Jump to content

Staff Complaint - Garnacus


Recommended Posts

BYOND Key: BurgerBB
Staff BYOND Key: Garnacus
Game ID: None
Reason for complaint: Poor Conduct
Evidence/logs/etc:

A continuation of the previous thread but separated for convenience and format. A lot of this involves Scheveningen. While I will be commenting on his conduct previously, the opinions I have about him in the past do not reflect the opinions I have on him on the present and should not be used to persecute him in any way shape or forum. I cannot talk about Garnacus without talking about Scheveningen also so I apologize if it feels off topic.

Right so given the explanations that Scheveningen has given me in private discussions, as well as public discussions, this is what, on a very basic level, happened between us: I was rude to someone. Scheveningen did not like that I was rude to someone and started acting rude to me. In response, I was acted rude towards him out of annoyance. Whether or not who was in the right in this is entirely irrelevant in this complaint so I will not discuss that. However, I will be discussing Garnacus' handling of the situation and the general issues I have with his conduct and behavior. Evidence used will be screenshots of discord discussions and screenshots/links of threads.

First things first, let's talk about the deal that Garnacus made. The deal was the following:

"The next time you guys engage in internet bloodsports on github, these forums, discord or the server i will immediately dish out a MINIMUM of a week ban to the both of you. Block each other on discord and pretend the other doesn't exist everywhere else. This is not a restraining order. If the two of you must interact over a PR then i expect you to do so in a professional manner. If one of you makes a stab at the other then just immediately report it to staff and they will deal with it. "he started it" will not work as an excuse."

Proof 1 Proof 2

Now, I had and still have issue with this deal and so should everyone. While I'm not asking administrators or moderators to have the same standards as police officers, but the deal itself places both people at fault regardless of context, one of the most important things to determining how to solve an issue. Regardless of the conduct of either person, if one person insults the other, and that other responds calmly telling them they're wrong without attacking them, both would receive a ban of a week. Now, you might be thinking, this sounds somewhat reasonable as it prevents drama, but there is a plenty of context involved that does not make it so.

Context Piece 1: It was not enforced.

The rule itself was never enforced. There were plenty of times where Scheveningen broke the rule on discord, on the server, and the forums and I've talked to PLENTY of moderators, admins, head developers, and head admins about it. One of the scenarios would occur:

 

1. Scheveningen throws insults my way. I do not respond. I immediately speak to a moderator about it. Moderator tells me it's above their pay grade and tells me to speak to an admin. Admin tells me it's above their pay grade and tells me to speak to Abo, the head admin at the time, about it. Abo tells me they talked to garn and garn says it was okay. 

OR

2. Scheveningen throws insults my way. I do not respond. I immediately speak to garnacus about it. Garn gives some excuse to justify it being okay or not his problem to deal with.

 

Instead of listening every single scenario where Shev broke the rules as proof, I will list one that I believe is the most damning.

I reported Scheveningen after he made an incredibly distasteful post on github. Skull said he forwarded it to the head admins.

Skull didn't talk to me for about 3 days, and Shev was still being rude. I spoke to Skull about it again and he said a consensus wasn't reached.

I waited another 5 days and ignored anything that went my way. Skull had real life stuff to worry about so I layed off.

I waited 10 days, I was planning to wait longer but Shev was getting on my nerves as he was making github prs of my already existing prs, but with his own code and tweaks that he wanted but didn't like about my PRs. Skull said that they were going to apply a ban, but for the distasteful post on github. That github ban was revoked, however, after about a few days after an apology given to Skull (from what I've heard). I don't accuracy recall how long the ban really was, but I think it was less than a week.

Proof 1 Proof 2 Proof 3 Proof 4

 

Before this instance I had a genuine feeling that garn really didn't care. After when the ban was applied but then lifted at a short time and the fact that the deal was never addressed, I started to believe that neither Skull nor Garn cared. However, what made me truly believe that Garn just doesn't give a fuck is when he actually enforced the rule.

 

Context Proof 2: When it was enforced, it was enforced in the worst way possible.

