Limelight Forums

This is really not the place to dicuss who (nearly) fucked who over half a decade ago, examples from 5/6 years ago are hardly relevant today.

Also I understand situations aren't exactly the same but how come BlackDog was given a different punishment to Soviet/Gungranny?

(Mar 10, 2018, 01:52 PM)Faustin Wrote: [ -> ]This is really not the place to dicuss who (nearly) fucked who over half a decade ago, examples from 5/6 years ago are hardly relevant today.

Also I understand situations aren't exactly the same but how come BlackDog was given a different punishment to Soviet/Gungranny?

I had a big warning list that HR believed were situations I was in the wrong and the final situation before I was demoted, I stood by my opinion and said I didn’t break any rules. 

BD probably has less warnings if any.

(Mar 10, 2018, 04:11 PM)Gungranny Wrote: [ -> ]

(Mar 10, 2018, 01:52 PM)Faustin Wrote: [ -> ]This is really not the place to dicuss who (nearly) fucked who over half a decade ago, examples from 5/6 years ago are hardly relevant today.

Also I understand situations aren't exactly the same but how come BlackDog was given a different punishment to Soviet/Gungranny?

I had a big warning list that HR believed were situations I was in the wrong and the final situation before I was demoted, I stood by my opinion and said I didn’t break any rules. 

BD probably has less warnings if any.

Why do staff get warnings, they are expected to uphold the rules so if they break them they should atleast get a fat ban if not a demotion instead of this 'warning' bollocks

(Mar 10, 2018, 04:28 PM)Faustin Wrote: [ -> ]

(Mar 10, 2018, 04:11 PM)Gungranny Wrote: [ -> ]

(Mar 10, 2018, 01:52 PM)Faustin Wrote: [ -> ]This is really not the place to dicuss who (nearly) fucked who over half a decade ago, examples from 5/6 years ago are hardly relevant today.

Also I understand situations aren't exactly the same but how come BlackDog was given a different punishment to Soviet/Gungranny?

I had a big warning list that HR believed were situations I was in the wrong and the final situation before I was demoted, I stood by my opinion and said I didn’t break any rules. 

BD probably has less warnings if any.

Why do staff get warnings, they are expected to uphold the rules so if they break them they should atleast get a fat ban if not a demotion instead of this 'warning' bollocks

Staff have a lot more of an impact on the community and there aren’t a lot of good replacements. Therefore when one breaks a rule, a warning is issued. This can be compared to as a BIG blacklist or ban. It doesn’t help to just ban them as they cannot be treated like regular players. Instead, they are warned (marked really) until enough build up to consider their demotion.

Again, bans don’t really do shit other than limiting staff coverage where it’s needed and blacklists just limit staff members in some of their duties. Giving these warnings helps HR keep staff in check, so if they continue, they can reflect on past issues and see if it’s time for that staff member to go.

(Mar 10, 2018, 04:33 PM)Gungranny Wrote: [ -> ]

(Mar 10, 2018, 04:28 PM)Faustin Wrote: [ -> ]

(Mar 10, 2018, 04:11 PM)Gungranny Wrote: [ -> ]I had a big warning list that HR believed were situations I was in the wrong and the final situation before I was demoted, I stood by my opinion and said I didn’t break any rules. 

BD probably has less warnings if any.

Why do staff get warnings, they are expected to uphold the rules so if they break them they should atleast get a fat ban if not a demotion instead of this 'warning' bollocks

Staff have a lot more of an impact on the community and there aren’t a lot of good replacements. Therefore when one breaks a rule, a warning is issued. This can be compared to as a BIG blacklist or ban. It doesn’t help to just ban them as they cannot be treated like regular players. Instead, they are warned (marked really) until enough build up to consider their demotion.

Again, bans don’t really do shit other than limiting staff coverage where it’s needed and blacklists just limit staff members in some of their duties. Giving these warnings helps HR keep staff in check, so if they continue, they can reflect on past issues and see if it’s time for that staff member to go.

It was once said by Overlewd 'If someone is teacher quality they are also generally Moderator quality' or something along those lines when people started asking why most mods were teachers.

Anyways with that if Teachers are banned and demoted why aren't staff members? As it had been said in the past they posses a lot  of the same qualities but without the powers.

I've asked before, and I will ask again.

Let's keep this thread on topic.

(Mar 5, 2018, 10:02 PM)Jokhah Wrote: [ -> ]Just want to take this moment to remind everyone that the topic of discussion is community bias, not administrative bias.  Someone else made a wonderful thread in this same serious subforum on that topic.  If what you have to say ONLY pretains to that topic, please take it to that thread.

Not attempting to be rude, but this thread seems to have gone both off topic and into some form of back and forth opinion game about staff bias.  While the feedback is welcome, I'd prefer if you can tie those thoughts to the original topic in some way.

Also, this is the serious discussion threads and I chose it for the rules that apply to them.  Please refrain from posting meme-ish animated gifs that aren't required for the topic of discussion.  While they are comical, this isn't the right place for it.

Ah right sorry Doc,

Community Bias doesn't exist and where is does it isn't a problem.

EDIT: 
1. Staff bias thread was closed
2. Staff members are apart of the community are they not, so I see no reason as to why it cannot be discussed here

(Mar 10, 2018, 06:06 PM)Faustin Wrote: [ -> ]Community Bias doesn't exist and where is does it isn't a problem.

