an unbanning, even if the chances are slim of it happening.
And no, the only alternative is not to create a gimmick. If a user wants to participate in these forums, their alternative is to change their ways, follow the rules. If that's not a realistic alternative, then no, that user can stayed banned.
I never said that suspension-gimmicks and ban-gimmicks are different. I actually said that they're both the same. Both represent a user trying to subvert the punishment we've given them.
Have we ever claimed to be infallible??
Yes, you probably are the only one. I don't think I've heard that username in a year. Not entirely sure why you're even bringing it up now, unless you're using this discussion to reheat your pet cause.
Yes, except you're forgetting that some users don't peacefully coexist with the rest. They don't coexist with the rules, which is why they get into trouble, and ultimately removed from the forums if they don't shape up.
There's limits here and there's only so many levels of maturity, self-restraint and beliefs that jive with our rules.
Snark can still contribute to a discussion. When it doesn't, it's spam. Even if it left you in a good mood.
We do allow people to grow maturity and self-restraint. We give them multiple warnings and infractions, gradually lengthening suspension, and every opportunity to change. If a user in one year manages to get several warnings, a dozen infractions, a week-long suspension, a month-long suspension and then a three-month suspension, I think they've been given ample time and inspiration to change a bit. If they don't, we get less and less inclined to keep them around, despite any other positive contributions they may put forth.
Contributing does not excuse bad behavior. At all.
I felt that kingcobweb had a lot to contribute to the forums, he did so on a regular basis. But I couldn't use that to argue away all the ways in which he behaved poorly. It just doesn't work that way.
It's a bit more complex than that. Salvation is a lot like a university, there are those who take it seriously, those who think it's a joke, those who never misbehave, those who constantly do, some fit in, some can't help rebelling. And just like a university, you break he rules enough and you get bounced.
Wow. You're wrong. Amazingly wrong.
Someone can flame the hell out of another user and have it be funny, it's still a flame and still very much against the rules. A post being funny does not in any conceivable way make it immune to the rules of the forum.
Who determines what an active contribution is? Why should having 300 posts count for anything? Is this even all that different from the policy we have in place right now?
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
This is completely, utterly incorrect and I'm flumoxed by how many people in this thread share your misguided opinion about this. Unbelievable!
As I said, the alternative (and the rule-abiding and therefore moderator-endorsed) way is to change your ways. If you've been banned, you in all likelihood had some sort of problematic behavioral issue (in regards to our rules at Salvation), addressing that would go a long way to helping your case.
I'm sorry if you feel I'm being patronizing. I'm actually being straight with you. When it comes to serious discussions about site issues, I rarely feel it appropriate to snark on those I'm discussing with. In this case, I merely want to lay out for everyone my perspective on the issues of bans and gimmicks.
I think this is a prime example of snark that doesn't have anything to contribute to a discussion.
And there are times where I chuckle even as I'm issuing the flame infraction. Just goes to show that there's a serious flaw in the "If it's funny, then it's not spam of intractable behavior." mindset. That flaw being humor's innate subjectivity. If a mod finds a particular post funny, does that negate any rule breaking in that post? In my opinion, no, it absolutely doesn't.
Considering the overwhelming majority of banned users are adbots, I don't think your statistic is far off the mark.
I'm not sure where you're getting the self-righteousness from my posts in this thread. Posters had concerns and questions and I've been trying to answer them without being sanctimonious or intolerant of what others have to say.
I don't think anyone even so much as insinuated that.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
I have nothing against KCW and BB, I have talked to them on AIM from time to time, and I do miss them here.
However, the policy of this website, as it is now, is that we do not unban members.
KCW unfortunately proved the reason why in making his new account, and getting two infractions on it rather quickly.
To make it even simpler, Hannes usually does not weigh in on forum policy, but ideas like this bring him out of his Kitty-infested cave to speak. He has been much against this in the past. (One of the many reasons we can't even entertain this prospect.)
Our suspension-banning system was already heavily changed due to the last round of discussions on this.
Case in point: I could have seen SapphireTri being banned under the old system, but instead he was recently suspended.
The above suggestion of 'third party litigator' is kind of out there. When was the last 'questionable' banning we had here?
It is just not needed. We have systems set in place for discussion between members and staff concerning appeals of infractions and moderations, and the administration team is not trigger-happy in the least when it comes to bannings.
Twitter
Which is hilariously ironic given that I was a major opponent of our extended suspension policy given that I then (and now) believed that people won't change. Not that they can't, but that they won't. As many chances as we give them, they'll keep screwing up so it'd all just be easier if we got rid of problematic posters as needed. And yet here I am, championing a banned user appeals process that apparently doesn't exist. Hilarious, if only to me.
