Is special treatment allowed in ENT?

[Drahque]

So over the last two weeks, I've spend a lot of time thinking about how ENT staff is handling stuff and almost felt as if it would be worthless making a report or complaint, because I don't feel my previous ones was taken serious. But now I'll make one last effort to change this community, and I'd really hope that there is going to be taken some persistent actions to this one:


* Supersexyy:
Two weeks ago, I made a huge report on how Supersexyy treat people who's trying to help the community and how he was abusing admin for his own good (switching teams), which were strictly against the rules of Lihl (as any admin should know) - even though he was advised to not do so.

Agreements then decided to demote him 30 days, which in this case was a soft punishment, compared to all the report's that was made against him and the fact that he was still able to play Lihl even though he had abused the auto-balance mechanics in order to make some hugely unbalanced games. Here's the topic:
- viewtopic.php?f=31&t=14153

But guess what? A couple of days later he was ALREADY a moderator again? What the fuck? Or should I quote one of your own moderators:

Supersexy is blue again? Lol.

I'd understand if he had appealed, but at no point have Supersexyy showed that he acknowledged of doing wrong. A regular player would get his ban reduced to the half amount (50 %), but in this case, he only served about 16.67 % of his sentence. That's special treating moderators over every single player in this community.



* DonaldtheDuckie:
LihlDiabloDuck seems to abuse his admin status in order to do whatever it requires to obtain his wishes and personal beliefs. This has lately been showed by his extremely biased polls, trying to manipulate the outcome of the votes in order to follow through in a rule he seems to be the only one who wish:
- viewtopic.php?f=72&t=14824

Several people mentions that his poll needs to be more neutral in order to get a useful result, even a game moderators, EdgeOfChaos, is stating following:

I don't play LIHL, so I don't care about the outcome, but this is a ridiculously biased poll. It's like a Fangorn poll. If you want meaningful results you should make it more fair

WAY BEYOND acceptable, he's even going as far as harassing people who believe otherwise or is a 'roadblock' for him to accomplish as he wishes. This is similar to how Supersexyy were mocking a person for sharing his beliefs, only here it's LihlDiabloDuck flaming Ilocos_Norte in private just because he's sharing his opinion which isn't the same as his 'mindset'. This is seen by following conversation, which I'd really like if @Ilocos_Norte would share his opinion about, because nobody should accept to be treated like that:
[spoiler=Conversation that shows ILOCOS_NORTE feels offended](01:54 / Allied) ILOCOS_NORTE: duck is so dumb, flaming me private
(02:00 / Allied) iG0D: for why
(02:05 / Allied) ILOCOS_NORTE: cross
(02:07 / Allied) ILOCOS_NORTE: build
(02:08 / Allied) ILOCOS_NORTE: ^^
(02:09 / Allied) iG0D: lol
(02:13 / Allied) iG0D: did u beat him?
(02:15 / Allied) ILOCOS_NORTE: y
(02:18 / Allied) iG0D: nice
(02:23 / Allied) ILOCOS_NORTE: such a dick
(02:27 / Allied) iG0D: tell him ig0d says QQ
(02:31 / Allied) ILOCOS_NORTE: ^^
(02:34 / Allied) ILOCOS_NORTE: hes off now

- Source: http://atl.entgaming.net/replay/view_re ... 953407.w3g[/spoiler]

Not to mention that this isn't the first time Duck is using his admin powers for his own good, there's been several report/complaints where he doesn't seem to care what the community beliefs:
- viewtopic.php?f=31&t=13300 (Complaint about lihldiabloduck, Abusing Powers)
- viewtopic.php?f=83&t=13296 (Lihldiabloduck as moderator?)
- viewtopic.php?f=72&t=13306 (Future of LIHL)

Especially the last one, is worth noticing, because I clearly prove/show how Duck ignored what 3 out of 4 moderators said and 13 out of 15 were suggesting. He decided to ignore all of this, and go through with his whatever suited him. This ended up in Dweller having to clean up the mess after him.