A staff member gets a report from a player. Another staff member (a friend of the player) does the same thing, no report. Is that not a problem?

(Mar 10, 2018, 06:06 PM)Faustin Wrote: [ -> ]EDIT: 
1. Staff bias thread was closed
2. Staff members are apart of the community are they not, so I see no reason as to why it cannot be discussed here

1.

(Mar 9, 2018, 11:42 PM)Doctor Internet Wrote: [ -> ]

(Mar 9, 2018, 11:14 PM)Jono Wrote: [ -> ]Shame there isn't a thread for input about admin bias to keep this one on topic, right?

There is a place for input about admin bias.
and 's inbox.

(Mar 7, 2018, 09:23 PM)Nightmare Wrote: [ -> ]If you have further concerns about admin bias, then feel free to report them to the HR Team ( and ) with enough proof to back it up and it'll be investigated.

Let's keep this thread on-topic.

2. They are a part of the community. However, this thread was aimed specifically at non-administrative staff.

To quote the opening post.

(Mar 5, 2018, 01:53 AM)Jokhah Wrote: [ -> ]Its popular to discuss the staff and how people believe they are biased, but no one ever talks about the community members and how biased they are.

Case in point, a lot of people love to bash on "BlackDog" and his clan FUMUKU.  When the SAA set up shop here, many people came to us asking questions like "When yall gonna take down FUMUKU?"

Groups of members roll around steam rolling others with their collective efforts, be it using votes en masse to push things to go the way they want rather than thinking about what is actually best for the community.

Some members only come on here to provoke reactions out of other players or staff.



Its easy to play the victim, but not to take responsibility for one's own actions.

Why should the staff be unbiased when you have biased players hanging around?  Why do you expect more of the staff then you do your own circle?  Why is it okay for members to support biased behavior against others but when a staff makes a bad call he should be demoted for bias?

Pretty hypocritical in my opinion.

(Mar 10, 2018, 11:26 PM)SourLemon Wrote: [ -> ]"Doctor Internet" Why do you get so triggered when anyone talks about bias? Asking for a friend ;)

I'm getting "triggered" because the OP specifically requested this be kept on-topic at least twice, I've also requested it.

(Mar 11, 2018, 12:32 AM)E Doctor Internet Wrote: [ -> ]

(Mar 10, 2018, 11:26 PM)SourLemon Wrote: [ -> ]"Doctor Internet" Why do you get so triggered when anyone talks about bias? Asking for a friend ;)

I'm getting "triggered" because the OP specifically requested this be kept on-topic at least twice, I've also requested it.

Tbh I think it would've stayed on topic had nightmare not closed the admin bias thread allowing us to have that discussion there

(Mar 11, 2018, 03:30 AM)Faustin Wrote: [ -> ]

(Mar 11, 2018, 12:32 AM)E  Doctor Internet Wrote: [ -> ]

(Mar 10, 2018, 11:26 PM)SourLemon Wrote: [ -> ]"Doctor Internet" Why do you get so triggered when anyone talks about bias? Asking for a friend ;)

I'm getting "triggered" because the OP specifically requested this be kept on-topic at least twice, I've also requested it.

Tbh I think it would've stayed on topic had nightmare not closed the admin bias thread allowing us to have that discussion there

Tbh I don’t think it would’ve been closed if people kept derailing the thread and didn’t continue to bicker. And tbh this thread isn’t about admin bias conversation, so tbh I don’t think the talk was ever considered or allowed to be discussed here by the OP or staff.

(Mar 11, 2018, 05:39 AM)Gungranny Wrote: [ -> ]

(Mar 11, 2018, 03:30 AM)Faustin Wrote: [ -> ]

(Mar 11, 2018, 12:32 AM)E  Doctor Internet Wrote: [ -> ]I'm getting "triggered" because the OP specifically requested this be kept on-topic at least twice, I've also requested it.

Tbh I think it would've stayed on topic had nightmare not closed the admin bias thread allowing us to have that discussion there

Tbh I don’t think it would’ve been closed if people kept derailing the thread and didn’t continue to bicker. And tbh this thread isn’t about admin bias conversation, so tbh I don’t think the talk was ever considered or allowed to be discussed here by the OP or staff.

Don't those Admin fellas have the ability to delete posts, instead of just shutting down a very relevant topic

(Mar 11, 2018, 07:10 AM)Faustin Wrote: [ -> ]

(Mar 11, 2018, 05:39 AM)Gungranny Wrote: [ -> ]

(Mar 11, 2018, 03:30 AM)Faustin Wrote: [ -> ]Tbh I think it would've stayed on topic had nightmare not closed the admin bias thread allowing us to have that discussion there

Tbh I don’t think it would’ve been closed if people kept derailing the thread and didn’t continue to bicker. And tbh this thread isn’t about admin bias conversation, so tbh I don’t think the talk was ever considered or allowed to be discussed here by the OP or staff.

Don't those Admin fellas have the ability to delete posts, instead of just shutting down a very relevant topic

Then we'd get people screaming admin bias because they themselves are bias about being dealt with in such a manner (Which seems to be a common fallback when someone gets in trouble). Why not just stop it all together and just close the thread?

Maybe I should close this one too if people don't stop flaming hmm?

Any concerns RE admins fwd it to   or if there's clear abuse make a staff report