Right so what got me banned is that I replied to Shev. I did not insult him. I did not berate him. The rudest thing I said was "Oh boy" and told him that he was wrong and explained why he was wrong. He was saying things about my PR that were simply not true so given how I am a contributor and how someone clearly needed assistance in what the PR actually does, I was quite obligated to respond to him especially considering the slogan that him and others chant that I don't listen or respond to feedback.

Proof 1

I had to talk to Garn about it because the ban quite literally came out of nowhere. The post itself was more 4 days old when he gave the ban, but more on that later. The conversation I had with him was quite unproductive.

It was unproductive from the start when Garnacus assumed that I wanted to talk to him about Shev. At this point I legitimately did not give a fuck about what happened to him so it was quite irritating when I asked him if he had a moment to talk, the reply I got was "Shev got banned too." I said that I wasn't here to talk about shev and rather the ban I recieved. I explained that I wasn't being aggressive. I admitted that I made a mistake, and the mistake was that I responded to him at all. Despite absolutely everything that has occured between me and Shev, this is the thing that Garn decided to use the ban on. I pointed this out and garn responded by saying "it's a miracle that either of you aren't permabanned."

I find that odd to bring up considering the history that Scheveningen had as a player and a moderator and how my record only contained 2 automatic forum bans, 0 discord bans/kicks, 0 in-game bans, 0 player complaints in the span of I believe 2 years coming up.  Even if I had a history of several bans and behavioral issues, mentioning this sort of thing is unproductive and not really something I would expect from a head administrator.

Given his behavior in the past, and how he was acting now, I just decided to call him out. I told him that he likely wouldn't have done anything if I complained. This is backed up by several things I posted in the chat, including how it took 18 days to determine whether or not someone breaking the rules was breaking the rules. I was quite visibly annoyed at this point, I starting to argue that the fact that I reported him and explained to him why he was incorrect was irrelevant, but then I got sidetracked in a long and pointless argument about whether or not I reported the post in the first place. Turns out I was mistaken, but at this point I was just sick of arguing so I cooled down and conceded, asking Garn to promise me that if something actually comes up he'll deal with it. He ended by saying he has no patience for me and promises nothing.

Proof 1 Proof 2 Proof 3 Proof 4 Proof 5 Proof 6

Oh, and I said that I was going to talk about why the ban was 4 days old. Beyond this point is just rumor and conjecture but could be elaborated upon by other users who are involved in the incident. According to different staff members and players, Garnacus was too busy playing video games to respond to anyone about it or look into it. I get conflicting stories about it, and I have no proof about this that doesn't involve leaking the leakers, so take this with a grain of salt. Regardless, the timing was awful. At that time, a devmerge was going to occur and I had several PRs and Feedback Threads to worry about. Again, I'm not saying I should be receiving special treatment, but the fact that it was delayed made the ban more awful than it could've been. It's pretty dumb to say that "I don't think I was banned fast enough" but in the context where the delay causes a lot of issues, or if the delay is significant like in that github case, something is not right.

 

Edited by BurgerBB
Link to comment

Its a little annoying to be accused of not caring about your problems and playing video games instead of looking into them. If all of that is true what do you hope to get out of this complaint? Its impossible for me to respond to an OP who already has his mind made up. I will just state a few things. 

 

1. I will never make a "deal" like that again. Or at least communicate it better. All it did was create confusing PMs from people "hey garn does this break your deal". Bad move. Would not do again.

2. I probably should have banned delta in the past.

3. I strongly dislike engaging with both of you. You're both fine human beings. When its all problems that a specific person brings me i just end up associating them as the problem. 

I dunno what else to say. I did not and still do not think either of you where the innocent party in both of your original complaints. It is not, hasnt been and never will be my job to make two or more people get along. if i could go back in time i would probably have banned the both of you instead of that "deal". 

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Garnascus said:

Its a little annoying to be accused of not caring about your problems and playing video games instead of looking into them. If all of that is true what do you hope to get out of this complaint? Its impossible for me to respond to an OP who already has his mind made up. I will just state a few things. 

