I like that idea, too. Might I suggest making it in really huge bold text, and toning back the examples ever so slightly? Put the emphasis on the 'rulings made by administrators,' not on the 'here are some things that might be rules?' That way, if someone says 'you didn't say I couldn't explicitly,' you can return with, 'Yes, but we did say, explicitly, that we get to decide.'

Ooh I remember this conversation from the Senate days... oh, how the Senate had its collective panties in a bunch over it...

You'd log on in the morning on Saturday, join the bitc...ahem, the debate, log off at midnight and the next morning it'd still be raging on...

Since we're all sharing our stinky little opinions I'll share mine:

Players get three strikes? Sure. Who can give a player a strike? Any staffer who's pissed off enough.

Staffers get strikes? No way. Staffers get fired after an investigation by fellow staffers.

Any player who accuses a staff member of "being bad" is getting a strike if the staffer's not getting fired.

Staffers rule, players take it. Take it all and like it.

Because it has to be a harsh world where people die, and whining at St. Peter at the Pearly Gates ain't gonna change drek.

Any staffer who's pissed off enough? Do  you mean to say if Tom gets fired RL by Harry Dick that he can just log on and strike people at will? Or are you refering to mush events only?

That's exactly what I mean. Staffers are people too, and they get pissed too, they have their rainy days.

And when such a thing would happen, and a staffer would log on and strike people at will, fellow staffers will have some questions for him, and he might end up being fired. But ultimately, staffer gives you a strike on his sole discretion, not a majority vote or consensus.

As I interpret it: if a staffer is found abusing his/her power or doing something else strikable, they are fired. They can continue to play as a PC, but they already have one strike against them. We strike individuals, not PCs. The set up we're using will allow us to track individuals through various incarnations. So if you get two strikes with one PC, you can't retire it and start fresh with a new one. The strikes carry over.

Whaa??  I can't say that a staffer is bad?  Or is that just on public channels?  Or do you mean by accusing a staffer of being bad that I'm accusing them of cheating? It makes sense to give someone a strike for accusing a staffer of cheating when they're not, or maybe even for trying to start up an "I hate Melkir" thread on the boards, but it really doesn't make sense to punish people for stating their opinion of staffers.  It's perfectly valid to say "I don't like blah's GMing" or even "Blah is a bad GM."  Using that as a public attack to try and start drama is one thing, but I don't see any good reason to punish people simply expressing their feelings in private.  If that's what you were saying, which it may not have been.

Not sure where that came from, but no. Expressing an opinion is not a strikable offence. Spreading rumors designed to undermine a staffer's authority and reputation? Well... that's worth discussing.

And who could hate Melkir? He's spiffy!

[edited: Because I can!]

Is the reverse of spreading rumors to undermine a player's reputation to be held accountable as well? You do afterall have to treat everyone equally, otherwise it will be the never ending staff vs. players.

What Noor said. As always, right on top of things, that one.

Says who? 

We are not, actually planning on treating staffer's the same as players.  Players get the benefit of the doubt on the first strike, Staffer's get fired.  And I'm pretty sure that spreading rumors about a character to make him/her look bad is already covered under the 'harassment' part of the policy.  Players get it easy at times, especially when we try to be all optimistic.  A staffer spreading rumors about a character are more likely to get caught and punished quicker than a player.

Staff and players ought not be treated the same.  As Superman's father said, "With great power comes great responsibility."  Or was that Spidey's uncle?  I can never keep the two straight.  Anyhow, that's the thing.  A staffer could serious Melkirfy a situation and should get totally Noored.  But their player bit would still be safe to stay on the grid, unless it was a cheating offense (of course).  Whereas a player might do the exact same thing (non-cheating) and just get sitebanned for a while.

As far as bad GMing goes, if I say, for example, Dreamer is a bad GM I'm never going to go on plots that Dreamer is running!  And other people listen to me, and they like my RP, and they think I am spiffy.  Well, that's undermining a staffer's reputation AND authority.  The fact of the matter remains, its just my opinion, but people might listen to me because I'm a genius.  That shouldn't be a strikable offense.  Now, if I were to say, "Dreamer is a bad staffer! And we should all ignore Dreamer when around, or more importantly stop listening to any rule calls Dreamer makes!"  That would be a whole other thing.  In fact, it'd be treason, and I'd be hung.  Unless we're still thinking being kicked off the game is punishment enough?  Which, I'm totally against!  Next thing you'll tell me is death via ants is cruel and unusual torture.

You are hereby convicted of blasphemy and sentenced to death by ants.

Blaspehmy indeed... against ants!  Ants are gentle creatures and could never kill a human.  And even if they could, they wouldn't because they are tiny little parcels of wuv.

Wow, this thread is so long. Why need any strikes, all of our players and staff are here to have fun, and are understanding perfect compassionate people who never unduely get over-emotionally involved in their roleplay and can handle all accusations with composure and humility.

We're not teenagers anymore...

KILL 'EM ALL! WUAAARGHHAHAHAHA!