View Full Version : To Bonsai

5th April 2017, 02:43 PM
To Bonsai (since my first forum thread was locked, and the private messaging through KoC and the forum is not cooperating)

You said "Alliances can be created but due to previous abuse, we allow only country specific and legitimate alliances and remove alliances that we deem idiotic/ridiculous in nature"

I understand that it is your prerogative to make such determinations, but I feel as though I'm still left guessing as to what you will deem silly or not. Terms like "legitimate", "idiotic" and "ridiculous" are all subjective -- what I think might be silly, you might not think is so silly, and vice versa.

I do not doubt that, if left unchecked, KoC would be flooded with a plethora of frivolous alliances; I would take the same course of action in your place. However, I also understand that there are exceptions to every rule; not all alliances with silly names exist for the sake of being silly. Some, like ours, may have silly names, but take the game seriously; I think my correspondence thus far has shown that. Perhaps you should consider altering your stance in the future to allow for alliances who genuinely want to play the game, but who also want to have a little fun with their alliance. That's what KoC is all about, after all -- having fun.

Then you said "You might think we are being hard on you but what you fail to realize is that you are not the only one that has an alliance removed for this reason.... "

This is a false assumption; I do realize that. While my alliance members and I know our own motives, I understand that the admins cannot treat anyone as though they were special -- I get that. I do think that you are being a little too hard on us, yes, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

Thirdly, you said "You sent a return response to the admin message you received yet failed to ask what was allowed and what wasn't and since you did not ask you did not get a further response.... if you wanted further info you just had to ask..."

It's good to know that my message was received; telling me this two weeks ago would have meant a lot more than it does now though. Had anyone responded to me in the first place, it would have demonstrated that the administrators were interested in my concerns. It's easy to say now, two weeks later, that I would have received a response had I posed a specific question, but that is not provable. Had I been sent a warning after the initial deletion, I might be able to believe that keeping players well informed is a priority for the admins. Hypothetical scenarios are of no use to anyone though. If my concern had been taken at all seriously, then a specific question should not have been necessary. It was pretty clear that my perception of your guidelines was a bit foggy, especially after you deleted TWO of my alliances. No offense intended, truly, but I should not have to spell everything out, and someone should have explained it from the outset.

"As to the first alliance you created it had some sexual innuendo attached to the name which is why it was removed and you were sent the warning.... and then you created a 2nd alliance along the same lines so that was removed...."

For the record, no warning was sent until I recreated the first alliance. If you wish to believe that our alliance name was intended as sexual innuendo, that is your right -- we all interpret things differently. All I can tell you is that it was just a silly, random name that a bunch of middle-schoolers came up with -- I know how kids even that age can be nowadays, but we certainly were not the sort to be dirty like that. Pantlessness is not inherently sexual, but I understand how sexuality can be inferred from it, which is why I did not argue.

As far as the removal of our second alliance however, I do not understand how other players could infer anything sexual form it, so I must argue. The only reasonable argument for innuendo in "Modestly Clad Alliance" that I can come up with rests in comparison with our first alliance, the Pantless Legions. If there's no opposite for people to compare it to, then what's the problem? The fact that the admins made this comparison possibly indicates that they are preoccupied with their own perceptions, not with the players'. I am guessing when I say that, in your minds, the Modestly Clad Alliance is dirty because it was preceded by the Pantless Legions, which is understandable. However, no one else can make that comparison because the Pantless Legions existed all too briefly. Anyone who would read "Modestly Clad Alliance" without any prior knowledge and think it was sexual... that person has a dirtier mind than I do, and we should not be penalized because people like that make inappropriate connections. If some troublemaker went around the forums spouting innuendo about the names of major alliances, he/she would be dismissed.

It is our official position that the decision to delete our second alliance was unfair. I believe that I have adequately demonstrated that we are not a malicious or obscene clan, and I wish that you would allow us to reestablish the Modestly Clad Alliance. However, we still wish to continue playing KoC, and I do not wish to further irritate the admins than I already have, so, if you are unwilling to alter your view, then I will relent. If such is the case, then we will do our best to come up with a new name which will, we hope, meet with your approval.

Thank you for your time,

The Mar

5th April 2017, 10:12 PM
Sorry to say but I am not going to respond to each and every point you are making....

I have explained the reasons why your alliance was removed each time and no I am not willing to make an exception as if I do it for you I have to do it for everyone else and then the alliance page will be cluttered with alliances that are there to poke a bit of fun....

Obviously there is a reason why we take this stance.... We have had to remove alliances since the function was put it place due to people abusing it and while you believe it is not abuse we cannot let one go and not others....

I am closing this as it has been explained in both threads you created and if you want to continue this further you can pm me using the options below in my sig.... I am not hard to find....