Talk:Roleplay Online/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I'm archiving this discussion as it is getting too long.

It can be found here i beleive: http://www.en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roleplay_Online:archive

C.B 03:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Right, fresh slate. Looks to me that Karzak irritated the mods into banning him, and then goaded Jase into an email explosion with his stobborn idiocy, but that is never mind. What edits do people want to do to the page?

Once we have sensible edits, instead of just 'We must get revenge at all costs', i shall unlock the article and we can go againC.B 04:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

---

I'm just glad that this whole friggin' mess is about to be completely straightened out. *three sharp raps on an oak table* Seriously, though, once it's unlocked, what do you guys think about adding a series of links to gaming resources, like the White Wolf page and Eden Studios' home? ~~ashlayne~~

---

one can hope, ash.
And yeah, i think thats a great idea. Can we have some links?
C.B 04:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I would probably leave it to the top 3 or 4 systems in the Outside links area as this is an article about RPoL specifically. Keep it to context.

--ElSpike 05:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Mediation Request 2 Content discussion 2.1 second paragraph 2.2 History and Format sections discussion 2.3 Moderation section discussions

Mediation Request

A mediation request has been filed with WP:MEDCAB:

*Template:Article:Roleplay Online Content dispute with a user banned from the site. Revisions of his edits in an attempt to maintain NPOV edited back and made more negative then previous. Topic protected to drive dispute into Discussion, where the user now insists on flogging the same dead horse. Please assist.

This request does not follow the specified procedure, the link is not functional and the signature of the submitter is missing. If this request is serious please resubmit it following the proper procedure. Please fill out the template at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/10 01 2006 Roleplay Online --Fasten 12:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you reckon guys? Do we still need mediation, or has Karzak proven to himself he was in the wrong?
C.B 14:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing there that says that Karzak admits he's wrong, if anything, I see him posting in hope that people will actually somehow believe that his twisted sense of right is something that they should agree with.

So unless we have agreement that he won't be continuing to try and defame the website, and the administration and moderators of this site, then yes, I think we do need to get mediation, if only to have someone with wikipedia authority to put an official stamp on that point of view.

Mind you, then we'll probably have him emailing the owner of wikipedia saying that his staff were only here to agree with us, and that he wasn't treated fairly or with respect.

~Jaguar

---

Yeah, that was my thought as well Jag mate. But the mediators are, i gather, just normal wiki users out to help maintain consensus. Emailing the wiki boss will just get him told that.
(is it just me, or is wiki struggling today?)
C.B 15:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE:
I have just completed the mediation request, if you follow the link posted by Fasten above you will be able to make comments if there is anything in my statement that is not agreed with, or you feel needs clarifying any.

I wasn't sure whether this dispute was best put as just between me and Karzak, with BBR and the rest of you posting your veiws to help to sort the issue, or listing us all as being part of the dispute.
C.B 15:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with ~Jag, there is nothing to suggest that he will stop editing to suit his own viewpoint. When offered the opportunity to discuss future edits, he just used that opportunity to repeat his claims of bias, over and over. And over. And over... Attempts to edit to a more neutral point of view, with reference to the fact that his comments were those of a single individual, rather than reflecting the views of the majority of people involved with the article, were deleted.

The message to the mods looks good. --Bigbadron 16:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks BBR. Now we just need to see what comes of it.
C.B 16:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I see we're now unlocked. Has the situation been resolved? --Bigbadron 21:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

No idea, BBR. When we are feeling safe to edit again, and since we have several heads available for thinking now, I'd like to do some serious editing together -- taking the paragraphs on one-by-one here on the talk page to streamline our article and make it nice and encyclopediarific, if everyone's amenable. cruinne 22:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It would appear a 'helpful' admin thought we locked the article so that only the creators of the page could edit it. I have queried on his talk page but gawd knows when we will get a reply
C.B 23:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

---

While we have it open, I just threw the latest stats for the portraits in to keep the figures up to date.

That said, cruinne, I think that sounds like a great idea. I'll be willing to help (At least, when I remember to check in).

~J

---

The admin informed me that all i did was flag the page had been protected, not actually protect it. I'm an idiot.

