Staff Complaint - Lordfowl

[Scheveningen]

We're essentially repeating what's already been made as points already.

2 minutes ago, LorenLuke said:

The uneven application of punishment among any two parties engaged in similar or identical behavior is not grounds to eschew deserved punishment for one or both parties.

It doesn't matter, that's not what Aurora's policy and enforcement for the rules is, has been, and will be. 

The complaint has been open roughly since late November with little resolution hinted at or in sight, and usually when a complaint like this sits in the backlog for so long (despite getting regular updates in posts pointing at the person's behavior), it makes me led to believe that posting further in this is pointless because additional posts (even if they are very compelling evidence against the person being complained about) ironically make the issue less as compelling to handle for a staffmember that simply doesn't want to deal with this.

Not counting Christmas break, we're approaching a month since this has been otherwise unresolved. What makes anyone think this'll be resolved anytime soon? A choice of inaction, itself, is an action, so if the head developers have chosen to let this sit and not sort it out, then that is their choice, and the rest of the community likely has to deal with it.

[LorenLuke]

@Garnascus

Since this complaint has seen apparent 'resolution' (though I would hardly call it that) then further perpetration of said offending behavior following, could you give some official view/compel an official response on the matter beyond it 'being looked into', since that has been the case for the past five weeks with no appreciable gain?

[Garnascus]

@LorenLuke  

I am headmin and this is a complaint against a developer. Such is the area of @Skull132 and @Arrow768. I do not handle complaints against staff not in my department. I think the issues raised about his over dramatic attitude are valid though. 

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

Nothing has been resolved.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

I will handle this with my own authority. I will block lordfowl and not associate with his work or develop in regards to anyone i do and will encourage my staff to do the same. 

 

Now calling autakh the aut'ist update is just too much. He wont stop. But I will minimize his damage where I can.

 

I wanted him discord banned temporarily but now I want him gone.

Edited January 7, 2019 by Marlon Phoenix

[Skull132]

Well, Christmas is over, so here come the late presents.

A general point for consideration is that I cannot make two adults get along. That is ultimately up to jackboot and fowl to square up and get sorted.

And there's the general note that any hopes of me banning a staff member are pointless, as I already told Jackboot a month ago. If we reach the point where a staff member is to be banned from anything Aurora member, then we should first reconsider them being a staff member.

However, one of my objectives is to ensure that the staff environment remains workable and that staff generally provide a presentable image of staff. To which end, I can take some issue with Fowl's conduct. Therein also lies a slight difference between allowing abrasive people to exist on the server in general, and allowing Fowl to remain onboard as staff. To recap, a considerable amount of staff have commented on Fowl's behaviour as draining and needlessly obstructive. While yes, some people definitely over play the amount of "distress" he can cause, he is not always pleasant to interact with and this can build. Specially when you may be attempting to get some work done.

Though this should also not be taken as, "Fowl can't say your idea is stupid." A stupid idea is a stupid idea, but there are more effective and less effective ways to communicate this. And more friction-generating and less friction-generating ways to communicate this.

Fowl's request for this complaint was that he be handed a specific set of guidelines to adhere to. So here is the list that we currently agreed upon:

• Cut the sarcasm and quips, specially when discussing business.
• Do not ridicule or excessively ridicule the ideas of others, though wrong they may be.
• Explain yourself in a clear and non-back-handed manner when required to. Again, specially when discussing business.

Note that this specifically addresses situations of "when discussing business". Which in essence means, if it's general off-topic banter and we're clear on that, I do not really care: Fowl's as good (or as bad) as anyone on that count, unless someone wishes to protest this assessment.

Leaving open for further comments from participants and other head staff. Otherwise, if nothing else comes up, we can do a review after 2 months if necessary, and see if anything's gone better or worse or if there's been no change at all. And it would be wise for the other participants to put some consideration into what they want out of the complaint as well: specifically whether your goal is to actually figure out a way to work with your colleague, or to just see an issue removed. Because, to echo my initial statement, I cannot make two adults get along if they absolutely refuse to.

