Frances

The big replies are now all out. Here's mine: @Doomberg & co. I still don't think that it makes this incident Aurora's business. These are people being shitty to each other on another server - if the incident had happened between a group of four Aurora players playing Borderlands 2 (and one of them said some seriously mean stuff to another), would you have banned them too? Because such a situation is about as closely related to Aurora as the apartment server was. As for the mockery, the definition of "semi-public" is vague at best. Aurora staff have consistently mocked bad/misbehaving players in msay - and if you tell me you've turned msay into a place of exclusively formal, proper and professional discussion in the few months since I've left the team, then I will be both disappointed and impressed. In fact, there's very little difference, imo, between the chat of ~20 friends Cassie posted the logs into and msay (which also holds about 20 people, with the only difference being that people who are offline don't see the chat). In fact, I'm confused by the general inconsistency of whether you want the apartment server to be related to Aurora or not. I had gotten the impression that it was a place no admins wanted to get involved with due to fear of potential drama from Cass (this went as far as Aurora staff being requested by other staff not to get involved with it), and now it nevertheless involves your community's players closely enough that you're ready to hand out permanent bans due to drama on that server in order to defend them. As far as Cassie's own willing involvement with Aurora, I think she's already stated it to be rather low - she explained several times that the apartment server is one she made in her own free time, for the sole purpose of playing with a small group of friends. But that's not what you said. That aside, I do get that you're trying to say that someone sharing logs of ERP is a much grayer issue than one of someone posting dick picks - as clearly evidenced by the huge backlash the administration is now facing for their actions. You described Cassie as a toxic and problematic individual, and stated this was the deciding reason for her permaban. Looking at the posts you linked, I fail to understand the "revolutionary" mindset you're speaking of quite exactly - are these posts worthy of permabanning an individual? The sad thing is, I feel like this entire situation was caused by a very large misunderstanding from the staff, as well as a general unwillingness to solve that misunderstanding. Again, the first course of action when dealing with an issue like this is to get in touch with the problematic individual, and try to understand their point of view as well as make them understand your own - this was never done. And that's honestly what bothers me the most about this. At no point did anyone try to sit down with Cassie and work out the obvious enmity which existed between all of you, before simply resorting to permabanning her away. And maybe most depressing thing of all is that I am rather certain Cassie would've actually listened to you if you had taken the time to talk to her (and she might've been able to explain a thing or two along the way.) [10:23:07 AM] Frances: can I ask you a question real quick? [10:49:48 AM] Cassie: mhm? [10:51:01 AM] Frances: were you ever warned by staff against your behavior [10:51:09 AM] Frances: or did they make attempts to discuss it with you [10:51:43 AM] Cassie: I got a forum board warning after that security discussion one time. [10:51:56 AM] Frances: is that all? [10:53:59 AM] Cassie: After this warning... I approached Skull and told him I'd try to be more civil on forums and whatnot, said I just wanted to be listened to. He spent the entire convo just nodding and agreeing and being like, "Oh, oh, but niceness is important", so the I left the forums alone for quite a while. [10:55:02 AM] Frances: so did administration ever make an effort to get in touch with you and discuss the problem before handing out the ban? [10:56:02 AM] Cassie: You mean this incident? [10:56:05 AM] Cassie: No. [10:56:18 AM] Cassie: No discussion happened before this ban. The defense rests its case. @Skull I agree with your general assessment and find it accurate, from a clinical and objective standpoint. As far as how to resolve this situation? I frankly don't know. There's still a lot of yelling, and a lot of people who (imo) aren't being entirely reasonable. My suggestion would be to let the administration collect their thoughts for a few days, then have everyone on staff try to come to a resolution (that's on your end, not the players'. Cause it's not really the players' job to tell admins how to admin themselves, right?) I don't want anyone to get thrown out, personally. All I want is healthy dialogue (which is rather hard to get right now, surprisingly). I can't apologize on the behalf of other community members for some of the attitudes or reactions you've had to deal with, though I feel sorry those things are happening. (And no, it's not really staff vs. players, it's more like random people vs. random people.) I don't hate anyone, not Skull, not Doomberg. I don't agree with the actions taken here, but there's not really any precedent of it, either. I'd like to figure out how this happened (as well as what staff plan to do about it) before beginning an outcry to get new server admins.