Mediators are ready when we are. I asked for advice seeing as Karzak has not been seen since last night.

I hope to hell he doesn't trash the page again while we're trying to sort this
C.B 00:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Update: I have requested mediation begin in the place i put the initial statement. Izehar has offered to request someone protect the page properly this time and I have taken him up on the offer.
C.B 00:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Content discussion

Hardline and headline here to start a new section. As things have been quiet, I think we can have something like a normal discussion. Whee :)

Current text:

Roleplay Online, or RPoL, is a roleplaying game site for all ages. Its controlled boundaries allow even pre-adolescents to play role-playing games with others on the Internet in relative safety. RPoL runs exclusively by donation, currently has no charges or fees are attached to it, and does not support external ads. This, however, is under review with a plan in the works for paid subscriptions to access additional benefits in RPoL's next major revision while leaving the majority of its current functions free to use and play. One of the site's endearing qualities is its desire to let people remain anonymous and just enjoy the role-playing aspects.

Suggested changes (reasons in parentheses):

• Hyphenate "role-playing" in the first sentence (associated Wiki article uses it hyphenated).
• Remove "Its controlled boundaries allow even pre-adolescents to play role-playing games with others on the Internet in relative safety." (Previous sentence says "for all ages"; this seems extra and also something which is debatable.)
• Move "currently" in the third sentence to an introductory, "Currently,". (Just think it flows better as "currently" doesn't apply only to the second part of that list.
• Move discussion of subscription to its own section, perhaps one for "Planned Development". (A section on planned development could cover subscription as well as features to be added.)
• Final sentence -- we need better wording for this, but I'm not sure what it should be. (Endearing being subjective, and the anonymity being source of frustration to some ;).)

If we could thread this discussion with Wiki indenting (see WP:TP), that'd be excellent. cruinne 16:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

How's this sound, cruinne and everyone else? (sorry about not using indenting and stuff...I don't know how to use wikistuff yet).

RolePlay OnLine (RPoL) is a role-playing game site, at which people of all ages are able to participate. One of the site's most endearing qualities is its desire to let people remain anonymous and simply enjoy the role-playing aspects.

Currently, RPoL runs exclusively by donations, with no fees or charges attached; it also does not support external advertising. This process, however, is under review with a plan in development for paid subscriptions to access additional benefits in RPoL's next major revision - these subscriptions, however, will still leave the majority of the current functions available for free.

~Jaguar

(I indented for you, when you reply you will see how. Use of the dashes for hard lines is discouraged; e.g., they say to use it rarely, afaict.) Anyway, It sounds like the rewrite is the stuff I wanted to remove. To me the bit about "endearing qualities" is subjective (it's not endearing to me) and I'm not sure "endearing" has a place in an encyclopedia entry. I'd like to move all the bit about "under review" to a new section, as I said. Maybe it'll be easier if I just write otu the re-write I was suggesting:

Roleplay Online (RPoL), is a role-playing game site for all ages. Currently, RPoL runs exclusively by donation, has no charges or fees are attached to it, and does not support external ads. In addition, RPoL maintains a strong commitment to user anonymity in order to allow participants to focus on role-playing and gaming. While a valid email address is required for registration and contact purposes, only site moderation and administration has access to this and other identifying information.

I'm still not sure that part has much relevance, so more input, please.

cruinne 02:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

What about this

Roleplay Online (RPoL), is a role-playing game site for all ages. Currently, RPoL runs exclusively by donation, has no charges or fees are attached to it, and does not support external ads. In addition, RPoL maintains a strong commitment to user anonymity in order to allow participants to focus on role-playing and gaming, without having to be concerned that personal details and email addresses are being made available to others. While a valid email address is required for registration and contact purposes, only site moderation and administration has access to this and other identifying information.

Perhaps something could be included in the "developments" part, mentioning that the upcoming version will include a way for users to communicate privately with each other, without having to give out email addresses (might be seen as a safety feature).

