Announcement Addressing Stealing Guilds & Creating Drama

Because of a situation that happened last night the source update will be delayed while we remove the ability for guild members to take over a guild from the guild leader. This feature is mostly meant for when the guild leader is not active and not for if you have a person vendetta or just because you think it is a funny thing to do. Aside from the removal of this feature, we are also doing a few minor things to further secure the client.

Also due to Lang wanting to make this a public situation, I will have to remark on it, which is something I was not planning to do.

I was contacted at 9PM PST by SaintBeast, telling me that Lang took over Systematic and that he had booted all the members. Lang was banned temporarily to prevent any further escalation, and I contacted Vipera who is a friend of both of ours to tell him to message me about the situation.

He was given the choice of a permanent ban, or compromising and giving back the guild and creating a new one which I later then offered to level to 50, which would have been the most neutral choice to everyone involved. Rather than taking this offer he chose to spend the next 3 hours wasting my time and telling me to just ignore SaintBeast, which is something I do not do to any players even if I hate dealing with them on a personal level due to them either creating drama, or them asking a million questions that have already been answered.

He has raised the argument that he ‘broke no rules’, but not every action that gets you banned will have a specific rule. This is because players will get creative and try to skirt rules and try to bypass any punishment regardless of their intent. In this particular instance it was pretty obvious that this was done maliciously, and was meant to be a form of childish punishment towards SaintBeast, and regardless of whether he deserves it or not it was an abuse of an in-game system to create a situation that affected more than just a single person. He then ultimately decided to delete the guild, which cemented the decision to remain permanently banned.

In the situation that SaintBeast had been inactive, or I had been made aware of him scamming other players (with evidence documenting everything) the situation would have been handled differently. It is also different from the situation of Bloodygenesis and Loriail, where Loriail gave the guild to Bloody who decided against giving it back.

Similar situations will be treated the same way in the future at least until the source update; if the person who takes the guild decides to not give the guild back, and it was done for a malicious purpose then they will be banned.

In the case of Lang, he has been permanently banned from the game, the site and the Discord, and I have also blocked him as I do not have time to waste on children. He has had any purchases he has made refunded for the last 30 days, as is the policy of the network when we ban someone.

Hey all and sorry to disturb – but since i can´t stop thinking of all of this and talked to many people since it happened, i hope it is ok for all and especially for seiichi if i share some of my thoughts.

As most might know we are in advent season atm, which is at least for some people a time to reflect things and wishes for harmony and humanity.
With that being said, it is not my intention to take one side or the other – but i am old enough to know there is always 2 sides of a story and the world isn´t just black and white.
Of course there are many people who knew Lang longer and better than i do, but i know him for half a year now and always experienced him as a friendly and helpful player – for sure he was no Lori/Rekt.
In addition to that it is – at least for eu-players – not a new situation that a guild is overtaken, and same as Lang and other players i was surprised to hear this was threatened with a ban.
I understand some players didn´t like it and especially seiichi since it caused some drama obviously, but hey – a guild can be rebuilt, alliances can be reformed and everyone can learn from it for the future if he/she reflects it all – not in anger, but some quiet moment maybe.

Don´t get me wrong, i didn´t talk to Lang since he is banned and idk if he would want to return – but since he put a lot of effort in his 2nd video to explain his side of the story as well as apologizing for what and how it happened, i would love to see he would be given the chance to.
If i could be of any help to de-escalate things, feel free to just tell me anytime.

You may say I'm a dreamer - but I'm not the only one … (John Lennon)

Take care all, and again - sorry to disturb…

Don't worry about the bad guys, they will appear soon.
If you do something wrong, you must be punished. This is certain, and everyone is the same.
Many people think that a good person, only to know in the end, turned out to be a big bad guy.
(In the movie story, doesn't it tell us that?)
In real life, the same is true.

Im not sure that he's a bad person, just because he used a Feature of the game that either hasn't been properly designed so only guild leaders that are inactive for x amount of time can be kicked, or just in general hasn't been adressed until yet and i can get behind him thinking up to this point that he didnt do anything wrong, i also didn't, until i looked up examples how taking over guilds in other popular mmo's work. The Feature has just been used that way several Times on eu without any repercussions of any sort and some gm's just being like "that's what it was there for, right?" Pretty much after situations like that happened, so I'm really not surprised that people don't think that he was wrong, clarity just wasn't there. I doubt he would have done it if it was clearly stated to not be allowed and not spontaneously thrown in by seiichi pretty much (no offense at all to him oc).