[Scheveningen]

A small thing.

December 6th, you said this.

I think that the general premise, outside of word policing, is that you act in an overly dramatic or over-bearing fashion when presenting some of your critique. Which, when someone has to interact with you daily for weeks, months, years; tends to wear people down. This issue has surfaced with you before, I am certain that you remember.

December 7th, Fowl replied,

I see. I guess I won't do that, then.

December 16th, Jackboot posts this -

 

- that it really did not take long for Fowl to essentially renege on his word. And now we're here, some weeks later. Has Fowl made some sort of renewed guarantee he will not repeat what he was asked not to do? I am curiously mostly because were this a case with a player, they would not be given so many chances. I can cite very few cases where abrasive individuals with the rank of player were given such measures of mercy from consequences for their behavior. It's interesting that something like this instance in particular had a tarp of 'complexity' thrown over it, but give an administrator this case and they'd have - not only dealt with this in far less time -- but with a level of discipline based on the severity of the offense. Ask any administrator and each will tell you that one member of the community member harassing another or making the environment very unpleasant for everyone involved will likely get an individual doing that sorted and potentially banned very quickly.

Not that I am asking for mercilessness, but I find it strange that things are dealt with so disproportionately at various levels of staff compared to when a player commits the same offense. And the notion that despite an act that was discouraged was still repeated anyway, but your resolution is still essentially, "Well, you all have to get along, and deal with it", while mostly ignoring that a myriad of breaking the rules still happened from Fowl's side, in addition to him, whether intentionally or not, fostering an unpleasant atmosphere to be in. 

I think you're cool, Skull, ultimately, and I can understand where you're coming from by trying to keep the entire team structure together as tentative as it may be at times. But it seems counter-intuitive and perhaps a bit hypocritical if we're far more willing to administer copious amounts of discipline to non-staff that break the rules and make the community unpleasant, yet setting an uneasy tone with the resolution of this complaint by taking no particular action short of a warning. It just does not seem honest to put up rules to tell the community they have to abide by or be disciplined with varying levels of ruthlessness depending on the mood of the handling staff member, but the staff can essentially toe the line with these rules or outright break them.

I possibly repeated my point about 5 times in the array of those paragraphs. But I don't wish to be mistaken in the point I'm making, if it at all has any credibility to it.

Edited January 8, 2019 by Scheveningen

[LordFowl]

You'll forgive me if I don't see where I "reneged" on my agreement in your example.

[Skull132]

I will get back to you, Delta, in some hours. But in the mean time, I would like you to count just how many players we have banned over complaints analogous to this one. It is a fact that being banned for the "don't be a dick" rule is probably the hardest, unless you do something very specific, like PM a mod a "fuck you" in response to a proper warning.

And yes, I did clarify these requirements with Fowl.

[Scheveningen]

1 hour ago, Skull132 said:

What was linked is not harassment. It is grumbling. Annoyed.

Attributing staffmembers, their ideas and work as 'autistic' isn't targeted harassment to you? Especially when it's done more than once?

1 hour ago, Skull132 said:

Harassment is act of legitimately targeting something or someone, and keeping at it.

I don't think this complaint would be here at 3 pages and roughly 50+ posts if this only happened once. The evidence and proofs provided are ultimately not of singular instances (such as you cited with the cloaks) but of several over time. Which proves something is going on there.

1 hour ago, Skull132 said:

To pick this complaint up as some sort of banner over that is the most ridiculous double standard that I have seen in a long ass while, and you should drop it. Drop it because it should be abundantly clear that Fowl's conduct, as far as the conduct of your average player goes, is right about where everyone else's is.

I'm not the only person holding this banner. Nor am I going to simply drop this because you say so. Check the first two pages of this thread and count how many people were very much not a fan of how Fowl's conduct stood out compared to others, many of them have provided evidence, in fact, and very strong arguments on top of that, plenty of them you've not even chosen to address, how convenient. Whatever basis your evaluation was formed upon, it's clear that it is using a disproportionate measurement of judgement.

