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.

I've been part of this server's mod team for an entire year. During that whole time, not once did I see someone mention managing complaints and bans/unbans as being a pain. I don't think the flow of complaints/appeals nor their nature have changed since then. So what has? The climate. Circumstances change over time. People are a whole lot more belligerent when it comes to policy/complaints/whatever else. Shitposting has become more prevalent. And if it was indeed as prevalent then as it is now, then the reason we are still dealing with it is complacency.

And if dogpiling continues to occur, it will be addressed with a modification to the rule in question. As it stands, I have not seen any more of it. You refer to dogpiling: Please consider the ratio of staff to players, and the amount of potential posters we'd have to deal with if this rule was not in place. It's a whole lot less likely for staff to want to jump to each other's defense when no one is being barraged with accusations, shitposting, etcetera. I'd say it's a win-win.

The only purpose of the rule: Prevent peanut gallerying. If you have no facts to provide and were not involved in the incident described, you have no place posting in the complaint. If you have something to say as a witness or involved party in the incident, or logs/screenshots/etcetera of similar behavior, you're more than free to join in. That's kind of clear and another thing that shouldn't have to be stated explicitly: If you have no proof to provide of a player's/staffer's misconduct, or no further facts regarding the incident to contribute, you should keep out. So far, this has made handling complaints/appeals a whole lot less of a pain in the ass. I have yet to see the usual shitposting or drama in complaints, in fact. It's a bit difficult to argue with results.

The only purpose of the rule: Prevent peanut gallerying. If you have no facts to provide and were not involved in the incident described, you have no place posting in the complaint. If you have something to say as a witness or involved party in the incident, or logs/screenshots/etcetera of similar behavior, you're more than free to join in. That's kind of clear and another thing that shouldn't have to be stated explicitly: If you have no proof to provide of a player's/staffer's misconduct, or no further facts regarding the incident to contribute, you should keep out. So far, this has made handling complaints/appeals a whole lot less of a pain in the ass. I have yet to see the usual shitposting or drama in complaints, in fact. It's a bit difficult to argue with results.

You're basically justifying your behavior by saying you're a volunteer, though. Like, I'm not sure how else to take it? I'm not asking you to go above and beyond the call of duty, and I understand wanting to be sassy with users who are being sassy to you (I've done it, it was fun), but what you're doing is just, kinda bad imo. You've thrown out valid points for the sake of being cheeky. This isn't about poking users who are already angered beyond redemption - this is about you driving them away and making them into the pissed off, "subversive" and "toxic" elements we're all starting to hear about recently. You're running the staff team of the server, which means you're here to garner the users' compliance in establishing order. There's three basic ways to do that: coercion, influence, and authority. I think it's clearly been proven that most people on the internet won't respect you without question simply because you have a shiny ☆Moderator☆ title (though you and a few other admins on here still seem to be trying without avail), so that leaves us with coercion and influence. What to do with these people? You can attempt to reason with them, or you can ban them. Eventually, it's going to come down to either (unless they just get bored first, which they might.) But coercion doesn't make you look very good, especially when you're leaving out influence while it's still a clearly open option. And you might say you don't care, but the community's users definitely will. Point already addressed: Those who can be reasoned with are reasoned with. The only ones driven away are the ones who seek to cause trouble and can't be redeemed. I don't see what valid points I've thrown out. Am I driving away problem players? Weeeellll, that's arguably part of the job. Those can go. Otherwise, I'm more than open to discussion, especially on Skype/whatever, provided I'm not approached with the intent of baiting/throwing in cheap jabs. Coercion is not jumped to before assessing whether the player in question can be reasoned with/talked to or not. I've said this before, I'll say it again. I don't want nor demand anyone's respect. I want them to fulfill the obligations listed above, as I fulfill mine. I will not attempt to negotiate with or redeem unreasonable people, nor will I ever ask my staff to do so.

