^I answered Chest's inquiries in previous posts, which was why I didn't single his out and answer them again.
We don't see the two situations as similar. While there are parallels that can be drawn, the Taken/BDA vs TMO dispute was cut-and-dry, whereas this situation was not.
If you guys are really so eager to start comparing precedent (instead of letting us make fluid decisions that may change despite similar circumstances), the incident BDA was punished for previously drew a one-week suspension against FE. And I believe IB may have gotten a week out of VP recently for the same thing. I don't see BDA requesting a one week suspension for themselves instead of one naggy based on precedent. Or a week off of 6 of the most highly valued class-R spawns.
The reason we were able to give BDA such a light punishment is because we reserve the right to make fluid decisions based on individual circumstances that will vary from situation to situation. BDA jumped a Taken Nagafen, something that the "standard punishment" for is a week suspension. But because we felt the situation didn't warrant such a harsh punishment, we kicked them off a Nagafen (and since BDA didn't actually loot the Taken Nagafen, they will be losing the loots off exactly 1 dragon.... which is very similar to the punishment Taken got).
No two situations are alike, and we will always reserve the right to evaluate discipline on the fly. Again, this is what allows us to assign "more appropriate" punishments to guilds based on the exact circumstances. If we followed precedent to the letter, BDA would have lost a lot more than a single Nagafen.
And again, those two punishments are incredibly similar at their core - both guilds lost one "dragon loot". While the suspension is clearly the "harsher punishment", it's not by much, and we feel suspending Taken from a Sev when they've already lost the loot on this one isn't an appropriate punishment given the circumstances (which were wild and chaotic).
I hope that makes sense. We try to discipline guilds in ways that make sense, without being arbitrary or unnecessary. We'd like for punishments to send a message, rather than just draw blood. I think in both of these situations, the guilds (hopefully) learned their lesson - if they didn't that will quckly become apparent, and further action will be taken.
This is another reason why we've moved to the "player mediated dispute" system. It doesn't seem to matter what call we make, there will always be a portion of the population that cries foul - right or wrong, someone will feel they were treated unfairly. Frankly I think we made the right decision, and so does Sirken. If you feel otherwise you are welcome to do so, but beyond an initial explanation we shouldn't need to defend our decisions unless they go beyond the realm of sanity.
<3, Deru.
|