--Bigbadron 12:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I like that Ron. :) I was having trouble wording it more betterer. Anyone else? cruinne 14:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Everything seems to be going well here. Checking the revision history, I see a vast improvement. I would like to know, is there still a dispute here, is mediation still required? I had drafted a proposal, but then I noticed that the article had already been tidied up and NPOVed. Izehar 12:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

We have npov'd, but Karzak is not currently editing,

I don't know about the rest of the group, I don't trust Karzak.

I feel as soon as you end the mediation he will start again.

He is already disputing my POV in the mediation request, if you look it over.

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/10 01 2006 Roleplay Online

C.B 15:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know, Karzak is back at it as we suspected would happen. Izehar looked it over and decided it was a clear bias, from the comments left, so he reverted.

Would it be out of line to compare him to a rabid pitbull here?~sigh~

Thinking of archiving again, any objections?C.B 22:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Izehar, and thanks for taking the time to come over and check things out for us. We appreciate it! I think C.B expresses the trepidation some others of us feel about what will happen soon as Karzak feels no one is watching the article again. (Don't worry about archiving CB -- it's easier to have all the stuff we're talking about here where we can see it without opening extra pages). cruinne 22:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

second paragraph

Second Paragraph as currently written:

The RPoL community is made up of people from all over the world, and caters to any sort of role-playing game one might desire, as well as an assortment of casual forums spanning a list of diverse categories, as users can easily create their own games and forums. The site ranges from freeform, systemless games to system-heavy games such as Dungeons & Dragons.

Suggested re-write:

The RPoL community is made up of people from all over the world. Since users can easily create their own games and forums, RPoL hosts a wide variety of online role-playing games, as well as an assortment of casual forums spanning diverse categories. The variety of on-site games range from freeform, systemless games to system-heavy games such as Dungeons & Dragons and GURPS.

I included GURPS as another well-known game system, but am not sure if you guys feel it appropriate; let me know, as well as if you have other suggestions. I swapped the language around a little. Wanted to link to freeform role-playing game, but as you see the wiki entry is geared toward LARPs rather than online freeform (perhaps collaborating over there might be a good idea for some of the ardent freeformers). cruinne 23:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Looks good, and GURPS should really be there, I think. It's the other side of (probably) the biggest split in system-based games. It's only fair that it's in there. Don't want to be accused of bias, after all.  :)

Might be an idea to ask, back at RPoL, if anybody wants to whip up an article on freeform.

--Bigbadron 22:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there a case for WOD being mentioned too? That appears to be at least as big as GURPS, if what system books my local bookshops sell is anything to go by...
C.B 17:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Not sure. There is a WOD article here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_of_darkness but the more systems are added to the list, the more people will tend to want their own favourite added, and the harder it will be to justify not adding it. It could soon get out of hand, and pull the focus of the article away from RPoL itself. --Bigbadron 13:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty, I'll make the changes tomorrow and we'll work from there. In the mean time, look over the long list of categories and such someone edited in, and let us know what you think. cruinne 03:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's a long list, and it's not even complete ("Western" is missing, for one).  :p

Personally I think it'd look better as something like

RPoL organises games into over twenty categories, ranging from Anime to Western, from Historical Fantasy to Sci-Fi, and from Comedy to Horror. There is also a category for forums where users can advertise games, ask questions about how to use the site, and address issues they may be having with the way the site functions.

But maybe that's just me...  :p --Bigbadron 15:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with my edit, "However it should be noted that a person was banned for saying "Again, I ask for someone fair." in a private message visable only to moderators, so that "lax" is not an appropriate word to use discussing RPoL moderation."

I was banned for the quoted PM, so that part is fact. A term like "lax" is opinion, but if it is opinion and inprecise, but since it was already used it shouldn't be removed from just one use without the otherKarzak 18:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

As one of the two people who decided you should be banned, I can say that this quote was not why you were banned, and so saying this would be a misrepresentation of the actual events involved. Please see discussion below about current editing and proposed removal of the section on moderation. cruinne 19:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

History and Format sections discussion

Right -- and trying to keep in mind this isn't an ad or a userguide, and things can change and outdate a hard list, I'm going with that BBR. I've called it "Format" ... would like to add more information on the actual format of RPoL -- how games are played, and so on. I've also condensed the list as BBR suggested above. To wrap up today's stuff, I did a quick re-write of the history section. See what you think, and if we should re-expand it work from where it is now. cruinne 19:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Moderation section discussions