You're basically justifying your behavior by saying you're a volunteer, though. Like, I'm not sure how else to take it? I'm not asking you to go above and beyond the call of duty, and I understand wanting to be sassy with users who are being sassy to you (I've done it, it was fun), but what you're doing is just, kinda bad imo. You've thrown out valid points for the sake of being cheeky. This isn't about poking users who are already angered beyond redemption - this is about you driving them away and making them into the pissed off, "subversive" and "toxic" elements we're all starting to hear about recently. You're running the staff team of the server, which means you're here to garner the users' compliance in establishing order. There's three basic ways to do that: coercion, influence, and authority. I think it's clearly been proven that most people on the internet won't respect you without question simply because you have a shiny ☆Moderator☆ title (though you and a few other admins on here still seem to be trying without avail), so that leaves us with coercion and influence. What to do with these people? You can attempt to reason with them, or you can ban them. Eventually, it's going to come down to either (unless they just get bored first, which they might.) But coercion doesn't make you look very good, especially when you're leaving out influence while it's still a clearly open option. And you might say you don't care, but the community's users definitely will. Point already addressed: Those who can be reasoned with are reasoned with. The only ones driven away are the ones who seek to cause trouble and can't be redeemed. I don't see what valid points I've thrown out. Am I driving away problem players? Weeeellll, that's arguably part of the job. Those can go. Otherwise, I'm more than open to discussion, especially on Skype/whatever, provided I'm not approached with the intent of baiting/throwing in cheap jabs. Coercion is not jumped to before assessing whether the player in question can be reasoned with/talked to or not. I've said this before, I'll say it again. I don't want nor demand anyone's respect. I want them to fulfill the obligations listed above, as I fulfill mine. I will not attempt to negotiate with or redeem unreasonable people, nor will I ever ask my staff to do so.

Imo what I've been arguing for is highly context-dependent. I'm not forced to stick to a single black and white ideology no matter what. Most of the cases of "hugboxing" I complained against had to do with game mechanics, enforcement of the rules, and excessive moderation of OOC/IC (mostly when people were being harmless). Even during these incidents a lot of the staff were displaying the kind of strict and authoritarian attitudes I've come to dislike on here. I believe I can have an issue both with that and the tone the staff chooses to take when solving conflicts. If I've failed to clarify that, I apologize. In the end, there's a difference between "tone policing" and "being a cunt", and there's a difference between taking someone's argument in spite yet calling them out on their behavior, and completely disregarding someone's argument because you don't like their tone. The issue, however, is that not everyone will be smart, patient, and full of enthusiasm to get along with the staff. I'd argue the responsibility of a good admin team would be to work with these people and convince them that the staff can be reasonable. You seem to prefer to reply to hostility and conflict with more hostility. You speak about people not having any rights, not being owed anything, not serving any purpose the moment they're found in violation of the rules. But in the end, are you there to solve problems and make people happy, or are you there to be right? Our obligations: Make certain the rules are reasonable and not difficult to follow or understand. Uphold these rules. Assist and protect (when reasonable) our players. Redeem, stop, or, failing that, remove problem players. Coordinate with the rest of the staff to make sure everything is working out smoothly in the long-term interest of the community as a whole, not in the interest of individuals. Your obligations: Follow the rules. Don't cause trouble intentionally. Correct yourself if you're doing it by accident. This case: Redemption was deemed a presently unrealistic goal, so an escalation to the "stop" phase occurred. Why? Because this is consistent behavior from this specific group of players. An attempt at discussion was made, and the results have been displayed previously in this thread. We do not generally respond with hostility to hostility, but with punishment. To think that everyone can be redeemed or is worth the time cost of redemption is pure idealism. We do not have the time nor the paygrade to treat everyone as a customer - to expect this of anyone would be unreasonable. As for rights, everyone has the following rights: 1. The right to leave. Why do I mention this? This is important to address everyone yelling "oppression". You are not forced to remain in this "oppressive" environment. 2. The right to be protected from anyone who acts in violation of the aforementioned rules. Conditioned privileges that may be stripped for people who constantly cause trouble and show a disregard for our rules: 1. Playing on the server. 2. Using the forums. As a final point: I do not believe players who violate the rules are worthless. I do not believe players who violate the rules should not be listened to. I do believe, however, that players that join or intentionally act in a certain way as to create an incident or string of incidents or bait a certain kind of response or antagonize a certain player demographic should be stopped or removed expeditiously, and should not have any degree of agency in the day-to-day management of the server and community, because they have demonstrated one of two things: A) They have anything but the best interests of this community in mind. B) They have the best interest of the community in mind, but are misguided, have no idea how to go about it, or are simply misinformed and entirely unaware of the present climate and needs of Aurora.

