[Cerrik]

As with you, I appreciate your civility with this.

1. There was a lack of foresight about punishments. He should face consequences if what you've said is completely accurate. However, it is *incredibly* easy to forget about NPC guards when in the arena. Multiple accounts of ignorance has been committed (admittedly by myself). I don't think it should be counted as entirely metagaming. Any further information should be exchanged with Dev for mitigation.

2. It doesn't help anyone's case to say "I did X, so that Y could happen" in print.

3. Every action has a consequence. That's something I've accepted after all of this. The players, including TPIQ and Romek, probably should have should have realized this, as well. We're all mature enough (wishful thinking, I know) and know how everything functions.

4. No... no. There's nothing to say to that. At least she waited.

5. Refer back to my first point. Some things were typed out in a rush, not mentioning any punishments for him. That is, if we can prove that he consciously considered the lack of guard presence and exploited that.

P.S. I also mentioned issues of godmodding and potential admin bias.

*Requotes himself about civility* I'm weird, don't judge me.

1) It's... a bit hard of an argument to have a petition addressing metagaming but wishing for a specific instance to be overlooked by GMs. Any and all metagaming should be handled appropriately, it seems odd to be choosy right now. To quote the petition: "Acknowledgement that majority opinion that aforementioned examples are violations of the game's ruling system, including metagaming." Why is Romek's not being acknowledged, then?

2) It depends on what you're referring to. To solidify my argument: You, Rum, and Megablues should not use the word 'proof' when referring to the logs because they do not provide the proof the petition says it does. To quote the petition: "What Sarah did can be and is considered as blatant metagaming, which is in direct violation of the game's rules, and other roleplaying websites' guidelines. There is also evidence of this player admitting to doing it."

3) I mentioned this in an earlier post and I am not upset at Rum for sharing them, despite disagreeing with it. The discredit solely comes from the handful of people that abused TBIQ for more information.

4) No need to address, just going through the bullets

5) Being in a rush is forgiveable, but I would say that if you're aware certain arguments were rushed, you should simply make a new petition and reiterate the points you wished to make. I don't believe I have any right to suggest punishments to any player, and I have not thus far, only brought up the discussion of it to a GM so that they could address it between them.