Doomberg

Will lift shortly. Further incidents of the same nature leading to the same punishment may not be easy to appeal.

Let me rephrase, then: I don't see any issue with Gollee's conduct. When a rule is written a certain way and enforced that way, whether the rule is flawed or not, the enforcer is not to be blamed. I am not opposed to making alterations to the rule for everyone's convenience and I don't have an issue with the possibility of information being posted once that rule has been adjusted.

Why it should be enforced in this case? Because it's a crystal clear rule that was very clearly ignored. If you disagree with the rule, that's unfortunate, but there are no stated exceptions nor do we have precedent for such an exception, and I would rather not establish a precedent for it without a very good reason. If we've reached the point where I have to justify why my staff are enforcing the rather basic and clearly outlined server/forum rules, there's an issue, and I'm afraid the issue is not with them. All it would have taken to solve this without any sort of headache? A PM to any of the duty officers with a very brief explanation. I do not see why an exception to a basic rule should be made on the basis of the violator doing it with good intentions. Leniency is another matter, but you were shown leniency in this particular case, extenuating circumstances and all. As previously stated, I see no problem with Gollee's conduct. Is there anything anyone would like to add, or may I lock this?

The rule of "don't post OOCly on incident reports" is pretty elementary. There's nothing discreet or complex about it. I see no fault in Gollee's actions - he enforced a fundamental rule on a subforum he supervises. That is partly his responsibility.

Lifted. Do note that further incidents of this nature may not be particularly justifiable.

Lifted by now. Archiving.

I'm not sure how "what you've learned" gives us any pertinent information whatsoever here.

Locking and archiving due to inactivity. Feel free to appeal when you have time to respond.

Locking and archiving due to inactivity. Feel free to appeal when you're able to respond.

Archiving due to old age, plus the ban having already expired.

Alright. I'll lock this up in that case. Thank you for your understanding, feel free to drop me a PM or just another complaint if this reoccurs.

The underlying problem of the staff member's conduct towards you as someone he may see as an "issue" was conveniently addressed while discussing point A, which is part of why the rest of it requires no further prodding at this time - it would be pretty redundant. If this conduct sees no adjustment in future cases, it will be dealt with accordingly, but it is presently (correct me if I'm wrong) the first incident of the sort and has not been a recurring problem, nor severe enough on its own to warrant anything further than what was already done.

Alright, since Jen can't handle this due to real life things, I'll be taking over. Point A has been discussed with the respective staff member and addressed, and will not occur again, since he understands the issue as explained. Point B refers to the staff member's opinion regarding matters he has no executive authority over, and C pertains to his own reasons for abstaining from supporting a trial moderator's promotion. Neither of these pose an issue. Considering I know of no prior misconduct on this staff member's record, I see no reason to take further action at this time. Is there anything else you'd like to mention, or may we proceed?

Safe to close this and focus on the other one then, Alber? If we only have the whole rollerbed issue left to discuss, two complaints on the same topic would be a bit redundant.

I linked five examples of arguably constructive input being met with the "don't post" rule. Can you link me to five shitposts? You understand that it's a bit difficult to do this when most of them are deleted, yes? No, they're binned. Stand by. As a matter of fact. I'd rather not disclose who or what posts we took action against for the sake of argument.