I'm not here for my personal satisfaction, though. This is something that a lot of people are dissatisfied with, and it would be nice to reach a global resolution about it. However, if half the community simply wants to burn the administration at a stake, and the other half wants to give up on discussing the issue despite thinking they have been wronged (that is hyperbole, but many people have displayed one of these two judgments in this thread), then it doesn't leave any leeway for admins to solve this, and there's really not much I can do. The one thing I do agree with Techno on is that people telling staff things can't be fixed isn't helping (whether they do this in bold red letters or normal text is irrelevant - and whether people who have actual points bring them up politely or through shitposting is mostly irrelevant as well, as long as others are capable of understanding them). However, I disagree with Techno that the issue should just be dropped - should people be capable of moderating themselves and refraining from engaging in personal attacks, we could actually get somewhere with this thread.

People arguing about whether this is an issue that can or should be fixed are completely missing the point of this thread. Of course you want to fix issues in your community. And this isn't about bringing justice for Cassie, because people managed to piss/alienate Cassie to such an extent that she has no interest in coming back to the server. So there's hardly any point in doing anything for her. It's not an apology to her that I'm demanding. It's an explanation for what was done, handed out to the community as a whole. I'm a bit sad that even a lot of staff who posted here seem to miss that. I'll reply to Doomberg's post in a bit - hopefully we manage to get back on topic by then.

To paraphrase Skull, even if you think the admins were in the wrong, please don't condemn them and throw away the whole issue. I've seen a lot of people do that in the first pages of this thread, and this doesn't actually lead to anything being fixed. Instead, we should be looking to cooperate (this goes for both users and staff defending their respective points) to find a proper resolution for this. If you're not interested in settling this issue, simply choose the most sensible course of action and refrain from posting on the thread (since it won't achieve anything anyway, by that logic.)

I have not really seen any post discussing these points yet. I would like to see more posts on these points and less vague posts about how the server is bad in general. I would also like to see posts from the staff itself - a common trend with these threads is that they devolve into flame wars or off-topic before the staff has had a chance to respond, and consequently get locked.

So, because the user in question didn't submit an appeal, you won't bother looking at whether the ban was legitimate or not, even if other users are expressing concern it might not be? Also, You're very polite and reasonable, and though I don't know you well at all, I feel like respecting you, and think you're a good mod. However, I'd really like to warn you against this kind of thinking. Following your superiors blindly isn't always good - there's a difference between trusting someone, and assuming them to be entirely clear of wrongdoings. You being in the position of a mod, regular user, or the server's own headmin has no bearing in this case - this is the kind of incident that I encourage you to investigate yourself, and draw your own conclusions from. Only then should you decide if the rest of the staff is worthy of your trust. There's one reason why I didn't make this thread an admin complaint: I wanted to give everyone a chance to discuss it frankly, without the need for the "speedy resolution" that admin complaints often call for. Because admin complaints, frankly, are up to other admins to investigate and resolve - and this is a matter for the community to decide on, not staff.

This is about more than Cassie. This is about how admins treat their players, and how they respond to incidents. Sure, it didn't happen to you, but how will you feel when you're the one to get banned because of something you did off-server? And what will you do when you come to contest the ban, only to be told you were "kind of a dick" in a nonspecific manner? I'm worried because I really don't see the minimum of professionalism and common sense I've come to expect from admins on here. Also, if someone gets banned unjustly, and gives up on appealing their case, should you really give up on them, saying "well, they don't care anyway?" I still see a wrongdoing here, and it doesn't sit right with me to let it happen.

