Doomberg

Locking and archiving as per the applicant's request.

In that case, I'll be locking and archiving this. Good luck in your future endeavors.

Application accepted following trial period.

Application accepted following trial period.

Application accepted following trial period.

Application accepted following trial period.

Application accepted following trial period.

Application accepted following trial period.

Application accepted following trial period.

Will lift shortly.

Well, I was meant to lock this before, as it's become quite pointless. Will be doing that.

Thaaaat's odd. I'll look into this ASAP.

That would kind of be debating semantics, at this point? The idea is: It can be misunderstood. Or, rather, if this would please you more, we believe it can be misunderstood.

I feel like it's relevant to point out when I feel that the pot is calling the kettle black, is all. Said conduct is, in fact, an improvement from how past staff handled things, from what I've seen. It's being worked on. As for how I'd turn the joke into something acceptable? Just... aim it at people whom you know are familiar with the rules already, or at the very least add a "that was a joke, by the way" at the end? It's not even really something I'd PM anyone for personally, I simply don't think that PMing you about it was inherently wrong. In any case, as per our usual procedure, I'll be leaving this open for 24 hours before locking it.

I'm looking at your prior conduct of that sort as staff in contrast to Tish's. They are very, very different. I'm not sure what you're trying to say, here. That was the point - the 300 characters comment can be an exaggeration/joke about an already-existing permanent death rule, when, instead, let's say you lost 3. Regardless, iiiit's up to the responding staffer to interpret, and as it stands, I do not disagree with Tish's interpretation.

It is, though. You're arguing against an approach that you, yourself, took when you were in my shoes. "Every death is permanent. I've already gone through 300 identical characters.". Second statement: An indication that the previous was a joke, or, an exaggeration/joke about the consequences of the previous statement - which is true - and its implications. "Being Voltage is bannable." - Being Voltage is bannable. Obvious inside joke. No way to misinterpret.

"Being Voltage/Pump is bannable" is not something anyone would ever believe. That is your own interpretation - the handling staff member's may differ. Staff complaints exist to deal with unjust or inappropriate punishment, or poor conduct. Which of these is this complaint based on, exactly... ? I see neither from Tish. The ban appeal you handily linked earlier. I wasn't referring to this thread. I distinctly recall it being your belief that players should sometimes be informed that they are being idiots, or something of that nature - and I have not even done that much. You have been acting like an entitled customer. I hate to say this, but you are neither of these things. I would rather not have my staff second-guess themselves or worry about every single call they have to make because there might be complaints like this sprouting the moment someone is slightly upset.

Refer to previous quote and kindly swallow your own medicine. Moving on - yes, I am. A POTENTIALLY misleading joke if the player you're talking to is new. You have yet to explain the purpose of this complaint. Would you like staff to take back their PM, now?

I'm sorry, allow me to pitch in here for a second. Hypocrisy is a wonderful thing, isn't it? God forbid one of our administrators actually happens to come off as mildly abrasive when PMing you, though - you're liable to demand a refund, it would appear. Setting this little charade aside, allow me to exercise my suspension of disbelief and pretend that you are trying to achieve something constructive with this complaint: You are a former head administrator. You made a misleading joke, Tish attempted to both gauge your intent in making it and tell you not to do this kind of thing because a genuinely new player might actually take it seriously. You responded by taking it to LOOC in an obviously infuriating gesture. There isn't even any punishment to contest, here.

I apologize, but since I took over, the staff no longer appears to be a hive mind acting in perfect, unquestioning and unspoken unison, as it had been doing in the past. I am certain that this is a problem you never experienced. Table and I may simply have different interpretations of the incident and why the warning was warranted. Anyway. As Table's fine with removing the warning, we'll be doing just that and changing it to a note. I'll give this 24 hours before locking it up.

You're implying OOC in IC/general chucklefuckery is okay. Sure, I did that once at some undefined point in time, myself. I let it slide as long as people don't make a habit of it, yet I do fondly recall you two telling my MD how you wanted to become Unathi for Jesus. As for what you did wrong? It's already been explained to you - metacommunication. The severity hardly warrants staff intervention on its own, but when taking into consideration identical priors, yes, we are basing this decision on past behaviour as well as present.

I see no one has taken the liberty to mention the fact that this is not exactly the first time this happens between you two. See, this incident on its own, I would personally not warn for. This incident following multiple other such incidents, though? I'll stand by my staff's decision. The only thing I can't understand is why one of you was given a warning and the other a note.

Right, well. The server isn't the place to test things OOCly, especially not things that involve the words "disable safeties" and "atmospherics". I'll see what the rest of the staff thinks.

The entire point of this sort of appeal is either A) Establishing whether your actions were in violation of the rules or not and lifting an unjust ban (staff complaints can serve this purpose as well), or B) Shortening a justified ban by acknowledging that you were in the wrong and demonstrating some degree of understanding. If you want to discuss the rules and how they work, unban appeals are not the place for it. Your conduct was in clear violation of an existing rule and you were given a warning on first offense plus the standard punishment on the second. B) is not the case, and I've already explained why the punishment is justified. With that, I'm going to have to deny this.

Alright, thank you for understanding. As said, we'll move on to discussing staff conduct once Josh gets here.