Kazunokun said:

Im not sure that he's a bad person, just because he used a Feature of the game that either hasn't been properly designed so only guild leaders that are inactive for x amount of time can be kicked, or just in general hasn't been adressed until yet and i can get behind him thinking up to this point that he didnt do anything wrong, i also didn't, until i looked up examples how taking over guilds in other popular mmo's work. The Feature has just been used that way several Times on eu without any repercussions of any sort and some gm's just being like "that's what it was there for, right?" Pretty much after situations like that happened, so I'm really not surprised that people don't think that he was wrong, clarity just wasn't there. I doubt he would have done it if it was clearly stated to not be allowed and not spontaneously thrown in by seiichi pretty much (no offense at all to him oc).

Click to expand...

As I understood problem here wasn't just taking over guild but rather not accepting peaceful solution and than after refusing offer wanting to delete guild....

Angelly said:

As I understood problem here wasn't just taking over guild but rather not accepting peaceful solution and than after refusing offer wanting to delete guild....

Click to expand...

yeah, true, but that's the main point that makes or breaks it. I mean there were plenty of reasons wich he took the guild over for, i don't think that that's a question at this point, even if we were just talking about the stuff with the rings and DB loot. The question is if it was obvious to everybody in this situation that it is not allowed to take over a guild, because if you do think that it was justified, not just for you, but for the well being of the guild, and not against the rules, wich isn't far fetched tbh then the rule being made up right in front of you doesn't seem to be a fair treatment, so it's not surprising that he deleted the guild after Seiichi decided to ban him, i mean what else would you do when you think that you would be treated unfairly, sure was an overreaction, but i mean, happens in high pressre situations. Imo im not sure the situation could have been handled differently (again, not saying seichi did anything wrong, its always easy to talk afterwards), would have been a different thing if seiichi went on lang's account and gave back the guild manually and not banning lang as this has never been a discussion before so we don't have a case to go by. I mean oc i get that its annoying to farm guild point and ally points in abyss and dragonmasters now, but on the other hand i don't neccessarily think he deserverd it 100% either, eventhough his reaction wasn't exactly the most diplomatic.

I don't understand the discussion.
He knew that if he did something like that, there would be consequences. Verbally pampering him now makes me doubt the system. Should he still be rewarded?
People don't take everything seriously enough anymore. Everything has consequences. Lang is no longer a toddler that it didn't know better.
There's a lot of money involved here too, please don't forget that. And if the GMs lose their credibility, the game is doomed to die.

Kazunokun said:

yeah, true, but that's the main point that makes or breaks it. I mean there were plenty of reasons wich he took the guild over for, i don't think that that's a question at this point, even if we were just talking about the stuff with the rings and DB loot. The question is if it was obvious to everybody in this situation that it is not allowed to take over a guild, because if you do think that it was justified, not just for you, but for the well being of the guild, and not against the rules, wich isn't far fetched tbh then the rule being made up right in front of you doesn't seem to be a fair treatment, so it's not surprising that he deleted the guild after Seiichi decided to ban him, i mean what else would you do when you think that you would be treated unfairly, sure was an overreaction, but i mean, happens in high pressre situations. Imo im not sure the situation could have been handled differently (again, not saying seichi did anything wrong, its always easy to talk afterwards), would have been a different thing if seiichi went on lang's account and gave back the guild manually and not banning lang as this has never been a discussion before so we don't have a case to go by. I mean oc i get that its annoying to farm guild point and ally points in abyss and dragonmasters now, but on the other hand i don't neccessarily think he deserverd it 100% either, eventhough his reaction wasn't exactly the most diplomatic.

Click to expand...

To me its quite simple. Someone is lending you a car and than at some point you realize you are taking better care of that car than the owner and you decide it is your car now and when owner wants it back you decide to burn it.... would you handle it like this in real life?

probably most people would - when you´re told you will be shot, then at least you burn it before you get shot, especially when its the only thing left you could do.

but in fact this is not a simple yes/no, good/bad, black/white situation, therefore i think the consequences shouldnt just be picked out of canonization or death penalty, there´s lots of space between those 2 choices.
though i know also in real life society it is more popular these days to reduce everything to black/white categories, its easier to handle and not so much you have to think of - still i hope inside our small community we could do a little better than that...

