Since the accusations surrounding Ben's deposition and suspension and/or banning have confused many people, several people have come together to gather as much information as possible for those not directly involved.

The following is the list of charges brought against Ben and his response to the accusations (in green italics) and other gathered information in red:

As most of you know by now, Ben's Host status on IMC has been revoked.
What many of you may not know is that he has been on probationary status
since 12/7/99, due to the following issues.

The charges can largely be boiled down to "conduct unbecoming a Host,"
and can be further detailed as follows:

1) Continual display of favoritism.

I dispute this.

2) Disobeying the very same room rules he enforced on others.

I dispute this.

3) Stepping beyond the bounds of the Host position

I'll hold opinion on this until later, like when I make it to the explanation of this charge.

4) Harassment of, and negligence with regard to, the site staff.

Debateable. I would like to counter with System Operators, are guilty of the same.

5) Inconsistent and dishonest behavior.

Again, holding comments in order to address specifics.

6) Compromising IMC Site Security.

THIS one, is outright, a lie.

Detail on each charge is listed below.


1) Charges of favoritism/discrimination.

a) Complaint from Meg re: what was stated clearly as a denial of an
original character application, when at least one of his "inner circle"
had a similar history re: leaves of absence and erratic behavior, and
yet said chatter was permitted to keep and apply for original
characters.

Meg, -asked- for my opinion on apping for an Original C. We had just discussed, her IRL problems, and that she
was probably going to lose Storm if she didn't play more. Based on this I told her she she should not app for a
new Original, but devote her time to her Marvel C's. *motions to Meg's posts on the MB* WHich she now seems
to agree with. Funny how this is a complaint, when Meg seems to be posting the same as I told her. However,
this was an opinion, not a statement of Policy.

b) Improper and biased application of a "picture size limit" on one of
the SysOps, when no such rules existed in the MU until that point, to
the point where he asked the SysOps to ban this person without any rule
having been agreed upon by the community.

This again is untrue. I asked Chance to mediate. Not ban. I told her, and everyone else, this was not a bannable
offense. I have this AIM Log.

c) Stating a policy refusing any IMC Site Admin for any task in the MU's
administration, regardless of how small.

The IMC System Operators, have more than once, been overworked. In fact many of them "left the MU' because
of being Overworked, or being asked to play favorites...etc. I have turned down only Tewson, for the role of
Midnight Son's PKer. Rand, will vouch, that I -suggested- Ann for the same position. A system operator... hmm.
Intrigueing.

d) Informing one of the SysOps that she was ineligible to vote in the
Exempts awards due to having left the room for a while, and then
claiming to both her and another SysOp that he never said any such
thing.

This was explained about 8 times. Chance asked me, about the Picture Limit Vote. I told her no, she was not a
member of the MU, she had no C's therefor could not vote. She and I were discussing, bringing Dani back, but it
was not descided, because we needed to talk to Wren. I did not know of this new C she invented, because I am
nolonger first Reviewer. Once I was made aware of this, I told Tewson she was of course allowed to vote.

================================================================

2) Disobeying the very same room rules he enforced on others.

a) Arbitrary rules being established on the fly, without precedent, to
punish single individuals. (ref. 1b)

"Arbitrary rules being established on the fly" Please keep this little tidbit in mind.

b) Using his position to influence reviewers to allow him original
characters with powers that would not be permitted to "just any
chatter," and moreover, to allow his friends to gain characters with
similar power levels and abilities.

This requires proof. Matthew, reviewed Devlin, Tewson reviewed Gadriel, and Demitri (He was Pre-Hostship),
Stacy, reviewed David (pre-hostship).

c) Deciding that "unwritten rules" from previous administrations would
not be enforced, despite the fact that many of those "unwritten rules"
were clearly written out on other pages of the MU site.

This was a staff vote. Not my decision. However I will not enforce a rule on someone, that they cannot see.
================================================================

3) Charges of stepping beyond the bounds of the Host position:

a) Overruling his staff on some of the issues above when objections were
raised, which clearly oversteps the bounds of the Host position.

Again examples needed. However, by MU rule, the Host has the authority to overrule the Staff's votes. Veto, like
the president. If the staff still feels it a problem, then the MB can be used to have the community overrule the
Host.

b) Deliberate intimidation of any Staff member that disagrees with his policies.

Laughable. Since I spent time talking to every Staffer, who held an opinion different than mine. Heather, and
Stacy, and Rob, all have changed my mind on issues infact.

c) Deliberate and multiple misstatements of his Staffers' words and
intentions.

Deliberate? No. Have I ever done this? Yes. Heather, has smacked me down a few times for it.

d) Using his staff as a scapegoat to protect himself from his own unpopular decisions.