 

1. I will never make a "deal" like that again. Or at least communicate it better. All it did was create confusing PMs from people "hey garn does this break your deal". Bad move. Would not do again.

2. I probably should have banned delta in the past.

3. I strongly dislike engaging with both of you. You're both fine human beings. When its all problems that a specific person brings me i just end up associating them as the problem. 

I dunno what else to say. I did not and still do not think either of you where the innocent party in both of your original complaints. It is not, hasnt been and never will be my job to make two or more people get along. if i could go back in time i would probably have banned the both of you instead of that "deal". 

This isn't about "Caring about my problems" it's about how you conducted yourself during this and how, I feel, that you did not pass fair judgement because I feel you do not care at all about anything in the first place. Whether or not this is the truth or not is to be determined, but this is the impression I am getting from you. I'm not saying that your job is to get people to get along on their own. I don't really know what your job description is, but regardless of what it is either I believe that you did not do a satisfactory job, or that the official guidelines on how to deal with situations like these are flawed where it makes you look like you just don't care.

You should also be stating plenty of other reasons as to why you should not be making this deal again "It wasn't communicated properly." is only 1/20th of the issue with the deal and I'm hoping to get that across here. I don't think that you believe why the deal in the first place was bad considering you just said "I should've just banned both of you and be done with it." despite at the time, when I made that player complaint, I broke no rules or guidelines.

When an incident occured where Shev called me out in chat, I did not respond by biting back, I simply made a player complaint as suggested by a member of staff. The most I did was replying with a thinking emoji and call for Arrow to help me as he is quite familiar with the situation. Just imagine how cruelly hilarious that would be; I followed the rules and procedures of a player showing signs of hostility, I reopened the player complaint, as recommended by a staff member, and because I did so and had an argument about a week ago that was brought to PMs when an admin stepped in, we both received a ban. Effectively I would've received a ban for complaining, because I bet you that if I just kept my mouth shut and didn't make a complaint, I would've been still around in that theoretical situation. On that topic, I think such a deal in the reality we're currently in wouldn't have been enacted when I made an official complaint.

As for the "When it's all problems that a specific person brings me i just end up associating them as the problem." statement consider the following:

1. You're a head administrator. All the complex, time consuming issues that involve players will definitely reach you because most admins will seek you for guidance. You don't get easy-to-solve issues because those are easily solved by your capable underlings so cases like Bauser likely don't reach your desk.

2. I have no reason to talk to you otherwise on the server itself. You rarely play, and when you do, you're disguised as it as a greytide for your own amusement. That is not someone that I would befriend OOCly considering it's difficult to tell you apart from real greytide and that's just a rude thing to do.

3. I have no reason to talk to you otherwise on the discord itself. We have no connection to each other and no shared interests.

Almost always you're going to get the impression that someone is a whiny little cunt that does nothing but be involved in problems if that's all you hear. Doubly so since you implemented the deal and you yourself admit that this has caused admins/mods to constantly come up to you and ask that "Does this break the deal?" constantly.

And I did not make this thread as a "Debate me, change my mind." This is an official staff complaint where I'm officially complaining about your conduct then, and your conduct now. Regardless, my mind very likely isn't made up now, and if you have a solid and reasonable explanation as to why you did the things you did then it would likely help in resolving the staff complaint.

Link to comment

Having actually been present for the Schev/Burger situation -- Let me share my perspective both on you and Schevs conduct as well as my thoughts on Garnascus' compromise. First, we need to make it clear that it was not purely Schev. You may have forgot but while yes Schev may have started it, I can't confirm nor deny that, you actively went to other servers and would vent about your problems with Aurora. I was present for many of these times though I was non-vocal. So, let's go through some bulletpoints.

1; Schev would approach you on Aurora in Discord or on the server with resentment.

2; You would insult Schev off of the server which would provoke them on the server.

3; #1 would anger you, #2 would anger Schev.

4; You both would temporarily stop bothering each other, but #1-#2 would inevitably happen again leading to #3 intensifying the situation.

5; Because of #1-4 the situation was unsolveable as you were both fanning the flames sufficiently to build permanent resentment and hostilities towards each other.