THARGOR said:

probably most people would - when you´re told you will be shot, then at least you burn it before you get shot, especially when its the only thing left you could do.

but in fact this is not a simple yes/no, good/bad, black/white situation, therefore i think the consequences shouldnt just be picked out of canonization or death penalty, there´s lots of space between those 2 choices.
though i know also in real life society it is more popular these days to reduce everything to black/white categories, its easier to handle and not so much you have to think of - still i hope inside our small community we could do a little better than that...

Click to expand...

He was given two choices, one that was the most neutral option, and one that was really the only punishment that would fit the situation. He was given over 3 hours to make a decision, and his attitude the whole time was dismissive and he was unwilling to compromise. He also then chose to delete the guild, which he should have known would have been punished the way it was.

I keep hear people saying "This wouldn't have happened on EU/This was common on EU". Reality check for everyone: this is not EU. While I do not normally involve myself in personal disputes because I have no preference for any player, I will involve myself if it involves more than a few people, is getting out of hand, or if it deals with an actual major issue. This particular dispute met all three of those criteria, as it affected a whole guild and there is no way that this would not grow to be a larger issue. It also deals with a feature that is easily abused, but had not been abused here till this point. I also have to point out it is not a players job to punish someone else for what they have perceived is wrong; in the reasons that Lang uses to try to justify his actions only the scam accusations have any merit, and even then it should have been brought up to me.

In regards to the scam accusations, I was never made aware of Kazunokun's trade, and I stepped in to mediate when I learned of it. Kazunokun decided to not pursue the situation even though that option is still available to him. As far as Langs trade goes, I may have been told about it once in passing in game, and it basically was him asking me to look up a log revolving around "80" for the deal between him and Saint... The issue with this is that it is not easy to find such things, and it would still lack context so I would have told him to get more evidence, or to give Saint time where they could come to an agreement. If I was told of the situation, I had no further follow up and as such I would not know of the situation. The sad reality is if I do not have evidence to support that a scam is going on I cannot mediate the trade or enforce the trade. This is also made more difficult due to the trades having to do with real money, and that is something that we cannot support here, nor is it something I can enforce. Luckily I am able to mediate the situation with Lang and Saint now as I was given some evidence, and Saint will have to complete the trade or he will be banned.

Ironically, for everyone who seems to think I take preference for Saint... I literally cannot stand dealing with Saint, and he is well aware of it. However he is also well aware that my personal feelings or preferences for people do not have any weight in support or when I am involved in mediation or anything else. I am literally the kind of person who will take the side of someone elses if the person I am dating is in the wrong, which is why I have never allowed anyone I date to play on our server. In this specific situation Lang was in the wrong; if he was unhappy with the way the guild was run, he should have left rather than punish every person in the guild; he could have also taken the guild members who were unsatisfied and it would have equally hurt Saint as to losing the guild. If he was upset about the status of the trade him and Saint had, he should come to me and given me evidence and I would have stepped in as I have now.

Lang may have a chance to be unbanned, but I am stuck in a position where no matter what decision I make people are unhappy. If Lang was not banned, Systematic members would not have been happy with how things were handled. If he is banned his friends will claim I am taking Saints side and protecting him. People will cry that it was not a rule, but that is only because it did not happen on this server before as people generally avoid drama here. Now that it has happened, it has become a rule and I will be heavy handed about it as there is no place for it on this network.

This thread is being locked as it is just going to be people supporting one side or another, and neither side really has any real involvement other than what they feel is right or wrong. The situation is being handled, and if that results in Lang being unbanned then that is fine, but people trying to involve themselves are likely to have the opposite effect.

I'm posting an update to this situation partially as it has changed slightly and also because people are trying to create additional drama.

In regards to the trade used to justify stealing Systematic, SaintBeast had completed it and I've verified that it had give through as agreed. I'll be looking at doing dinner changes to help facilitate trades and also writing some rules or guidelines for people to use in the future.

Lang has also been unbanned, however it has conditions on how he behaves. This does not mean that he cannot stand up for himself if people purposely attempt to cause drama.