Lastly, I don't think the section on moderation has a place in the article at all. For example, the entry on Something Awful doesn't mention their moderation; the entry on Amazon.com doesn't talk about customer service. This is likely because articles are about what is, and are not reviews or opinion pieces. I'd rather stick to stating quantitative things about RPoL. At this point, I can't see the section on moderation adding anything useful to an encyclopedic article on the RPoL site. The bits about subscriptions and such should be moved to an area on Plans or Future RPoL. cruinne 19:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

That is specifically the post I was banned for, as verifiable in the PM's you posted.

As for a section on moderation, I think it is important for a site like RPoL where people do get banned often enough for there to be a forum on the site specifically for the moderators to address bansKarzak 19:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Correction: I didn't post those PMs. (You wouldn't want to lie, now would you :P). You were banned because:

• You went to a forum where replies for the purpose of discussion are strictly not allowed, and you posted a reply.
• You used foul language in a public forum. True, you posted it with substitution characters, but you and I know what you meant.
• Your posts were removed, and you were warned to cease posting.
• After you received and could view the warnings, you continued to post. Generally, after three bad posts, a person is banned from that forum. You were even given an extra chance to stop before the forum ban went on.
• Once you lost access to that forum, you came to the forum for contacting moderators and said a moderator had treated you in "violation of the RPoL terms".
• I pointed out the rules you had been violating and asked you to explain the moderator dealing with you had violated the TOU.
• You gave me no answer to this question, and instead changed the topic to the private dealings inside a game you had applied to.
• I explained that the GM there had not broken any site rules, and asked you again to answer my previous question. You again failed to answer my question and instead changed the topic to attempting to define "respect".
• I told you to come back when you wanted to discuss matters in a grown-up way.
• Again, you went on about respect.
• I asked you to sleep on it and come back later to talk about it once you had cooled off. I explained you were moderated because you broke site rules and no other reason.
• You replied that I should ban you if I thought you had broken site rules.
• At this time you opened a second thread in the same place demanding to speak directly to the site owner, and another thread in a third forum to request attention.
• A second moderator attempted to assist you, explaining why you were moderated and what would happen if you continued to persist in trying to get attention for yourself using the tactics you were engaging.
• You demanded that either you get to speak to the site owner, or that you be banned.
• You went on to explain you felt I was being unfair to you. Asked why you felt this, you could only say you felt you had the right to express your opinions in forums where the expression of opinions is not allowed. Your language became profane at this point (no character substitutions).
• When the second moderator pointed out, again, that the rules of the site were simply being followed and pointed out that you had used foul language in a public forum, you accused him of lying.
• The moderator warned you to cease accusing him of lying and of being biased. You persisted.
• At this point you also opened another thread in an attempt to seek attention, despite being warned to stop doing this. In it, you again accused the second moderator of lying and of being biased.

The final statement alone is not what got you banned: It took all this to get you banned. Really, there isn't a spot to put all this in wikipedia, but it's all pertinent to the discussion, if you really want to go there. cruinne

the final statement is what got me banned, that is simple fact. The rest of it led up to the ban, but that post is specifically what got me banned.

You made some significant errors in your synopsis of the events as well.

The beginning, when I posted in wanted-players, you claim "After you received and could view the warnings, you continued to post", this simply isn't true since you can't view new posts while you are replying to old ones, therefore I couldn't receive or view new posts at the time you assumed I could.

However, the forum ban wasn't what bothered me as much as your attitude did, so I went to the heaven forum and posted for moderator assistance, at which time you jumped in. Here is your PM reply to me there:

"Alright. When you're ready to discuss this like an adult, come back and we can talk about it."

Now, this is an insulting dismissal that was designed by you I believe to further instigate the situation.

Yes, I posted three PM's in heaven, because each time I posted one it got filled with crap. crap that flowed both ways.

Two more moderators jumped in, making a three for one free for all out of it, while I continued to ask for admin intervention and instead got instigation.