* Drahque & Achillesgr:
Now to my own case, I'd really feel as if I've been unfairly treated and would like some throughout explanation to what really happened. There's really no information to gather from the topic where I were perm unvouched:
- viewtopic.php?f=85&t=1426

A short sum-up of how I've been told/understood it went on:
- 09th august 2013, Supersexyy unvouched Drahque 72 hours.
- 15th august 2013, Drahque reported Supersexyy, reuslting in 1 month ban.
- 17th august 2013, Drahque was unvouched permanently by MickeyTheMouse, who was asked to do so 'undercover' by blue admins and these admins were asked to do so by someone unknown.

I can't help wondering if this person was Supersexyy or LihlDiabloDuck, as some sort of personal vendetta for me reporting Supersexyy. It just feels too 'random' it happens almost the day after, and the way it was done, seems to be 'hiding' something, because the topic where I'm unvouched by Dweller doesn't state the reason to why.

It's important to notice, that I was unvouched by Supersexyy 72 hours for: "Excessive shit talking" (as he stated), and during the period of 12th august to 17th august, I didn't break any new rules. So, how can I be unvouched for something I had ALREADY been punished for?

I really feel as if I've been unfairly treated, because if I compare myself to Achillesgr, he's broken way more rules but no actions were taken. To compare
[spoiler=Drahque and Achillesgr's reports and unvouch lengths]Drahque unvouch:
- viewtopic.php?f=85&t=13417 (12 hours)
- viewtopic.php?f=85&t=13795 (72 hours)
- viewtopic.php?f=85&t=14261 (0 rules broken, PERMANENT unvouch)

Achillesgr reports:
- viewtopic.php?f=85&t=13417 (12 hours)
- viewtopic.php?f=85&t=14386 (72 hours)
- viewtopic.php?f=83&t=14572 (5 rules broken, NO unvouch)[/spoiler]

I don't really feel as if I've been equally/fairly treated, I don't understand why I should be unvouched permanently? I've almost been away for over 2 weeks now - longer than anyone have ever been unvouched. I really wish the best for this community and have tried my best several times, but the way people such as Supersexyy/Duck is treating me, really doesn't help me to do so.

I really wish I'd be given another chance in the League, just like Achillesgr, Supersexyy and LihlDiabloDuck etc. have been given several chances. Otherwise I'd at least need to feel that people are being fairly treated, in order to accept my unvouch, which means people should be punished for what they've done EQUALLY.



* Summing up:
Since this is a big report and things easily can be missed, I'll sum-up:
- A game moderator, Supersexyy, is valued over a regular player and allowed to go 'around' the rules; by ignoring the auto-balance in Lihl and mock a person for trying to help the community.
- A game moderator, Supersexyy, was demoted 1 month, but less than 1/6 of the time later were moderator again. Meanwhile if a regular player appeals, he would get 1/2 of the original decided time, but in this case he is 6 times higher valued.
- A lihl moderator, LihlDiabloDuck, is using his admin status in order to do whatever it requires to obtain his wishes and personal beliefs.
- A lihl moderator, LihlDiabloDuck, is making biased polls trying to manipulate the outcome of the votes in his own favour as of what he wants.
- A lihl moderator, LihlDiabloDuck, is personally harassing a person who's a roadblock for him in order to obtain what he wishes, just because he shared his opinion.
- A lihl moderator, LihlDiabloDuck, have been reported and several complaints have been made about his way of handling stuff, by literally not giving a shit about what the community wants.
- A lihl moderator, LihlDiabloDuck, is childishly ignoring what other people has to say and what the community beliefs, which a moderator is supposed to at least make an effort understanding.
- A regular player, Drahque, was unvouched 72 hours on 9th august, and afterwards permanently unvouched 17th august, two days after his report against Supersexyy, without breaking ANY rules in the period of 12th to 17th august, being his 2nd offense.
- A regular player, Drahque, was permanently unvouched without any explanation or proof about the rules that had been broken in order to make it.
- A regular player, Achillesgr, was unvouched first 12 hrs and then 72 hrs similar to Drahque, but on his 3rd offense, where he broke whole 4-5 rules, no actions was taken.

tldr; I hope this report/complaint is not too long to comprehend. (;

[supersexyy]

Ok well let me say what I do know:
Regarding me: I did admit the error with my comment soon after it was posted, I'm sorry if you were offended. Otherwise I am fully committed to the success off the LIHL and I believe most members and LIHL moderators will vouch for that.