Your argument's pretty weak if by addressing whether you have a double standard or not, it ends up in you accusing me of being the one with the double standard rather than addressing whether anything in your decision-making was flawed or not. Not exactly the road to self-improvement there.
 

1 hour ago, Skull132 said:

To say that we act disproportionately is also sad.

And yet I am not wrong. By rejecting that staff act disproportionately, you assert that staff perform their duties perfectly and without error. Until you code replacements for staff members, so far they are all substituted for by humans. People who think, feel, and do things not always in the best interest of others or themselves. It is recognition of these flaws that we can figure out how to fix those weaknesses and exemplify where we're all individually strong.

1 hour ago, Skull132 said:

Again, we have countless player complaints wherein we ask players to get along with each other nicely, over arguments and encounters infinitely more heated and as long lasting as this one. And hey, sometimes they even get along. To say that we ban people at the drop of a hat for offences which regard the "Don't be a dick" rule is horribly false.

You did once, actually:

Spoiler

https://forums.aurorastation.org/topic/2803-apartment-server-ban-my-grievances/?tab=comments#comment-29243

You can insist the context was different, but you + one another committed to that decision knowing well of the potential consequence of the matter. And it took you how long to admit that was a mistake?

This complaint isn't at all about people who get heated in complaints like that. What people post on the forums often stays on the forums until moderated, and by itself it is super easy to judge alone. The problem being reported, something you seem fit to not make the distinction of, is what happens in real-time dynamic chatrooms regarding discussions on how to do certain things and how to get stuff done without the BS. The issue here is that BS gets into those situations, and scenario by scenario pops up over time, and you will not see all of them. The stuff you are likely to miss the context of while you're out in the real world, and thus not understand with a great deal of brevity as much as the people who are affected by it the most, do understand that. I can probably also understand why you don't have experience in this matter (and thus can't empathize nor give credit to people whose situation you don't understand), because people tend not to screw with folks who can actively remove others from an environment.

1 hour ago, Skull132 said:

Complaints like this one, even if submitted against the player, are the hardest way to get banned.

A case like this but substituted with anyone who is neither a staffmember nor Fowl would likely result in the person's discipline, because it is easier to carry out discipline on a player than a staff member, clearly. Bans are not the only form of punishment that create pressure on an individual to behave better, either.

Edited January 8, 2019 by Scheveningen

[LorenLuke]

1 hour ago, Skull132 said:

 

• Cut the sarcasm and quips, specially when discussing business.
• Do not ridicule or excessively ridicule the ideas of others, though wrong they may be.
• Explain yourself in a clear and non-back-handed manner when required to. Again, specially when discussing business.

 

Note that this specifically addresses situations of "when discussing business". Which in essence means, if it's general off-topic banter and we're clear on that, I do not really care: Fowl's as good (or as bad) as anyone on that count, unless someone wishes to protest this assessment.

Leaving open for further comments from participants and other head staff. Otherwise, if nothing else comes up, we can do a review after 2 months if necessary, and see if anything's gone better or worse or if there's been no change at all. And it would be wise for the other participants to put some consideration into what they want out of the complaint as well: specifically whether your goal is to actually figure out a way to work with your colleague, or to just see an issue removed. Because, to echo my initial statement, I cannot make two adults get along if they absolutely refuse to.

2

Kindly ask that a wider stipulation to deprive Fowl of their favorite insults/descriptors related to mental disordering, including 'autist(ic)', 'retard(ed)', 'schizo(phrenic)'. If the fact we can't expect to use phrases 'Jew'ng someone out of something' or 'talking black' under the purview of slurs, I don't think using actual mental afflictions which 1) people here are actually afflicted with, 2) such conditions beyond their control are being repeatedly used as a pejorative.

I'm autistic. Does that mean I'm somehow lesser than Fowl, considering he sees it as an insult? The fact he repeatedly would use it and see zero issue in so using a term to describe... anything but actual autism, is that not just as punishable as any other prejudice?

