The Beatles Banning

[The Beatles]

 Okay, hello everybody. Some people have asked me why I was banned, so may I give a civilized and entirely correct explanation of why?

Premises, Set One:
1. RWL Regular, First Age, The Beatles is playing, in the clan RR.
2. Before joining RR, he gained access to 4 clan passwords (including RR's). Also including DI's.
3. The administrators of the game, with Boze's exception, were both in the DI clan.
4. DI was at war with RR.
5. Beatles sent the clan passwords to his leader, Overlord in an in-game message.
6. The playing administrators regularly scanned all ingame messages.
7. The administrators noticed that Beatles sent that message.
8. The administrators took ingame action, and in effect killed off Beatles, and made him a free for all target in DI.

The Set One Premises are not particularly interesting to what I have to say, so let us just note Premise No. 6, and draw the single undisputable relevant conclusion that Beatles became very angry.

Premises, Set Two:
1. Beatles became angry and protested the administrators' decision.
2. One of his arguments was that playing administrators should not have access to the message system.
3. The other was that he had broken no rules.
4. The third was that the punishment should not have been in-game.
5. Since then, the arguments mentioned in Premises 2 and 4 have been accepted beyond doubt.
6. Since then also, the argument mentioned in Premise 3 has shown to be entirely wrong.
7. Entirely wrong not for any reason that would be logical to today's RWL players, but rather because it is in the rules.
8. Side note: the rule mentioned in Premise 6 is not actively enforced today by the administrators, but this is disputable, of course. Mostly because administrative records are not released after rounds.
9. After long arguments, the issue was still not resolved - the two sides did not agree.
10. This lead to bitterness between the sides.
11. After a while, the administrators were actively looking for excuses to ban Beatles. For one of them, we have evidence, for the rest, we do not. If you require the evidence, I can send supporting material via Private Message.
12. In course of time, via events that are quite fuzzy.. in the opinion of this author, because they never happened, Fenix and Beatles were both banned for a week.
13. At first, the administration claimed that Beatles and Fenix were giving out personal information (in this topic.

Both Beatles and Fenix were warned that giving out personal information on other people was prohibited; they have now been banned from the forums...

14. One administrator noted, that in case he was wrong (ergo Beatles was innocent), Beatles was still on a one-week ban.

In the event that I'm mistaken, Beatles- consider yourself on a one-week ban, okay?

15. At this point, the two were each banned for a week.
16. Later, the administration changed the reason for the ban. The new reason, found here was that he had been swearing.

.. Beatles was originally banned for swearing ...

17. Beatles denies both the accusations in Premises 13 and 14. He had not been known to swear before at that forum.
18. Knowing himself to be free of guilt, Beatles protested this decision. In the process, he circumvented the ban in order to protest.
19. Beatles was banned for 3 months, after his 3rd post circumventing the ban to protest his innocence. In this topic, first post.
20. There was no precedent for Beatles' action of circumventing a ban to appeal a decision, thus the punishment was original and thus undisputable.

From these we can draw several conclusions, but I will restrict myself to the most important, and strongest ones.
1. Beatles' banning was just, in the sense that is legally perfect. Also, there had been no precedent to his act, so the time interval of his banning was allowedly arbitrary.
2. HOWEVER we see Beatles committing no appreciable crime.
3. Indeed, the accusations against him are fuzzy (I haven't even quoted everything) and contradictory at best.
4. The procedures used against Beatles were mostly unethical and unbecoming to the administrators. In particular, note the boldfaced premises. However, feel free to ignore this statement.


So what should I sum up with? It is rather hard to sum up something of this nature without seeming perhaps biased - and I have tried to be as objective as possible considering I am writing about myself. You were interested: well here you go. You were not: well here you go anyways. I am not really Set Two, Premise Ten anymore, although of course I am to a degree.
Draw your own summary.


~Beatles



[edit] Side note, thanks zlopid: my purpose was not to harm the administrative authority. Or anything remotely like that.
[edit] I did not touch at all on ingame events, any more than was necessary to explain my anger that set this all off. If you wish me to, I will.
[edit] I may have under-emphasized this, but I certainly did not want to start a debate. This is merely an objective opinion, take it with as much salt as you usually would when accepting information from me, but please do not argue or flame. If you want to argue or flame, go away from here.
[edit] Fixed URLs to the new forum system.

[Retto]

 Well, if you guys really want to draw something from this, you can realize part of the history of Administrative Interference and restriction which Beatles has played a large part in. You've got rights, we've got restrictions.

My summary of this is as beatles' effects on our policy, most of which I'm thankful for, all of which have importance:

• The Admins will never punish a warlord for breaking the rules through in-game actions (ie. attacking). That's shaped the game in a huge way...and although Beatles doesn't use it so much on his own games, it's an important part of ours. You can be banned, you can be deleted, but your stats will never be altered. You won't have your defenses lowered and opened to attack.
  