Regarding your ban: You will have the opportunity of reapplying for next season. The primary reason you have been unvouched is not due to your rule breaking - but due to your consistently poor behaviour. Don't take this personally but many players really felt sad playing with you and refused to sign if you were signed. Combined with the fact that you have been warned multiple times by multiple moderators to clean up your act - we had given you more than enough chances to improve. Of course your bans also contributed to this decision which was supported by higher administration.

Regarding achilles: Mickey has denied your ban request, and Donald has denied your secondary ban request. No need to beat a dead horse.

[Drahque]

I did admit the error with my comment soon after it was posted, I'm sorry if you were offended.

I've sorry I haven't seen or heard your apology, to me it just felt as if you ignored me, because I both tried to get in contact with you through PM (with Dweller) and also in-game, where you didn't seem to care.

Regarding achilles: Mickey has denied your ban request, and Donald has denied your secondary ban request. No need to beat a dead horse.

But why? This is un-logical to me, how a person who break that many rules, instantly gets denied / no actions is taken. I really feel unfairly treated, or as if some people are valued higher than others. This is also backed up by my report, where you can see that you got away with just a few days of the original 30 day demote.

This is the whole thing my report is about, I feel as if people are differently treated.

[supersexyy]

I received no such PM.

As this complaint seems to be centered around your own unfair treatment, lets get to the facts: We were talking about unvouching you for a long period before you were actually unvouched. You were warned by me, iight, duckie, (and dweller?) to improve your behaviour but you did not. Your public flaming war with BA_fail was first, then run in with Arishok, multiple flame wars and blaming matches with Achilles and furthermore an official complaint by Duckie. Your forum behaviour with many lies and fabrications, construed to help your case, also was a mark against your name.

All this happened and you were given a 72 hour unvouch - quite fair I would say.

Soon after more reports about your behavior was brought up by many reputable members who often do not get involved with complaints. There was a collective decision to extend your unvouch as your behaviour had not improved even after multiple warnings and unvouches.

The LIHL is primarily about fairness, friends and most importantly - fun.

[Drahque]

I received no such PM.

Okay seems as if there's been a misunderstanding here then.

All this happened and you were given a 72 hour unvouch - quite fair I would say.

Soon after more reports about your behavior was brought up by many reputable members who often do not get involved with complaints. There was a collective decision to extend your unvouch as your behaviour had not improved even after multiple warnings and unvouches.

Yes, the 72 hours unvouch were indeed fair. But that I'd get double-punished I don't. It's like I got punished for something I had already been punished for. Also I did indeed change my behavior once I came back after the 72 hours, between 12th and 17th august, I had stopped writing in [all] chat as much as I use to, and I tried to be more constructive. I recall Madridista saw a new side of me, when we had a couple of good games after I came back. I'd really believe I wasn't given enough time after the 3 days, to determine just 4½ day later, to be unvouched permanently. Especially without breaking any new rules. I'd really hope you can view it from my site, I never felt as if I were given a chance to show improvement.

[dweiler]

I am on holiday, so I can only reply very concisely.

I did send the PM through to Supersexyy in the mod section.

I never got a reason for why we had to unvouch Drahque. Either Supersexyy got more info than me (even though I asked Karasu. and matdas several times for reasons ), or the claims are unsubstantiated.