Do you believe that 'autistic' or 'retarded' is a valid term to use to describe someone's thoughts? If you do not, do you condone a staff member using it in official capacity as feedback? Do you believe it's allowable for any community member to use it against another at all?
If you do not, why is this issue complex?
 

1 hour ago, Skull132 said:

Note that this specifically addresses situations of "when discussing business". Which in essence means, if it's general off-topic banter and we're clear on that, I do not really care: Fowl's as good (or as bad) as anyone on that count, unless someone wishes to protest this assessment.

 

@Garnascus said it's not under his jurisdiction because Fowl is a member of dev staff, and now you say you won't punish him except as for his acts as a dev in official capacity?  Who, then, do we go to in having them be punished for their general behavior and what standards should staff be held to, when it's believed that anyone not-staff would be reprimanded for similar behavior?

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

Current guidelines already exist on how to behave. I do not consider it a reasonable course of disciplinary action to create a guideline as you have done. Fowl has a history of this behavior and your response is as if this behavior is a complex issue that needs a step before even a warning. Its demeaning to lordfowls intelligence to say hes trapped in this vague gray area. He knows what he is doing. His problem is he chooses to not care.

Is it not possible to issue discord strikes on developers?

Why has he not already been issued strikes per existing guidelines?

Why is it problematic to allow him to face disciplinary action before a full termination?

 

And, can he not exist as a contributor so at the very least other staff are not having to deal with his incredible hostility and insults all the time? I have access to project channels and how he talks to other devs blows me away. I dont bring them as evidence only because it's not my place to talk for other people.

 

Edited January 8, 2019 by Marlon Phoenix

[Scheveningen]

Just noticed Skull edited his post with the caveat it seems not to display whether he edited it or not, which is interesting. While it looks like he never said what I quoted, it was indeed part of the original response I was quoting him on as I was typing up a response to him initially. Just putting that out there.

Furthermore, I'm not going to facilitate any kind of request from someone who has yet to answer for why they're choosing to so avidly defend and protect someone whose behavior in the cases where he was not solicited for his direct opinion or directly antagonized, was essentially very intentionally gross and needlessly hostile to fellow staff members and players.

What's going on there, really? Seems pretty strange.

Loren put my concerns brilliantly, as well. 

Edited January 8, 2019 by Scheveningen

[Skull132]

16 hours ago, Senpai Jackboot said:

Is it not possible to issue discord strikes on developers?

Why has he not already been issued strikes per existing guidelines?

It is possible to strike anyone on the public Discord, as long as they are not a mod or an admin, yes. Though it must be noted that this only addresses conduct there, and thus, would fall kinda short of the issues discussed here.

As for why he's not been struck, no clue. Probably because no one's bothered to report him. Or the infractions in question weren't deemed severe enough to merit it.

17 hours ago, Senpai Jackboot said:

And, can he not exist as a contributor so at the very least other staff are not having to deal with his incredible hostility and insults all the time?

He can, of course. But that would mean having him retire of his own accord or removing him from staff. And that would effectively be the most severe form of punishment that we could probably apply, under the given circumstances.

17 hours ago, Senpai Jackboot said:

Current guidelines already exist on how to behave. I do not consider it a reasonable course of disciplinary action to create a guideline as you have done. Fowl has a history of this behavior and your response is as if this behavior is a complex issue that needs a step before even a warning.

This is effectively a warning. Failure to reasonably abide would most likely result in dismissal from staff. Since, as said, maintaining a reasonable atmosphere is a requirement to being on staff. However, as with similar incidents before of this nature, a chance to make amends is provided.

Further, the guidelines exist to clearly chart out the issue. So that no one reports him for, say, providing valid criticism, claiming that a term of warning was broken.

[UnknownMurder]

Just something for me to say. I have communicated with @LordFowl earlier today on staff discord in a short discussion. His behavior is slightly better than before. He knows what is right from wrong. I no longer have a heavy complaint though his attitude can appear as an insensitive prick to others on discord and forums. 