Okay, do you want to fix issues with your server, or not? Because what I'm getting from these comments is "we don't agree with what the staff did, but there's nothing that can be done so we don't care."

I think it's important not to make assumptions about everyone's final viewpoint yet. We're just here to discuss the issue for now. Let's not get ahead of ourselves and pass any hasty judgments.

I'm not sure here. I personally believe admins have been in the wrong to make the choices they made. I'd ideally like either for them to somehow to convince me (and others) of the rightness of their actions, or, if that's not possible, for as many users as possible to properly understand what happened here.

Alright, thread's gone and locked, people have had a few days to cool off, and I'm of the opinion that it's time to start this up again, because I am frankly not happy with the way administration has handled this. Let's look at a short list of issues I find with the whole ban/announcement: Admins have banned someone because of what that person did on another server (their very own private server, no less.) Admins permabanned a person for releasing logs of ERP - not from Aurora's server - to an enclosed group. Admins are taking a stance that mocking ERP is really serious (when literally nobody gave a shit about it until now, and Aurora staff has also dealt with ERP with a very similar attitude until recently.) Doomberg told me somebody sending others unsolicited pictures of his penis is less serious than ERP logs being laughed at, somehow. Admins retroactively explained that Cassie's ban reason was because "she was stirring up trouble on the forums", yet they've not elaborated on that at all or provided concrete examples yet. This whole affair was turned into a really unnecessary announcement, which somewhat makes it look like admins are interested in policing everyone in their free time, and that they'll get banned if they don't agree with the staff's policies. (And before you come and say that it's not what you mean to be doing, it, kinda is what you're doing now.) That's all I can think of for now, but lemme know if I should add anything to that list. Discuss. Oh, and please, be nice to each other. No one's out to harm anyone else, so be civil, and your voice will have a much higher chance of being heard V vV

A quick tip with guns: the "Page Up" button lets you switch your active hand quickly. Whenever I'm carrying a gun, I always make sure I have my off-hand selected unless I know I'm gonna have to shoot at something in the immediate future - it prevents any misfires from happening, and serves as a reasonable simulation for actual trigger discipline. Of course you wanna make sure you actually have your gun hand selected when you're shooting at the bad guys, though.

No, but they'll be stopped by security for breaching procedure. I don't think security should be arresting geneticists on sight simply for bringing powers outside the lab. But I think people who keep powers around the station for a purpose other than field testing should get in trouble.

Would simply adding the word "why" at the beginning of this question solve your problem? (And if not, can you explain?)

I would've very, very honestly hoped that most people were capable of assuming that I wasn't particularly interested in the specifics of Skrell genitalia at this point. However, I have already been proven wrong on at least two accounts. All that I can say is ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I was obviously being sarcastic. I mean, I think someone being mad at the loremaster because he doesn't want to detail alien genitalia is kinda ridiculous. I can think of many in-depth sci-fi -verses that have little to no info on sex (unless it's somehow plot-relevant), and encouraging a bunch of horny teenagers on the internet to create their weird canon for it is... probably not a really great idea overall.

hear, hear

you missed an opportunity to put Mike Chang under your character names

Hello. I wrote the rule you seem to be asking about. Back then, there was no precise definition of PG-13. Rather than going by some exact guidelines set by the MPAA or whatever (that would precise exactly how much of a boob can be shown, and so on), I figured the rule could simply be understood as "try to abide by some general sense of internet decency/decorum". "Internet" PG-13, in my experience, generally means to avoid explicit sexual conversations (simply mentioning sex is okay, going into detail about sexual acts or having crude sexual conversations is not), as well as discussions on irl illegal activities (including drugs, pirating, and any more serious stuff). I can try to come up with a very basic list of this, off the top of my head: Don't talk crudely about sex (saying - or joking - that X and X Aurora characters have banged is fine - having an elaborate conversation about sex acts isn't) Don't discuss how to commit irl crimes (some people will obviously say that they're stoners, but we don't wanna know how exactly you want to blaze it up, or where you go to torrent your latest warez) Don't say stuff with the sole (or main) purpose to offend - including off-taste jokes, whether they be racist, sexual, etc. Don't engage in hate speech (venting about something random that frustrates you is fine, going on a rant about how you hate everyone of a certain race is probably not a conversation for Aurora) Things you can discuss (that wouldn't be PG13 in a film) Extreme violence in the game (since it already happens in SS13) People engaging in illegal acts in the game (fictional, no problem) Religion, politics, whatever else you like to debate, as long as you remain civil

