This is why I fairly often bring up the whole 'staff doesn't want to ban people' when people start talking about 'staff is banning people for no reason, I and my family of 83 people, who all live in a single room apartment, and who all play FR on the same device, got banned unfairly, and I can give proof that we aren't all just the same person who made 84 different accounts!'
Because, it is true, AC, as toxic as they might be, are a pretty small fry in the grand scheme of things (ie, while they can be toxic if you are following their tumblr, and come across them, they often lay low for a fair amount of time, and aren't often seen in the 'wild' so to speak. But when they are... ooh boy, drama for days. Basically look at their recent forum posts, and while I know the ones that were out of line were removed, most of the ones left are either neutral or positive) and thus aren't creating a huge disturbance among the player base as some of the other people they have banned.
Rhea, as you said, did something concrete that was explictly against the rules, and thus got banned. I also think that they were starting to cause enough ruckus to become a player that did cause large disruptions in the player base.
So basically, staff, in my opinion of course, tends to only ban players for outright breaking of the rules, or being such a huge pain that they are causing huge issues with the rest of the playerbase, which most of the time is done through things that are against the rules (scams, or being hugely bigoted etc..)
Ultimately most of AC's drama is on Tumblr, and if you're viewing their FR disconnected from their Tumblr it's a lot harder to track the drama. Which is hard to justify within the rules.
Yeah, that is what I thought, because I often don't pay attention to UNs until things get brought up here or on SMR, so I wasn't sure how visible they were on sight.
I know that they typically have a few posts that are along the lines of 'if the staff doesn't add this thing I want, they hate disabled people' but I didn't think it went much further than that on site. Off site? Yeah, that is where they really go off on people and the staff, but since it is offsite, staff can't really do anything about it.
I thought I had remembered that maybe rhea wanted to be banned, but I am not sure.
I am pretty sure that the ban came about because Rhea was complaining about the 'nice rack' joke in the antler's tooltips and it brought visibility to her account. So, more people saw her BDSM dragon and probably started reporting and it started making the rounds of the drama sites, which brought even more reports in I bet.
I think it's a pretty plausible theory, but I don't remember if it was ever actually confirmed. They had been trying to give away their hoard and stuff as well as taking a few extended breaks just prior to the events that led to the banning so. It does read like self-sabotage.
rhea was one of those people who was "quitting" the site for years, but never actually quitting. i doubt it was self-sabotage, but instead flying too close to the sun and finally getting burned.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
Re: AC at it again
(Anonymous) 2025-02-25 02:21 am (UTC)(link)Because, it is true, AC, as toxic as they might be, are a pretty small fry in the grand scheme of things (ie, while they can be toxic if you are following their tumblr, and come across them, they often lay low for a fair amount of time, and aren't often seen in the 'wild' so to speak. But when they are... ooh boy, drama for days. Basically look at their recent forum posts, and while I know the ones that were out of line were removed, most of the ones left are either neutral or positive) and thus aren't creating a huge disturbance among the player base as some of the other people they have banned.
Rhea, as you said, did something concrete that was explictly against the rules, and thus got banned. I also think that they were starting to cause enough ruckus to become a player that did cause large disruptions in the player base.
So basically, staff, in my opinion of course, tends to only ban players for outright breaking of the rules, or being such a huge pain that they are causing huge issues with the rest of the playerbase, which most of the time is done through things that are against the rules (scams, or being hugely bigoted etc..)
Re: AC at it again
(Anonymous) 2025-02-25 05:22 am (UTC)(link)Re: AC at it again
(Anonymous) 2025-02-25 01:13 pm (UTC)(link)Yeah, that is what I thought, because I often don't pay attention to UNs until things get brought up here or on SMR, so I wasn't sure how visible they were on sight.
I know that they typically have a few posts that are along the lines of 'if the staff doesn't add this thing I want, they hate disabled people' but I didn't think it went much further than that on site. Off site? Yeah, that is where they really go off on people and the staff, but since it is offsite, staff can't really do anything about it.
Re: AC at it again
(Anonymous) 2025-02-25 04:49 pm (UTC)(link)Re: AC at it again
(Anonymous) 2025-02-25 05:28 am (UTC)(link)Re: AC at it again
(Anonymous) 2025-02-25 09:37 am (UTC)(link)I want to think it's because she wanted to grow as a person and start over, because she was a hot mess. But I'm being optimistic.
Re: AC at it again
(Anonymous) 2025-02-25 01:15 pm (UTC)(link)I thought I had remembered that maybe rhea wanted to be banned, but I am not sure.
I am pretty sure that the ban came about because Rhea was complaining about the 'nice rack' joke in the antler's tooltips and it brought visibility to her account. So, more people saw her BDSM dragon and probably started reporting and it started making the rounds of the drama sites, which brought even more reports in I bet.
Re: AC at it again
(Anonymous) 2025-02-25 05:12 pm (UTC)(link)I think it's a pretty plausible theory, but I don't remember if it was ever actually confirmed. They had been trying to give away their hoard and stuff as well as taking a few extended breaks just prior to the events that led to the banning so. It does read like self-sabotage.
Re: AC at it again
(Anonymous) 2025-02-25 06:12 pm (UTC)(link)