Furthermore, I think Achillesgr behaved WAY more poorly than Drahque in the forums. I gave Achillesgr warnings because I believe that is the right way to treat our players. If Drahque's poor behaviour is indeed the reason for the unvouch I would suggest Achillesgr has to be unvouched for the remainder of the season as well. Note, I am not in favour of unvouching Achillesgr, but rather in not punishing Achillesgr as well as not punishing Drahque.

Finally, without saying whether Drahque's claims are true or false, I hope the mods who run the complaint section take this complaint seriously.

[supersexyy]

By 'fair' read that as 'lenient', very lenient.

You shouldn't need warnings, after warnings and temporary unvouches to improve your behaviour - this should have happened after the first warning. The fact that I received a complaint after your revouching confirms that you still did not learn - not quick enough anyway.

Poor behaviour is one of the worst crimes in the LIHL. I'd much rather play with a newish player than get insulted while I'm playing a game. With no offence intended: the majority of players really disliked you being on their team to the point where players did not want to sign - this clearly shows the negative impact you had on the league.

[Drahque]

You shouldn't need warnings, after warnings and temporary unvouches to improve your behaviour - this should have happened after the first warning. The fact that I received a complaint after your revouching confirms that you still did not learn - not quick enough anyway.

I'm speaking as honestly as I can now, I'd really not recall any reason to why anyone would report me for something I've done 12-16th august (after I was revouched). So the complaints must've been about the behaviour before the 72 hours unvouch, which in this case should be ignored just like the report about Achillesgr were before his 72 hours unvouch. At least if we treat everyone equally

Also I'd like to say, that I have never come to the understanding that I've been directly warned, at least I don't remember any PM's or responds to me, saying that I've been doing this wrong and I need to change this or that. The only time I've felt as I've been warned, is when I was unvouched 72 hours, where I'd understand that I did something wrong. But this was never intentional, but due to a misunderstanding about how solo lane is picked and when a host is allowed to start a game.

I really tried my best to stay constructive, not to say anything that could be found offensive in [all] chat etc. after I was revouched. If you understand danish, then the two first games show pretty well that I had a new attitude:
- https://entgaming.net/findstats.php?id=1858055
- https://entgaming.net/findstats.php?id=1858224

Anyways, the truth is I'm truely sorry about my behaviour and I know that my panic'ing wasn't supposed to 'ruin' the game for the other people. But the reason I panic'ed is because I had a wrong understanding about how it worked. I thought a host should make sure everyone was ready, before he typed !start, for example.

I'd still not believe that I need to be unvouched a whole season, unless of course I did break the same rule intentionally twice. I just have a hard time feeling I'm being equally treated with for example Achillesgr, beacuse at no point did I personally harass anybody.

I never got a reason for why we had to unvouch Drahque. Either Supersexyy got more info than me (even though I asked Karasu. and matdas several times for reasons ), or the claims are unsubstantiated.

Furthermore, I think Achillesgr behaved WAY more poorly than Drahque in the forums. I gave Achillesgr warnings because I believe that is the right way to treat our players. If Drahque's poor behaviour is indeed the reason for the unvouch I would suggest Achillesgr has to be unvouched for the remainder of the season as well. Note, I am not in favour of unvouching Achillesgr, but rather in not punishing Achillesgr as well as not punishing Drahque.

Well said, thanks for explaining why I feel unfairly treated. I hope another persons words will make it more easily understandable, than just my way of explaining things - my logic/thoughts.

[aRt)Y]

There's really no information to gather from the topic where I were perm unvouched:

Wrong link?

[Drahque]

There's really no information to gather from the topic where I were perm unvouched:

Wrong link?

Oh aye, that's almost as wrong as it can get. Anyways, thanks for noticing that! Here's the correct link:
- viewtopic.php?f=85&t=14261

[aRt)Y]

Concerning transparency (your case): @matdas and @karasu. have reviewed (staff link: viewtopic.php?f=82&t=14202&p=68622&hilit=Drahque#p68336) your case and those two will be deciding whether you can return or not.
They aren't biased and the main reason, from what I see, is indeed your behavior and not violated rules.

