Faris

Hopefully this will address everything in this complaint, if not bring it up as a reply and I'll address it. 1- The leak in deadchat in this case was not @ReadThisNamePlz attempting to trash talk you. They were quoting something you said in the tickets as part of a discussion they had with other staff online at the time. 2- Whether something is ahelped or not tends to not be relevant. Staff are free to pursue things both reactively and proactively. 3- I feel like the manner in which Cybs approached you over the matter was not appropriate. It is reasonable to be upset or annoyed by it and I've already spoken to @WickedCybs about it. I don't think it was inherently malicious as Cybs has already acknowledged the issues before being approached by anyone, but it was still improper. 4- Your conduct in the ticket was not acceptable. Lashing out in the manner you did is something we do not tolerate. Community members are prone to mistakes, players and staff alike, and taking an inflammatory stance only makes things worse. Cybs would have been in the right to have applied a ban for it, but in understanding the issue and the mistakes on their part, they applied a lesser staff action than what is advised for us to do when escalating actions. I'm not using the prospect of a ban as a threat, applying bans is not something we enjoy doing, as at the end of the day we'd all like to enjoy the community together. It would be a genuine shame to lose you, so please try to show more restraint in the future. I'll give this thread 48 hours before marking it as resolved.

Do you have a copy of the logs leading up to the first PM by Cybs?

I’ll be handling this.

Agreed. It's better to have a fresh canvas so we can add newer and more relevant monuments to incidents that happen. It's essentially a new chapter.

Marking this as resolved. Locking and archiving.

@Peppermint and I have reached a verdict. To start, we want to say no one here is in the wrong. Sometimes clashing perspectives during a round gives a different impression of what is happening, which is the case here. Adminhelps and complaints can help smoothen things out and clarify what happened, which is the case here. No action on will be taken on the two reported players and anyone involved here. After reviewing what happened, the two of us came to the conclusion that it seems like the round went in accordance of the rules. We also spoke with some of the people involved to clarify how we came to this conclusion over discord. So we will be treating this complaint as resolved, keeping it open for 24 hours in the event something new is presented back by evidence.

You were already denied a few days ago for lying in your appeal. Appeal denied.

Just posting this for the sake of formality as this thread has received some attention. Both are from the subforum rules for complaints.

To summarize the issues you are reporting here. 1- Lack of roleplay and the round turning into a deathmatch. 2- The two characters using this chance to roleplay out a relationship arc, where the focus of their two interactions was with each other and neglected others. 3- Powergaming and ganking. Is there anything I'm missing here?

I’ll be handling this complaint.

I woke up to this and it’s given me both sad and happy emotions. I’m sad because of how much you meant to me when it came to the server, you are an intelligent and reasonable person that helped guide the server to where it is and I think you’re not giving yourself a enough credit. While it may seem that on the surface you did not put in a lot of work, in reality you were still interacting with people on a daily basis, jumping into discussions, sharing your thoughts and helping guide people. You’ve been a great help to me and I say with full confidence you’re a person that has also helped me grow. For that I thank you. On the happy end, it’s nice to also see you push forward. Carrying on with life, passing through the milestones you’ve set for yourself. For this I wish you the best of luck, a genuinely happy and fulfilling life to you.

The application requires some additional writing. Suggest you have a look at some other applications to get an idea of it.

In general, I think a test merge where feedback is given to modify and improve the system is a good measure. You can have jobs mandate a minimum amount of skill in certain skills. I think the administrative side might be tricky but given time and communication between the moderation team and development team I’m sure some kind of functional system can be made to minimize abuse. I don’t think we can ever nullify it but I think abuse of what systems we have can be minimized. But like all implementations, if it unfortunately did not work out during testing then we can always go back. I think it’s worth a try.

Locking and archiving.

I'll be going forward without the testimony of Hesphos, after speaking with others that were there and reviewing the logs makes it unnecessary. In accordance to witnesses and logs, it seems like the Warden fired at the Ta a single time and the circumstances and interaction around this incident and the round do not seem too egregious to require moderation staff intervention. If they did attack Vaurca and especially Vaurca representatives very often then I encourage you to ahelp it during the round itself in the future. I'm going to mark this as resolved and permit the incident report to progress.

@Hesphos When you have the time, kindly give a run down of what happened from your perspective.

I'll handle this complaint.

If you could pick your account now, it would be best. It might take a while because there's a lot of accounts under you.

I'm willing to accept this appeal, but you'll need to stick to one account from now on. When you're able, reply with the account you'd like to be your primary one.

Is this an account not listed here? If so, please list it.

I found a connection made on the 15th with another account, which has the typical attributes of ban evasion. Can you explain it?

Locking and archiving.

Yes.

I feel this this essentially solves the issue you've brought up, and at the same time is accomplishes what Tex and Prate were also looking for. I'll assume this is resolved if nothing new is presented in the next 24 hours.

In terms of how the rules are written, heavy accents are permitted for engineering. That being said, I can see the issue that is being brought up here and that is the ability to really be able to understand what is being said. For me personally, I'd say it's a 50/50 on what I'm able to understand when Guddin speaks, be it when I play, observe or logs are sent to me. So I can see why staff and players might think it is Heavy Speech Impediment. I live in a place with a lot of tourists, and when I'm stopped for questions, sometimes I speak more plainly or adjust my speech a bit when I'm told people are having trouble understanding me due to our accents despite speaking the same language. Would you say your character is capable of rephrasing if asked to rephrase/clarify in a way that more comprehensible? That doesn't have to always be their speech, only when prompted or when your character feels it is vital. Example from a log I have. Before: Enjenn ess dunn, walkah. After: Eng-gine ess done. Something like this, you'd be able to retain this aspect of your character while being able to clarify to people that do not initially understand. You can also tie in some NT sponsored speech class be it willingly or forced.