This is even more laughable. Since I have accepted the blaim on every Staff decision made, and defended the
Staff's right to make said decisions, every single time. Even when I disagreed with their decisions. There have
been multiple times, when I refused to be told -I- made the decision, arbitrarily, and pointed out it was a Staff
Vote that made the decision.

e) Planning to move the community to another server without the
knowledge or consent of the community at large.

This is true. *nodding* I moved the MU, from IFC to IMC without consent, of the community. I'm guilty as
charged.

Now if you mean, moving it from IMC, to somewhere else, you're lieing again. Just to make a point, Wren asked
me to move it, and I told her "No" because the MU meant more to me than the taking the MU away from IMC.
================================================================

4) Charges of harassment and negligence with regard to the Site
Administration.

a) Continued lying to the SysOps on many matters.

I'm.... sure there is documentation of this. I'll say ahead of time, that I did not knowingly lie to the System
Operators. I'm sure they did not knowingly Lie to me either.

b) Failure to disperse information to the MU Staff when given to him by
the Site Administration for dispersal.

Guilty.

c) Discrimination issues as listed above. (see 1b, 1c, 1d)

*shaking his head*

d) Continued claims that the Site Administrators were "out to get him,"
along with trumped up allegations of an "MU/IMC SysOps War," in order to
bias the room's chatters and make them think IMC was trying to harm the
community as a whole.

*sarcasm* Oook. I'm -sure- this was -me- who started this. *waving his hand* There is, and has been no war. If
there was, the 'Man' would have removed the MU. The war, was actually more of me disgareeing with
Chance/Tewson.

e) Harrassment emails sent to the site administration making groundless accusations.

Will be awaiting proof of this one.

================================================================

5) Inconsistent and dishonest behavior.

a) Espousing a desire to avoid politics, then undertaking the basest
form of sloganeering, and publicly exhorting others in his clique to do
the same.

Big words. Basically this means, I'm being accused of telling people to put K.I.S.S. in their tags. Guilty.

b) Lying to Site Admins, per 1d, 3c, 3d, 4a, 4b, 4c, 4d.

c) Lying to the community, per 4d.

I dispute this.

================================================================

The following point is one that will lead to banning if not proven false.

6) Compromising IMC Site Security.

a) Stating that he has been tracking our chatters and their activity on
IMC, violating their privacy without their knowledge.

This, is the -biggest- of the lies. In fact this is the one I dispute most heavily. Aside from the Who's On, which I
used to track -numbers- for what rooms had people at what times. Peek numbers...etc. This is utterly... untrue in
every sense of the word.

b) Alleged sharing of sensitive information, including confidential
communications from IMC's administration and site code, with a banned
former user who has tried to hack the site more than once.

The word "Alleged" means roughly, possibly... so are you accusing me or not?

Check out bigbob.com and compare it to the site the SysOps claim was given IMC codes through Ben -- www.roleplaychat.com Their dialogue boxes, which are a huge part of the code, are extremely similar.

These items are only scratching the surface. We're planning to go into
more detail on each of these items, but that will take us a day or so to
get together.

For what it's worth, I'm sorry to have to do this. I have faith in all
of you, and I know you'll do what's right for the community -- and the
entire Site Administration will offer whatever help we can in rebuilding
the community under a new Host.

Indeed, I'm offering my apologies to the entire MU as well. For my transgressions, as well as the System
Operator's.
These last charges were site accusations, not even Host-concerned. Taking this into consideration, the SysOps either banned or suspended (depends on who to you talk to) because of these accusations without even talking to Ben about them.

  • They (most of them, not all) are also convinced of his guilt and will not listen to his arguments.
    • In order to get back on the site, he will have to admit to things he says he has not done. (so much for innocent until proven guilty.)
    • They have yet to present what evidence they have to make such allegations. (They have told Ben that they will show him sometime soon)
  • They suspended/banned him while he was LoA.
    • (Is anyone else smelling something rotten at Denmark?)


Now, one must also review the Terms of Service and the rules.. In the Terms of Service, it states, "IMC reserves the right to cancel accounts at the discretion of the site owners and administration."

Okay *nod* Now, why would they? Look at the rules?

"No hacking, IP spoofing, or other forms of computer theft and/or subterfuge will be permitted. This is an offense which will lead to permanent site-banning by the SysOps."

I can see that. Yes. But, how can you know someone has allowed this to happen? An E-mail from one to the other of the guilty parties? I'm going to withhold an opinion until someone shows some kind of proof one way or another. Though it definitely look s like IMC SysOps are very lacking. Don't take me wrong.. This is a great site to RP at. It's free, and these people run the place with no pay whatsoever.