I would also like to point out that supersexy has also been given criticism since your whole case has been discussed.

[dweiler]

Still I have never seen any reason given by the 2 higher moderators why Drahque should be unvouched. In fact, I have asked several times for a reason and I never got it. Karasu. said on the day before they decided to permanently unvouch Drahque that he hasn't "really found anything wrong with him", and "Not enough to take drastic action" yet the next day he is not just punished but permanently unvouched. Just this fact alone literally screams for at least a bit of explanation.

I have asked both Karasu. and matdas to give really good reasons for this, because I don't think you should do that lightly, but all the response is "The only comments after this should be confirmation from the LIHL to abide by this. No other words needed.".

I disagree because we owe it to someone who does not know at all why he is permanently unvouched to not give him no reason at all and let a dictatorial statement guide us. I didn't say anything about this, because I thought Karasu. and Matdas had found more evidence, like that Drahque maphacks, or excessively flames - but if it is true that the poor behaviour that he had already been punished for is the only reason for such an excessive and drastic action I dare to question their decision.

(Again, compare to Achillesgr whose behaviour was far more poor, and I only gave him warnings. This should have happened with Drahque as well, if it really is true that his poor behaviour is the reason for unvouch - which I still cannot believe. If Karasu. and Matdas want to substantiate their decision, I would at least like to see the warnings they gave after (or even before) Drahque was unvouched after 72 hours, that showed him he was at the verge of being permanently unvouched - or any other reason at all that justifies a permanent unvouch instead of a temporary unvouch, warning or even no action at all.)

[bit]

better to unvouch one dodger/flamer with a history than to lose other players because of him

[dweiler]

I don't want to start the whole discussion again, but I don't think he has ever been accused nor convicted for flaming or dodging.

So next time I want someone out I will just say with 4 of my friends I will stop playing LIHL if he doesn't go out and I get my way if he has had an unvouch before. Good to know.

More seriously: people won't stop playing for someone who doesn't break the rules. So if he broke the rules they could report it and he would be unvouched. There is no need for them to use "pressure-mechanisms" (the one's that little children use) like saying they will stop.

Unvouching someone on the basis of his likeability seems like a very wrong road to me which I definitely will not follow.

I will stop involving myself in the discussion here. I hope I have shown how I think about this and I am confident a good solution will come from here.

[EdgeOfChaos]

* Supersexyy
In my opinion, the supersexyy situation was handled alright. That demotion was meant to be more of a warning to supersexyy than a punishment, I believe, so if the red admins believed he would not do it again, I don't see a problem with promoting him again before the 30 days were up. Plus, I think he served more than 16% of the time, but I am not sure as I was not keeping track of the days. If supersexyy abused swap like that again he would probably be demoted for good.

Besides, you say it was a very light sentence, but other admins who abused swap got only their ingame moderator powers taken away for one day. I guess it was 30 days because of the impoliteness on the forum.

And I don't understand how you can argue this was special treatment for a moderator. You can really compare how he was treated in this situation to something like a ban appeal, because this was not a ban, this was a demotion. They are two different things, and uncomparable. And stuff like this in staff is handled case-by-case anyways.
* DonaldtheDuckie
I agree that he does whatever possible to get his way, and biases polls and stuff like that, but I don't think this is an abuse of moderator power, because anyone can suggest a rule change and make a poll.

In my opinion, we should just make a rule that says anyone who suggests something must have the options be "yes" and "no". If there are biased options, that person gets !slapped and then their suggestion gets rejected.

As for the flaming, does @Ilocos_Norte have a screenshot of this flaming? (if this was private/PM chat). Without evidence, we can't do much.
* Drahque & Achillesgr
I have limited knowledge of the situation, so I won't comment except to say that more information should have been provided in the unvouch thread. There was, however, long discussion of this in the staff section (7+ pages, three topics).