RP Party finders being reported AGAIN without so much as a reason.

[Belgamin]

Simply nothing left here to discuss

[Vahlnir]

Dalliance-a casual romantic or sexual relationship

Welp, guess we know the issue here. This venue rolled the dice just by hosting, let alone posting in the PF. No one should be surprised that action was taken at this point. Good on the GM for doing their job.

[Belgamin]

See that may work in one case but in the other case, The party finder reported did not have 18+ in the party finder what so ever. Instead, They simply had a standard role play venue party finder without adult connotations and still were placed in gm jail.

[Vahlnir]

See that may work in one case but in the other case, The party finder reported did not have 18+ in the party finder what so ever. Instead, They simply had a standard role play venue party finder without adutl connotations and still were placed in gm jail.

Conveniently, there's no picture of the PF for the 2nd encounter. I'm guessing the devil is in the details.

[fuumin]

Dalliance-a casual romantic or sexual relationship

Welp, guess we know the issue here. This venue rolled the dice just by hosting, let alone posting in the PF. No one should be surprised that action was taken at this point. Good on the GM for doing their job.

There is literally a song in the Orchestrion with the word 'Dalliances' in it.

[Vahlnir]

There is literally a song in the Orchestrion with the word 'Dalliances' in it.

And? That's a song name. Not an active recruitment in the PF. Well, probably not active now, but the point stands.

[Alaray]

Dalliance-a casual romantic or sexual relationship

Welp, guess we know the issue here. This venue rolled the dice just by hosting, let alone posting in the PF. No one should be surprised that action was taken at this point. Good on the GM for doing their job.

Ignoring the definition, the GM should just flat out say "the usage of the word 'dalliance' in this case..." or "... the limited age bracket"

Rather than the vague "I can't tell you anything, do you have questions? Oh, I can't answer your questions or tell you anything. Goodbye."

This game's GM's do a right terrible job 90% of the time due to refusing to ever inform anyone of what they actually did, and have pretty piss poor discretion half the time from there. Ignoring whether the ruling is just or not, there should still be a clear outline provided to the player, especially when an account that the player pays to use is on the line.

[Vahlnir]

Ignoring the definition, the GM should just flat out say "the usage of the word 'dalliance' in this case..." or "... the limited age bracket"

Rather than the vague "I can't tell you anything, do you have questions? Oh, I can't answer your questions or tell you anything. Goodbye."

This game's GM's do a right terrible job 90% of the time due to refusing to ever inform anyone of what they actually did, and have pretty piss poor discretion half the time from there. Ignoring whether the ruling is just or not, there should still be a clear outline provided to the player, especially when an account that the player pays to use is on the line.

I can't argue with that at all. Communication is key. I do wish they'd be more open about things. If someone is reported, they deserve to know why. Not who reported them, obviously, but I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a simple explanation like "you did x, don't do it again".

[RavenEbonclaw]

Seriously? There is no information given whatsoever on the actual reason of reprimand. Grow up.

[RavenEbonclaw]

The issue at hand is we have nothing but speculation, ONCE AGAIN, with no clear definition of WHY the ToS were violated. People deserve clear reasons. You cannot be rightfully held accountable on something you don't know you did.