If you remain banned. Which has been my point all along. If a ban is to be overturned at all, clearly you're going to need one hell of a case so why ruin your chances?
Yes they are, but only if your appeal is denied. And despite some comments here, I firmly believe that a ban has a decent shot of being overturned if a person has changed. Since the extended suspension policy is based upon the capacity for a person to change and all.
Thanks for telling me how I feel, but I thought I'd been honest enough to this point that you'd know how I feel already. And that's not it (well, the second one at least, the first one is more or less correct).
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
My guess is that if KCW had PM'ed a mod and had said "I am really sorry. I messed up. Its been a year, I have thought about what I did, and I am sorry. Can I come back? If I get an infraction, you can just ban me again, but that will not happen because I am not the person I was."
I am guessing there is a solid chance that the mod's would have let him come back. But, that's not what he did. He broken the rules and made an alt account. Which, apparently, worked. He made lots of posts and started to establish his new self on the forums, and made friends with CP. Everything was cool.
But,
Then he went and got some infractions on the debate section(he is not dumb, I bet he knew he was skirting the line when he said what he said). His IP was checked, and he was re-banned.
He did EVERYTHING he should NOT have if he wanted to come back, OR to prove he had changed. He did not ask, he could not EVEN keep his head down.
Not only was there a chance that he could come back, he DID. And he might have stayed back, but he ****ed up, and proved that he should stay banned.
<- My 1-2 cents.
I'd say there's a difference between real life and this forum. Whether a person takes this forum seriously or not is much less likely to change than whether that person takes traditional life responsibilities seriously or not. Pressures aren't on people to say "the Internet is serious business," but they are on to say "life is serious business."
I don't agree fully, but the argument's fairly sound.
We've given at least one banned user a second chance. That, coupled with the noticeable fact that most all gimmick accounts from banned users get infractions very quickly, shows that the current system works for most cases. And remember, this is a privately-run little forum with no real impact; we don't need to err on the side of lenience for the sake of protecting the innocent as even the strongest possible punishment we can enact, banishment, doesn't amount to much in a person's life.
That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Hence why I specifically said:
I think person who's properly motivated and committed can certainly change, but the number of people who don't try or for whom change doesn't stick is much larger. That's why I support the idea of appeals but was never sold on the efficiency of extended suspensions. Time will ultimately tell if I was right or wrong. I hope I am wrong, believe it or not.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
In the grand scheme of things, this is just a forum. The worst case scenario of unbanning kcw is that he insults a couple kids via the internet and maybe hurts their feelings for about five minutes. Then the staff can press a button and reban him in about two seconds. The upside, and most likely scenario, is that he becomes a productive member and adds another piece to this community, which is a small price to pay. There's just no point in trying to withhold some imaginary internet principles to a situation like this when it's clear the person banned is ready to come back and be a member.
At this point, I feel compelled to mention yet again that KCW's gimmick in question had accumulated two flaming infractions in the last couple of weeks.
You're speaking as if there's no evidence that KCW would continue to cause problems on this site, but the staff already has that evidence from Paffim's posting record.
Am i the only one who can recall the unbanning of a certain 'cadet' of sorts? Although, that definitely had other circumstances
I swore to tear Heaven asunder
As flights of fallen angels wished me
Godspeed on the Devil's Thunder.
Thanks Magus of the Sheep for this great border!
2009 ....
Top 8 Regionals
Top 32 GP Chicago
PTQ Top 8's - 2
I'm not sure what definition of "good poster" includes 17 infractions.
Yes, yes it did. So don't compare a user banned at their own request (which we now no longer comply with for this very reason) for a user banned for excessive poor behavior. They're not at all similar. And you're not going to get traction on the latter by using the former as an argument.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
Yes, it definitely had other circumstances, and led to the fact that we not will not ban you by your own request. We'll suspend you by your own request instead.
Air Force...
All right, as someone who dealt extensively with MD before his banning, I will tell you that while yes, he did know his stuff, particularly in the Legacy forums, his flaming, trolling, and general disregard for authority outweighed his good points. We gave him a LOT of chances to shape up, and he didn't...
"I am in the arcane, and the arcane is in me."
Official Matron Mother of Clan Planar Chaos
Awesome Avatar and signature by DarkNightCavalier
Deraxas, Dark Maiden of Shimia,, still oddly obsessed with a mindmage.