Player Sanctioned: NBK

[Luke.]

If you keep violating the rules and we can verify internally both with evidence given to us and our own investigation (since evidence can only include so much), sanction severity will naturally escalate with repeat offences. This shouldn't be a surprise. Of course some breaches would be weighed heavier than others though as not everything warrants the same punishment, but patterns are patterns.

Why would we allow a public vote? Not a single staff team of any community online works this way. Definitely not the several I have been a part of in the last 10 years, at least. It's not an irl crime, it's a sanction in a video game. Not to mention that communities, even large ones, are infinitely smaller than the populace of a country and therefore biases would be front and centre of any public prosecution for even the most minor of rule breaches. An irl public system after all includes a jury that is designed to be unbiased in the real world. That is not possible here, or anywhere in the online space. Staff of any community reserve the right to not publish the way they handle everything as well.

Playing more does not mean there's a higher chance to be sanctioned. It doesn't make rules harder to follow, and it doesn't make it harder to stay out of trouble. To reiterate the part about you feeling trolled by staff - There is no bias involved, no evil cabal plotting against people, and no will to stop any individual playing. I'm personally very tired of this kind of rhetoric. That kind of thing is not allowed to fester in this iteration of the staff team.

If you keep finding yourself in valid reports over and over (we don't action invalid ones, obviously), you will keep finding yourself on the receiving end of a sanction, and at that point perhaps it's time to reflect and think about why, rather than blaming someone else. Us, in this case. The rules apply to everyone, including us. Staff have been sanctioned in the not-so-distant past. It really can't be made any clearer than that. You can disagree that you were in the wrong and we allow that but more often than not, the sanction will stand because there is no valid rebuttal. We have walked back sanctions before due to it being proven that bad decisions were made. That's why we allow evidence to be passed to relevant parties in the first place too. We are not infallible and we accept that. There is no power-move here or a will to make someone miserable, but we have a duty to uphold standards.

Speaking of, you are correct that the sanction does not include the heavy fine in text. It was certainly meant to be and that's our fault. I apologise on behalf of the staff for not being clear enough, but the sanction stands.

To the poster on the [GN] account, I certainly hear you. Will see what we can do.

---