[Disillusionist]

Wantacookie, I couldn't agree more. However, in this case, the players that ran off the largest portion of the playerbase were not only not banned, but in the opinion of most of the players who were run off, they were unduly favored, changed the complexion of the game, and when the numbers plummeted SO LOW (while long-term players were leaving in chunks) that there weren't even a dozen left, they jumped ship.

As far as staff not wanting to log in, I can understand that. Staff do not get paid, and so they often become addicted to applause for minor accomplishments, and their single bit of leverage (free labor) is often plied for personal whims. In this particular instance, what we'd clearly see is an original staff of over 25-30 people as of five or so years ago, steadly chopped down and driven off, not by players, but by poor helmsmanship.

Perhaps the best means of determining some genuine answers would be an exit poll.

The claim that administrators (read staff) 'allow one player' to do so much evil, and yet without breaking rules, and cannot keep staff members aboard, nor players, even after banning such a player...
it sure sounds like you're making a case for ....well, poor helmsmanship. That a staff member or any of their sycophants would blame the playerbase for continually dwindling numbers surely isn't solving attendance issues, is it? It sort of sounds like blaming the cattle for leaving when the barn is burning.