Also, all this happened on PM, in private. elspike got his feelings hurt that I would ask to go over his head, and that is what I was banned for.

But again, the specific post I quoted is the post that got me banned.Karzak 19:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're still mistaken and you, yourself, are misrepresenting things above. E.g., my first reply to you wan't to come back when you could discuss it like an adult -- that was only after you refused to answer straight-forward questions and admit that your problems were caused by yourself, entirely. What it comes down to, and I probably should have simply summarized it thus and left it this: You were banned not for one single statment but because you persisted in doing what you had been told not to do. It does not matter whether it was "in private" or not. You were told not to do something by a moderator, and you continued to do it. The Terms of Use, which anyone may read and to which you must agree before making an acocunt, say that users must obey moderator instructions at all times. You did not. The most I think that is NPOV to mention in the article, if there must be a section on moderation, is that those who violate the site TOU may have their account banned as a result. That's exactly what happened in this case.

If you wish to persist here, you're going to have to build some consensus that it belongs here. So far I've seen nothing of the sort. (PS please, please use indenting as demonstrated so far in this page. It makes it so much easier to follow what's going on.) cruinne 20:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree, the Moderation section goes into too much detail, for an aspect of the site which is unimportant to the vast majority of users. Either drop it entirely or just point out that those who break the ToU are likely to be banned, temporarily or permanently, either from the whole site or from some sections of it.--Bigbadron 21:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud Karzak stop crying about it.

You were an idiot, and broke the rules of the ad forum. You complain to the mods, and refuse to except that the rules apply to you. You make a childish complaint of lies because a mod used an o instead of an 0 (as if that really changes the bloody word). You carry on throwing a tantrum like a three year old, screaming 'mommy mommy, the nasty mans is picking on me' at Jase, and meanwhile challenge the integrity of the mod you accused of lying. When they finally have enough, and ban you, you harrass Jase by email until even HE loses patience.

Not the actions of the 30+ year old you claim to be.

Nor is coming here and disrupting the neutral point of view with your claims of bias.

You did it to youeself. End of story. Dry your tears, make a late resolution to stop acting like an asshole, and get on with your life.C.B 22:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Lobo: Oh come *on*, Karzak, you've posted your own character assassination above, everyone can see exactly how it went, and as for being insulted..."Come back when you are ready to discuss this like an adult" is *not* an insult, if that's an insult, then i've been pretty damn abused, quit moaning and stop trying to take out your own petty frustrations on *users* that just want to type a Wiki article, because seriously, the moderaters showed a lot more restraint for a Hell of a lot longer than i would have done and more than you had business to recieve.

LOL, It's as much of an insult as telling a mod you want to go over his head because you think he is biased (and that is what I was banned for, when elspike went "mommy, mommy! this bad man is picking on me!", LOL, to phrase it as a child above did ). As far as claiming this article has a Npov, it doesn't, it is written in large part by moderators of RPoL who are not neutral. BTW, I didn't harrass Jason with Email, he harrassed me. I suggest you reread the email. Out of all the comments made by everyone, me, the mods, and Jase, Jase's are clearly the most childish, relying almost solely on schoolyard insults.Karzak 23:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you seriously believe this rubbish, Karzak? It amazes me that one person could prove to be so...what's a neutral word that I could use here. Aah! So 5tupid! It's the most blatantly obvious vision I've ever seen. You broke the rules, you complained, you had it explained why you were warned, and continued to complain about it. You were banned for continued harassment when the initial problem was well and truly over, stop trying to play a VERY bad game of semantics, get over it, and go find someone else to perpetually harass.

~Jaguar

Thats entirely the problem, I DID read the emails. I even cleaned them up so everyone else could read them. Trust me on this, your views of events are seriously slanted. And everyone editting this page (btw, there is only one moderator editing it, that is Cruinne, and she, like everyone else here, is suggesting revisions for debate.)will agree with me on this point.