• We published a written set of rules and regulations saying what we could see, what we could do, and all such things. Not so happy about this (an ambiguous rule gives the greatest range of responses, which is good when there are ranges of misuse...but for some people, this helps out a lot.)
  
• You can be banned for circumventing any ban, just or not. Obedience towards the rules and decisions of the admins is important. Of course, we can't stop you from sending us in-game messages, or e-mails and protesting it.
  
• "The administrators are not paid and therefore do not appreciate verbal abuse. Those who verbally abuse the administrators will be first warned, then punished; the punishment for repeat offenses is harsher." (this one was partly Beatles, and partly Fenix)
  [/list:u]
  Of course...Beatles history seems to forget the one or two times he was banned for having multiple accounts.  

[Riverpaw]

 I see. Now, I need the other side of the story. "Ad"mins?
[edit]How'd your post get above mine, Retto? Admin powers or did you just post before I hit submit but after I hit reply?

[The Beatles]

 *regrets* I did not want this to turn into flaming... so I am sorry you took that course, Retto.
I have told that I have not mentioned in-game events, but if you would like a description of those, message me please, and I will post.
So what I refuse:
-I do not punish people ingame for cheating.
-Verbal abuse is ambiguous: at most, I have accused, but never swore... let this point go.
-I have never hade multiple playing accounts in the R:WL game.

~Beatles

(mpan: I got your app, am filling it out as we speak.)

[Retto]

 Oh. did you take it as an insult to you? I merely meant to show that it's a difference of opinion, not a personal fault.

I did not say that you punish people ingame for cheating, merely that sometimes you alter their posessions.
Verbal abuse was never meant as swearing. That rule is one for which we are all thankful, because it reminds all you players that although we're creating a game for you, it doesn't mean we're your servants to order around and command. It was mostly Fenix on that one. Perhaps I should have added that since we put up that rule, you have never broken it?
and, if I recall, at one of the resets of regular, you asked if you could join again, after having been banned from the previous game. I told you that, yes, you could, after each round, the bannings were un-done (except, as I forgot to add, in the case of Fenix).

Differing opinion, as I said. And I didn't catch the bit about not mentioning in-game stuff...it was an edit after I had begun composing.

[The Beatles]

 Righto, thank you. The very last sentence is the only one I took as a flame, really. No matter.
The part about altering posessions: it has been true in the past, but I have changed those policies a while ago, as our game matured - of course you could not have known.
I assume the multiple accounts mean the Delors - and while I did not play them, the ban was just on those.

[Boze (Admin)]

 1. You cheated.
2. You were banned.
3. You're back.

You test my patience.

[The Beatles]

 D'you mind terribly elaborating?

1. Ooh. Nope.
2. Yes. It was lifted, later.
3. Legally.

[Boze (Admin)]

 Yes. I know you are back legally. My point is: What is the problem? What is the point of complaining/ranting? I did not ban you, but I'm sure what admin did had good reason. The thing is: we have the right to ban you. We could ban everyone in the game if we wanted to! But... we don't... because we work hard to make this game playable for those who play fairly... and we try to root out those who do not. It's our job. To be honest, it is far from fun. We don't go around arbitrarily banning people for our pleaure. Maybe whoever banned you was mistaken? What's the use of complaining about it? People make mistakes. We simply have to do our best to get rid of the cheaters. You are back now. Wooho. If you don't like the system, get out.

[Badrang the Tyrant]

 Please, can we all stop fighting?  I'm tired of everyone getting mad at each other....

[Mark]

 (pst! don't mess with the admins, Badrang...my advice...)

[Riverpaw]

Please, can we all stop fighting?  I'm tired of everyone getting mad at each other....

Me, too. Flame wars are only fun when they are prearranged.

[Dead Eye]

 I don't get you Beatles. You were unbanned what, 2 months ago? And yet you bring it up now? Why? I doubt it was nessicary. Is it just to get the people to feel sorry for you, and to be angry at the admins??

[The Beatles]

 Sorry, I must shout.
READ MY POST!

OK, that's done. Boze, Dead Eye, may I calmly ask you to read my post? I explicitly stated that my purpose was not to flame, to harass the admins, to demand an explanation, to start a debate, or to in any way bring up this argument again. My sole purpose, which I clearly stated, and which should be obvious had you read my post, was merely to inform those who had been asking me (3 of them) on why I was banned, and perhaps clear my name.

Dead Eye, Boze, you are busy people. I can understand why you did not read my post. BUT THEN DON'T REPLY. If you have no idea what I am talking about, don't reply.

Thanks,
~Beatles

[Badrang the Tyrant]

(pst! don't mess with the admins, Badrang...my advice...)

I'm not stupid Mark.  I wasn't messing with just Boze or Retto.  I just asked if we could all stop arguing...