Imo what I've been arguing for is highly context-dependent. I'm not forced to stick to a single black and white ideology no matter what. Most of the cases of "hugboxing" I complained against had to do with game mechanics, enforcement of the rules, and excessive moderation of OOC/IC (mostly when people were being harmless). Even during these incidents a lot of the staff were displaying the kind of strict and authoritarian attitudes I've come to dislike on here. I believe I can have an issue both with that and the tone the staff chooses to take when solving conflicts. If I've failed to clarify that, I apologize. In the end, there's a difference between "tone policing" and "being a cunt", and there's a difference between taking someone's argument in spite yet calling them out on their behavior, and completely disregarding someone's argument because you don't like their tone. The issue, however, is that not everyone will be smart, patient, and full of enthusiasm to get along with the staff. I'd argue the responsibility of a good admin team would be to work with these people and convince them that the staff can be reasonable. You seem to prefer to reply to hostility and conflict with more hostility. You speak about people not having any rights, not being owed anything, not serving any purpose the moment they're found in violation of the rules. But in the end, are you there to solve problems and make people happy, or are you there to be right? Our obligations: Make certain the rules are reasonable and not difficult to follow or understand. Uphold these rules. Assist and protect (when reasonable) our players. Redeem, stop, or, failing that, remove problem players. Coordinate with the rest of the staff to make sure everything is working out smoothly in the long-term interest of the community as a whole, not in the interest of individuals. Your obligations: Follow the rules. Don't cause trouble intentionally. Correct yourself if you're doing it by accident. This case: Redemption was deemed a presently unrealistic goal, so an escalation to the "stop" phase occurred. Why? Because this is consistent behavior from this specific group of players. An attempt at discussion was made, and the results have been displayed previously in this thread. We do not generally respond with hostility to hostility, but with punishment. To think that everyone can be redeemed or is worth the time cost of redemption is pure idealism. We do not have the time nor the paygrade to treat everyone as a customer - to expect this of anyone would be unreasonable. As for rights, everyone has the following rights: 1. The right to leave. Why do I mention this? This is important to address everyone yelling "oppression". You are not forced to remain in this "oppressive" environment. 2. The right to be protected from anyone who acts in violation of the aforementioned rules. Conditioned privileges that may be stripped for people who constantly cause trouble and show a disregard for our rules: 1. Playing on the server. 2. Using the forums. As a final point: I do not believe players who violate the rules are worthless. I do not believe players who violate the rules should not be listened to. I do believe, however, that players that join or intentionally act in a certain way as to create an incident or string of incidents or bait a certain kind of response or antagonize a certain player demographic should be stopped or removed expeditiously, and should not have any degree of agency in the day-to-day management of the server and community, because they have demonstrated one of two things: A) They have anything but the best interests of this community in mind. B) They have the best interest of the community in mind, but are misguided, have no idea how to go about it, or are simply misinformed and entirely unaware of the present climate and needs of Aurora.

I'm not discarding you. (I don't agree the administration isn't censoring users, whether their intent or not, but that's for another thread, not this one.) However, I believe your behavior is relevant as a headmin because you seem to be making a lot of people upset in easily avoidable ways (these are your users, after all.) You argue against staff "hugboxing", yet complain about me apparently making a few people upset and not being particularly cuddly. You seem to support people being allowed to state what they want despite what others may feel, yet apparently me inadvertently making a group of people upset is unacceptable. Do you have a fixed MO or ideology we can speak of, here? I'm not a customer service representative. I can't be friendly to every single person who doesn't extend the same courtesy. If you're cordial, I'll do my best to be the same. If you're friendly, I'll be friendly. If you act like a dick, I will be unpleasant to deal with (this isn't a targeted "you", by the way). This seems to be a conflict of ideologies, but it's a bit difficult to discuss anything of the sort when the opposing ideology seems to adapt in a reactive manner.

I'm not discarding you. (I don't agree the administration isn't censoring users, whether their intent or not, but that's for another thread, not this one.) However, I believe your behavior is relevant as a headmin because you seem to be making a lot of people upset in easily avoidable ways (these are your users, after all.) You argue against staff "hugboxing", yet complain about me apparently making a few people upset and not being particularly cuddly. You seem to support people being allowed to state what they want despite what others may feel, yet apparently me inadvertently making a group of people upset is unacceptable. Do you have a fixed MO or ideology we can speak of, here? I'm not a customer service representative. I can't be friendly to every single person who doesn't extend the same courtesy. If you're cordial, I'll do my best to be the same. If you're friendly, I'll be friendly. If you act like a dick, I will be unpleasant to deal with (this isn't a targeted "you", by the way). This seems to be a conflict of ideologies, but it's a bit difficult to discuss anything of the sort when the opposing ideology seems to adapt in a reactive manner.