6; Garn then instated that you were to say either nothing and distance yourselves from each other or avoid any hostilities at all or both be banned. Thus making Schev not do #1, You not do #2, #3 never coming to pass. And so the problem would actually be solveable.

I think Garnascus was justified in his approach, bar banning one of you, this was an unsolveable problem that you were both perpetuating. Who started it doesn't matter as you were both making it difficult and refused to solve it, up until you made up AFTER Garnascus instituted the ban ultimatum. This was the only solution that I can see which didn't end with one or both of you permanentally banned, and so personally from my point of view, it was an alright solution even if it could stand to be improved if there's a next time.

Edited by Chada1
Added an uncertainty clause to the conclusion.
Link to comment
On 16/02/2019 at 12:21, Chada1 said:

Having actually been present for the Schev/Burger situation -- Let me share my perspective both on you and Schevs conduct as well as my thoughts on Garnascus' compromise. First, we need to make it clear that it was not purely Schev. You may have forgot but while yes Schev may have started it, I can't confirm nor deny that, you actively went to other servers and would vent about your problems with Aurora. I was present for many of these times though I was non-vocal. So, let's go through some bulletpoints.

1; Schev would approach you on Aurora in Discord or on the server with resentment.

2; You would insult Schev off of the server which would provoke them on the server.

3; #1 would anger you, #2 would anger Schev.

4; You both would temporarily stop bothering each other, but #1-#2 would inevitably happen again leading to #3 intensifying the situation.

5; Because of #1-4 the situation was unsolveable as you were both fanning the flames sufficiently to build permanent resentment and hostilities towards each other.

6; Garn then instated that you were to say either nothing and distance yourselves from each other or avoid any hostilities at all or both be banned. Thus making Schev not do #1, You not do #2, #3 never coming to pass. And so the problem would actually be solveable.

I think Garnascus was justified in his approach, bar banning one of you, this was an unsolveable problem that you were both perpetuating. Who started it doesn't matter as you were both making it difficult and refused to solve it, up until you made up AFTER Garnascus instituted the ban ultimatum. This was the only solution that I can see which didn't end with one or both of you permanentally banned, and so personally from my point of view, it was an alright solution even if it could stand to be improved if there's a next time.

I can tell that this is already biased because you described the things that Schev said as "resentment" while you describe the things I said as "insult."

Schev and I came to agreement without anyone's help. On our own terms. We haven't shat on eachother ever since. None of what you said is accurate and I quite frankly don't understand why you're posting here.

 

Link to comment
47 minutes ago, BurgerBB said:

I can tell that this is already biased because you described the things that Schev said as "resentment" while you describe the things I said as "insult."

Schev and I came to agreement without anyone's help. On our own terms. We haven't shat on eachother ever since. None of what you said is accurate and I quite frankly don't understand why you're posting here.

 

Resentment and insult are identical in this situation -- the meaning hardly changes, you were both verbally slandering each other. Trying to write it off as 'bias' because of non-repetitive word choice is very unfair and disingenuous.

The fact here is you came to an agreement only after Garnascus' deal, and I'm posting here because I was involved from the very beginning and present in the thread where Garnascus decided on your deal.

Correlation doesn't equal causation persay, but yes, I think warning you both with a ban was justified. That's my perspective.

For reference: Scheveningen Complaint 1Scheveningen Complaint 2.

Edited by Chada1
Continued on
Link to comment
18 hours ago, Chada1 said:

Resentment and insult are identical in this situation -- the meaning hardly changes, you were both verbally slandering each other. Trying to write it off as 'bias' because of non-repetitive word choice is very unfair and disingenuous.

The fact here is you came to an agreement only after Garnascus' deal, and I'm posting here because I was involved from the very beginning and present in the thread where Garnascus decided on your deal.

Correlation doesn't equal causation persay, but yes, I think warning you both with a ban was justified. That's my perspective.

For reference: Scheveningen Complaint 1Scheveningen Complaint 2.

