Board Thread:News and Announcements/@comment-4731447-20150622225159/@comment-24773467-20150623073525

Gameuser10 wrote: Destiny of Awe wrote: I can name numerous users who have socked, some of them multiple times, that have only received temporary bans. I feel the issue at hand is complete bias on Zoe's part. I'm talking about a user who said in chat, word for word, "I really, really hate Octa with every fiber of my being." Let's not forget that when presented with the option of discussing the ban with admins prior to the actual ban, Zoe promptly went ahead and banned him without the consent of any admins. We have an extremely biased bureaucrat at work here, and she is definitely not fit to have a say on whether Octa returns or not. It certainly does not help that Zoe appears to have a "I speak for everyone when I say this" mentality that has made itself shown numerous times even outside of chat. Coupled with her incontrovertible hatred for Octa, do you really trust her judgement in such a case? How is this bias?

The rules clearly state that a sockpuppeter should be banned indefinitely. A rule that was here for a very long time. How is a buro enforcing that rule bias? Is it because she was angry at him? Does that make it a biased decision?

Did you even consider that Zoe, in this very thread, stated that she would gladly like to bury the hatchet with Octa?

Octa's been the only user in a handful of millions to be given an infaban for creating a sock. Others got off, and still get off easily. That is bias - and it seems like whenever that is brought up, the discussion is pushed away. I'd like more explanation to that, and leave the unrelated precipitations out of it.