Given that now Ensign Q is posting (defending?) about the particulars, I feel this conversation has split two-ways. One conversation is about Ensign Q's banning (is it justified?). The other is about the way it is being handled (is this an acceptable way to ban someone?). If mods would like to split the threads, perhaps that makes things easier?
Anyway, "process" is something I'm more interested in, as I neither play in Europe nor do I know Ensign Q, so my response is going to be along the lines of the second conversation - since the way in which the community is affected is more meaningful to me. And since, up until the point of LORE's post, has been all this thread's really been about.
LORE wrote: ↑Thu Feb 10, 2022 9:32 am
As a point of clarification, is anyone in this thread defending Ensign Q's actions or just vilifying us for our response?
Up until your post, how could anyone possibly have been defending Ensign Q's actions, when you and your colleagues had refused to actually name what those actions were? Even if someone wanted to defend Ensign Q's actions, it would have been impossible without even knowing what those actions are.
I think you need to take a step back. Look at the messaging up until your post. Replace the name "Ensign Q" with any other name, in your head, if necessary, so you can be more level-headed about it. Is this really the manner in which you want your organization to handle something as serious as globally banning a player for nearly a year?
-If you're going to ban someone like that, you need to have serious reasons. Like, serious as fuck. I think your predecessor got caught cheating for the World Championship once, but I don't think his punishment was as severe - so it's got to be something worse than that, no? To my mind, I don't think your organization *ever* issued a punishment this severe, for anything. Has it?
-If you're going to ban someone like that, you need to *explain* your reasons. You can't just handwave it away with something like "There were behaviors, so he's banned. There were chats with his opponent, so he was banned." That's what Clerasil did, multiple times.
-If you're going to ban someone like that, it's got to come from the top. I get that maybe you thought it was best if Jules (who I assume is Clerasil) communicates the message personally to Ensign Q, since apparently they both know one another and speak German. But Jules' post here wasn't a message for Ensign Q - it was a message to us. This isn't a German board and this was a message for the community, not a one-on-one relationship. This message, given its wider jurisdiction and its seriousness, needed to come to us from
you.
I don't think it was unreasonable to ask - multiple times - for the reasons behind the call for a global ban (especially since the last call for a ban was understandably and rightfully locked and thrown away - see my post above).
I also don't think it's reasonable when, after asking multiple times for some kind of explanation, the response not only
isn't an explanation, but is in fact a paranoid, baseless accusation that somehow
I'm the one being banned.
It certainly gives the feeling that the person making the call here is behaving in the manner befitting a paranoid, raving lunatic. And it certainly doesn't instill confidence that the reasoning behind the ban - whatever it may be - is reasonable, objective, and sensible. Especially when that reasoning is being kept secret.
Like, holy shit, do you not see how absolutely
bonkers that is?
tl;dr: Ensign Q often behaves immaturely, perhaps even as a troll. But your department's response has been equally abysmal. Clerasil's behavior has not only been unprofessional, I'd argue it borders on trolling as well (given his position).
Finally, I must stress that we did not take this action lightly and since we have weak jurisdiction here, T.D.'s may ignore it as they see fit.
So, it sounds like this isn't so much a "Global ban" as a "Blessing for T.D.s to deny Ensign Q the ability to participate in their own tournaments if they desire." Would that be more accurate?
Certainly that seems more reasonable. I'm surprised T.D.'s can't make those calls unilaterally already. As Armus said, you can deny someone entry into your home or store as you see fit.
Perhaps that power should be enshrined in the OPG. Or if your objective is to prevent T.D.s from making those decisions, perhaps the OPG should be amended to reflect that (with the provision for your organization to add exemptions for specific players, when seen fit, if necessary).