Banned for being inactive for 5 Days

[steelabjur@aol.com]

Not to mention that if they were actually playing with us I'd have had nothing IC to ban them for, and wouldn't want to OOC. I don't mind IC conflict and backroom dealings, but you have to occasionally come out onto the balcony and wave a tentacle at the people. Their style of playing is unfriendly in the extreme.

[Geronus]

Sounds like another saxon witch hunt to me.

It would only be a witch hunt if they were banned solely for being who they are on OOC grounds. Sounds like that's not the case here.

[Draco Tanos]

If that behaviour is a signature of the Saxons, that's more proof than anything that they're a clan that's bad for the game.

See above, re: "silently taking over the realm".

It most certainly is.  Along with a 100% movement rate when it is something they want and a 0% when it is not.

[Penchant]

Sounds like another saxon witch hunt to me.

Sounds like someone can't understand that if there is something suggesting exclusive clanning it should be investigated before it becomes a huge problem.

[Indirik]

We are way off topic on this thread. Since this is a Magistrates case thread, not an open discussion thread, I'm locking it. One the Magistrates should do whatever it is you do to these threads.

[Vellos]

A verdict has been reached, and no IG enforcement actions were necessary. For anyone who desires to cite this case in the future, the final verdict was:

"The Magistrates find Evi Dimi not guilty of violating the Inalienable Rights. From all appearances, the bans were intended to punish characters for their decisions: namely, their decision to remain in a realm for hundreds of days and repeatedly ignore or disobey orders. While few days of inactivity never merits a ban, prolonged months of insufficient responses to reasonable queries, disobedience of orders, and general uselessness to a realm is certainly sufficient grounds for an entirely IC, non-IR-violating ban. A player's right to inactivity is protected, and its negative effects are controlled for by auto-pausing. But a character's right to blasé disregard for orders is not protected.

Magistrates voted 6-0 in favor of the not guilty verdict."

This thread is now closed.