Actually... Since the topic seems rather appropriate for it, could we take some time to either prove, or demystify this? Because even now, as much as I've heard of people disliking cliques, I've heard basically no stories of them doing something bad. So like, does anyone have any examples of that? Strictly on server. We're making a point not to talk about the Apartment Server drama for a day or two to avoid another bloodorgy thread.

I'm speaking as one of the people who are disappointed with the recent events (well, what really disappoints me is that we have two groups that are at arms against each other, and neither seem to be able to find a suitable resolution because of what, imo, is very frustrating circumstances). It sucks to see that, but I don't think that alone is killing the community, or turning the Aurora into a sinking ship. Why were you here in the first place? What did you like doing? Are these things gone? Is that reason enough to leave, or give up now?

Cliques are the idea that there are groups among the server with various degrees of exclusivity - generally, when people here speak of cliques, they speak of group that would (supposedly) be problematic specifically because they exclude a part of the playerbase one way or another, usually for reasons that would be silly or unjust. I personally think that cliques aren't really a problem, but that the constant drama and complaining against them from everyone is starting to be one. Also, SSLs are "Suicidal Space Lesbians", a stereotype of a kind of female Medbay/Science character who usually ends up turning into a jailhouse lesbian due to their (male) player's own sexual preferences, creating ridiculously exaggerated IC drama, and dating other characters of their kind. I'll leave up to you to judge whether these characters are a reality on Aurora or not - I wouldn't really know.

Okay, here's something that's bugging me about this ban. Main thing, in fact, at this point. Like, the way it's been presented, I'm sure the issue with Cassie has been hotly deliberated among staff for a time, until everyone could come to the consensus that her actions as a whole were ground for a permaban + that announcement warning everyone about her server. If admins were able to take a clear and informed decision resulting in this ban, then why is it so hard for them to explain it to us? Shouldn't the people in charge of this decision have a reasonably general idea of what happened? I feel like if you know what's going on with a topic, then you should be able to explain it relatively concisely. Yet all I've seen so far are invitations to read Cassie's entire post history.

Well, banning her for it is just catering to the most recent vocal masses (are they masses, though?) of the server. And ignoring the prior mission/mindset of the server. But, different schools of thought, I guess. Times change. Sometimes this can't be helped. But see, for example: so many people wanted Sue gone because she was confrontational, or rude, or whatever. I tried treating her like a normal user nevertheless while I was headmin (ignoring whatever requests people were making as long as they were too ridiculous - talking to her in instances where she did step over the line), and save for a few people accusing me of favoritism (which I dismiss to this day), the world didn't end. Sue's still here, the server is working fine, and in all honesty, the people finding "offense" with whatever she might say and invoking tone policing tend to be a greater annoyance than any of her own posts could've been.

Then I don't agree with your judgement. I can't question it, since I'm not in charge, and it really boils down to a question of "what are people comfortable with?", but I can say I wouldn't see a member of the community acting the way Cass did as problematic. She's... phrasing arguments in a semi-hilarious and semi-sassy way. It's almost like the kind of shitposting Inverted does. It's entertaining, somewhat easier to follow than long, bland ranting posts, and above all it comes out as heartfelt and honest. If you really want to construe anything in Cassie's posts as a serious personal attack, then... we've reached United Nations level of political correctness, or something similar. It's really just banter. And you can dislike banter, but... come on. ...On the internet? In a mature community of 16-22-somethings?