Has Al permanently lost his chars?

[Clink]

[quote="Medios":3w24l8ar]I know Al doesn't want to talk to Clink in fear of confrontation. I figure its a good move on his part. I have never said that Al did not deserve the ban or argue that in any point. My point is that 2 months is up.
[/quote:3w24l8ar]

I did allow Al access to Starbuck after 2 months passed, but he did not acknowledge or fully serve out his ban.

Al doesn't want to talk to me because he knows what I'll say. He's talking to you because he's being manipulative as he always does. During Al's two month ban, he was caught playing on 4 separate occasions. During one week while I was away, Al played a character up to level 37.

It's also likely that many of you knew he didn't serve his ban. I could take it as an offense to my intelligence that there is no mention of this by those who come to Al's aid in this discussion, but I will assume (for the better) that they didn't know.

Al knows he didn't serve his full ban, and Al knows better than to ask me for things when he didn't hold up his end of the deal. Though he acts ignorant of his offenses and may convince you he is innocent, he has a full understanding of his actions.

He is smart enough to know that I am not a negotiator, so he doesn't bother negotiating with me directly. He has approached people and offered them deals ("if you get me back these characters, you can have this one") if they can successfully negotiate with me on his behalf. This doesn't work. I'm not suggesting this post was instigated by a bribe or other pressure, but there are those who are either naive or vain enough to send me emails on this topic.

To answer the question directly. I don't have any intention of returning any more characters to Al. With whatever humility he may learn from begging for help from the rest of you, perhaps he will remember it before forcing it on undeserving players.

Clink

[Briar]

what a load of crock

I never feigned ignorance of the details of the ban

I told everyone that i was to serve out 2 mths, and get starbuck back, with the rest of it being up to your discretion.

All I've been saying to people was I wonder when I'm going to get them back, and I wish i have them back, etc.


it's funny how certain people were quick to jump to kotetzo's defense, only for that dweeb to end up chasing newbies away.

[Briar]

[quote="Clink":9ubtmwdy]

He is smart enough to know that I am not a negotiator, so he doesn't bother negotiating with me directly. He has approached people and offered them deals ("if you get me back these characters, you can have this one") if they can successfully negotiate with me on his behalf. This doesn't work. I'm not suggesting this post was instigated by a bribe or other pressure, but there are those who are either naive or vain enough to send me emails on this topic.

Clink[/quote:9ubtmwdy]

oh, maybe u'd like to check the logs (since u enjoy doing that) to see the WHOLE conversation i had with whoever emailed you.
I wasn't "bribing" or approaching anyone to get my chars back for me. Said person asked if he could have one of the chars i owned that was locked. I told him that well, the chars are locked, if u want it u'll have to ask clink. and while he's at it, i'll give him the char if i get my other chars back.

I'd like to reiterate that I've NEVER pleaded for anyone to approach the imms for help (other than approaching imms on advise on this matter, b4 i was returned starbuck) I've been OFFERED help on this matter, but I always ask them to stay out of it.

I've told several people that I'd never anticipated getting beyond starbuck back, and wasn't even thinking about getting my other characters back. If they think it's a load of bs on the imm's part, that's their perogative.

speaking of being manipulative, it's funny how certain people manipulated the opinions of other people to agree with their decision, then claimed it to be a collective agreement.

[Clink]

[quote="Briar":co2oj48p]
speaking of being manipulative, it's funny how certain people manipulated the opinions of other people to agree with their decision, then claimed it to be a collective agreement.[/quote:co2oj48p]

So, I'll assume you mean someone in the administration, and probably me. There is a difference between collective and unanimous. It's certainly fair to say that the decisions on your punishment was collective and therefore the decision of the administration. I never stated that it was unanimous.

Unfortunately, I'm the bad guy who is both the face of discussion on this topic and presenting many of the arguments and facts within the discussion as well.

If you wish to continue this discussion or any of the rest of the topic I haven't responded to, I will do so via email as long as it is fruitful. My email address is far from a secret.

Clink

[Infested]

Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey hey, goodbye! *Jerk Removal Complete*

[Medios]

So...

Al was banned from playing any chars on the mud for 2 months. This was accomplished by banning the ones he currently played and not site banning. Since Al has friends here and enjoys slothmud, he could not stay away(I read most of your blog Clink, you need to refer to the section about mud addiction). He made new chars while his old ones were banned and seemingly did not cause any problems. After his 2 month ban was up he received back one char with a shitty class, case closed.

Al never asked me for anything, nor has he ever manipulated me. He did express concern that he was being unfairly treated. He is confrontational and mouthy, both help to escalate him to trouble. I am not ignorant of what originally happened, nor the facts afterwards. Please do not use this to find new reasons to punish him for things other players can easily get away with. Unlike some people who come here and try to cause bad feelings between players, most of us appreciate if everyone could just get along. This however is an impossibility and I hope Al learns from this and acts accordingly. For the rest of you take note.

Mike

[13]

[img:vv7psm1i]http://www.peaksofotterwinery.com/albums/logos/coke.jpg[/img:vv7psm1i]

+

[img:vv7psm1i]http://discussion.autodesk.com/servlet/JiveServlet/download/102-445431-5041105-96759/Smile%20its%20xmas.jpg[/img:vv7psm1i]

+

[img:vv7psm1i]http://www.utm.utoronto.ca/services/gallery/genidea/images/pics/Gi01.jpg[/img:vv7psm1i]

[Clink]

[quote="Medios":kq1d9won]So...
This was accomplished by banning the ones he currently played and not site banning. Mike[/quote:kq1d9won]

This is an incorrect statement.

[12345]

Al and Clink are both smart and stubborn.

Al's smart enough to know that while he was handled harshly it was for a good reason. In fact, I've seen a lot of positive changes in Al since this has started. He's probably not happy about the fact, but building character isn't always pleasant.

Clink is in a harsh position because while this wasn't really a popular decision, it was necessary. He also knows that Al didn't completely live up to their agrement, and that doesn't sit well with him. Letting that fly could potentially undo the good has come out of the situation, just because Al would be back to getting away with stuff, and that would basically be reinforcing negative behavior, etc.

The major obstacle for Al is the apparent lack of options. Feeling like you're being forced into a corner triggers lots of aggression in any animal you care to name. Al already has a lot of aggression... he doesn't need more.

The choice he does have is very difficult to see... He can choose to make Clink's intervention unnecessary. Recognizing and correcting his issues himself, and on his own terms. It might not sound like a lot, but it gives him his pride and self-respect, among other things. Its also not easy...

I also think its the main reason a lot of people stick up for Al. They know its not easy, and while he's not perfect, he's been handling it with as much maturity as he can.

So sure, he's a dick. But at least he trying to be a recovering dick.