Give it up. Your horse is now completely destroyed. There is naught but bones to flog now. Even the neutral Mediator thinks your views have no place in this article.C.B 00:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

'written in large part by moderators'?? Where did you get that idea? This article was put up by a user, stats that are available to anyone on the site were added by another user. Until you, Karzak, tried to edit in your own bias, no moderator was involved, and even then mostly in the discussion part, with some contribution to the attempts to return to a factual, unbiased version. Since you are no longer involved with RPoL, why don't you just butt out?

Brianna512

Karzak, once again, please cease editing in your viewpoints until consensus is reached about what content is appropriate. cruinne 01:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Karzak, the evidence has all been published here, remember. We've all seen it. We all know what happened. Stop acting like an assh0le. Your interpretation of that evidence is flawed, coloured by your own point of view. Now if your PERSONAL point of view is valid in the article, then so is mine, confused brit's, ~Jaguar's, Brianna's... and unfortunately we all happen to disagree with you.

A wiki mod thinks your PERSONAL views have no place here, or are they biased too?

And how many times does it have to be explained to you that, until YOU started trying to wreck the page with your biased, slanted, lying POV (and we know that you're lying, because we've seen the PMs and your precious emails - you know, the ones where you kept pushing and pushing and pushing), the mods had nothing to do with this article. It was written by users. Cruinne and elSpike came in afterwards, with some figures and a bit of tidying up to make it flow better.

I don't see what your gripe is, you got exactly what you kept demanding. How many times did you tell them "If you think I broke the rules, then ban me?" Clearly they felt that you broke the site rules, as laid out in the ToU, and in the W-P board, so they banned you, as per YOUR request.

I also see your constant references to people being childish... well from the evidence presented, the only person being childish was you. "There's a difference between asshole and assh0le, so elSpike's a liar." Yeah, right. The only person lying is you.--Bigbadron 05:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, here's another thing you... misrepresented - "I think it is important for a site like RPoL where people do get banned often enough for there to be a forum on the site specifically for the moderators to address bans" (your own words, from further up this very page).

RPoL currently has in excess of 29,000 registered uses. There are (discounting all the multiple accounts created by single users) something like 25-30 people listed in the Chamber of Lost Souls (including the ones who are/were on Temporary bans, and have since been allowed to return). So we're talking maybe 1 in 1000 people are dumb enough to get banned (others are smart enough to heed the warnings), and a number of those are banned from specific sections and/or temporarily. This latter group are probably the reason the chamber doesn't go into details.

It saves them a lot of embarrassment on their return.

1 in 1000 is not a large number. I have seen sites where the number is as high as 1 in 50 or ao, and they have similar forums.--Bigbadron 13:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Lobo: On the banning issue, considering you asked to be banned, i believe, no less than ten times in the pms, it looks like you got exactly what you wanted.

Just to follow up on BBR's bit -- there are 15 individuals listed in the RPoL chamber; most of those listed are multiple accounts but have only one person at their source. So, on a site that's been open just over five years and has 29,862 registered users, over 3000 of whom who are active in any given week, we have 15 permanent unique site bans. RPoL didn't even have a ban routine for the first years of its existance -- jase had to code one (reluctantly) to deal with abusive users. The fraction of banned users is so small as to be irrelevant to this article. (Though, if elSpike could tell us the date of the ban routine implementation, that might be worth including in the history section.) cruinne 14:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Only 15? Wow! When they start making multiple accounts they really go for it, don't they? So about 1 in 2000 then.

According to the version information, the banning routine was one of the earlier changes jase had to implement. Guess that says something about about some of the people who've visited the site in the past.  :(

Also, just to note here, ALL rules changes at the site have been implemented after the... less sociable users have abused the previous version of the rules.  :( --Bigbadron 14:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm having a hard time in the version logs distinguishing between the individual games' banning routing, and the site-wide banning routine. I know that (or I think I know that), as of a mutual acquaintence of ours, we didn't have one and it was written for him. cruinne 16:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Lobo:You know, i've shown a few people not connected with RPoL this and asked them to guess Karzak's age, their answers have ranged from 7-14, personally, a few years ago, i was on placement with a class of five and six year-olds who show more common sense.

Yeah Lobo, thats what makes me laugh. He claims to be older then Jase in one of the emails, but most people with the amount of common sense he demonstrates would die before reaching age 10.
C.B 20:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)