[LorenLuke]

1 hour ago, Skull132 said:

However, as with similar incidents before of this nature, a chance to make amends is provided. 

22 hours ago, Skull132 said:

And it would be wise for the other participants to put some consideration into what they want out of the complaint as well: specifically whether your goal is to actually figure out a way to work with your colleague, or to just see an issue removed. Because, to echo my initial statement, I cannot make two adults get along if they absolutely refuse to. 

On 07/12/2018 at 16:33, LordFowl said:

I see. I guess I won't do that, then.

On 05/01/2019 at 04:08, DaTimeSmog said:

 

 

I think the time for making amends has come and gone. While you cannot make two adults like and interact with each other pleasantly, it is well within the jurisdiction of staff to remove someone from the community for, as it were, 'failing to play nice with others.' and/or community when the rules itself declares 'Do not be a dick' under the premise of 'they're slightly less dickish today, so they're improving and warrant further tolerance to improve' completely glosses over the fact that 'being less of a dick' is still not the same as 'not being a dick', and no matter how you slice that golden rule, is still a violation of it, despite the fact that they have been warned in this complaint prior and gave their assent (as quoted) to continue this behavior no longer, following not even a full week goes by and he already constructs a list of insults aggregated as eight in the space of 10-11 minutes against one person.

I wait, @Skull132, for your answer as to how this behavior is acceptable as a member of staff. Obviously, you don't think they should be stripped of their staff position. I'll not argue that point regardless of whether or not I agree with it. Again, the quotes have them acknowledge the behavior, agree to cease, and then shortly after engage in that behavior yet again.

Imagine if I, as a player, had a note five days old for a particular behavior, and had it brought up the next time I got BWOINKED! for the same thing, while having an open complaint against me for the same behavior. My ass would be halfway to the moon from how hard I'd be kicked from the server. I'd be banned so hard from the server my grandkids couldn't play before making an appeal.

How much time do they need to demonstrate they won't improve? You don't view this as worthy of warranting their removal from staff? Fine, jobban them. And I mean that as a serious suggestion. Since there appears to be no procedure in place for something so egregious as this behavior (which a repeat instance of is not so egregious as to warrant outright removal from staff), it's easily within your capability to pull them from staff for the 2 months reexamination period that you yourself suggest, then you can have a revisit as to whether or not they deserve those roles back.

No admin here enables someone who's a problem player in security to remain in security. No admin here enables someone who's a problem player in the server to remain in the server. So, if you're concerned about their behavior as a dev, remove them and observe them outside. If there's concern about their behavior as a community member (which the tide of others here clearly evidences), perhaps removal from the platforms they cause problems in is, in and of itself, not something that should be out of the realm of actions to consider.

 

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

Phrasing it as the last chance before a dismissal makes it easier to understand and swallow as disciplinary action.

[LorenLuke]

Bump.

[Skull132]

For reference.

My resolution regarding the inter-staff shenanigans remains.

I have contacted Arrow regarding the rest of the evidence posted regarding Fowl's conduct towards players and we will be giving it a review before deciding.

[Skull132]

A review was had.

Two main points were decided upon.

First, and this applies to absolutely everyone involved in this thread, to include Fowl. Report violations of the conduct rules immediately to moderators or admins. Do not launch into tirades; do not take it and then wonder 5 months later why the person has not yet been struck or faced disciplinary action. This is also a reminder that complaints are not the primary means of rule enforcement, and will generally end in more specific arrangements than a warning or a ban.

Second point, regarding Fowl specifically. Staff are expected to uphold a higher standard with regards to abiding by the rules, and responding to situations with a modicum of tact. The points listed out before will remain relevant, and we will be looking the entire matter over with him again. We will be generally expecting more tact to be employed by him in situations (generally not launching into tirades against individuals). And failure to comply, if properly reported and found to egregious, will result in further action.

 

Also of note, specifically regarding the smog v fowl thing, is that this apparently wasn't their first encounter. We found some fun stuff from a few months ago.

[Arrow768]

Archiving this topic as there has been no response in 48h.