Garnacus himself admitted that he handled the situation poorly, as said above, unless I misread what little he said. No reasonable person should look at a situation where person A comes up to person B, berates them for the upteenth time, and person B goes "Fuck off lmao." and say "Well obviously both sides are equally at fault and banning them both regardless of who provoked who is justified." especially when before, Person A has had a history of conflict with other users. A lot of people tend to ignore that last part, and a lot of staff even admitted this. Hell, this doesn't extend to just Schev; staff have countlessly justified bad behavior by going "Well that's just how he is." or "It's just their way of banter." I recall pointing out how one of the administrators quite literally insulted me in an argument after a head administrator stopped about the insults and then the head administrator goes "That's just how they are, don't worry about it."

May I remind you that the deal was the following:

If either me or Schev cause issues, we both get a week ban regardless of who started it, regardless of what was said, regardless of absolutely anything. You'd only implement this type of ban if you legitimately don't give a fuck about anything and just want the issue gone.
Regardless of anything that has happened thus far, you have never changed your stance. In discord arguments you'd complain about the drama and then give your hot take of "Both sides are at fault." unsolicitedly without providing much explanation why. This post might be the only time you ever explained yourself and quite frankly I find the explanation not very good.

Also resentment is a significantly lighter word than insult. Resentment is defined as "bitter indignation at having been treated unfairly."; insult is defined as "speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse."

 

 

 

 

Link to comment

Would appreciate if people didn't speak on my behalf, for good or ill. I'm more than capable enough to shitpost something stupid enough to get me forumbanned all on my own, thank you.

Can't say I can complain about Garn's conduct in handling the aforementioned issues, considering I'm not permabanned and all. Why would I even complain? It's like going to the cops to report the police chief for not immediately arresting you when he just gave you a simple verbal warning and an instruction to put the nearly-stolen candy bar back on the display. Ethics don't matter so much when abstractly talking about people over the internet, so who gives a damn?

Sorry, inner pragmatist speaking. But I legitimately don't see the point of pressing this issue, Burger, because Garn thinks in retrospect that the 'right' thing to do on his part is to, theoretically, 'fix everything' he might've done wrong in your eyes by way of just permabanning the both of us from even participating in the community entirely. As like, delayed retribution or whatever.

And I don't think Garn actually wants to set that example. Because that would be pretty unfortunate. If he did want to set that example, it would normally be a good idea to, I say this rather cordially; hush up about the subject and just not look the gift horse in the mouth.

So... what's the point of this thread besides pointing out what Garn thinks was, in retrospect, a mistake to be as generous as he's been to not erase us from relevance in the community? Because that just feels like a rather pointless venture, really.

1 hour ago, BurgerBB said:

You'd only implement this type of ban if you legitimately don't give a fuck about anything and just want the issue gone.

Yes, and I agree entirely with the reasoning for it. I had a very similar case when I was a mod with a player who was totally irreconcilable and would outright refuse to improve at all as a player despite how much assistance and insight I attempted to impart upon them as to what they were doing wrong and what solutions I gave them to improve. They chose to be an outright rude and defiant person to others instead. My patience ran out with them and it was unreasonable to try and reason with someone who pretty much threw off any willing, helping hands to improve their attitude.

We both have history with ups and downs in this community so it should be no big surprise to either of us if the administrators display that they are tired of our crap when we're misbehaving and totally ambivalent if we're not. Garn literally does this for free, so I am not terribly worried about him acting like as if he were paid to tolerate people, or if he didn't. I just don't care anymore. I want to play video games with equally nerdy internet friends, contribute to the video game to make it marginally more enjoyable and maybe enjoy the roleplay I get from the game from time to time.

Edited by Scheveningen
grammer
Link to comment
1 hour ago, BurgerBB said:

Garnacus himself admitted that he handled the situation poorly, as said above, unless I misread what little he said. No reasonable person should look at a situation where person A comes up to person B, berates them for the upteenth time, and person B goes "Fuck off lmao." and say "Well obviously both sides are equally at fault and banning them both regardless of who provoked who is justified." especially when before, Person A has had a history of conflict with other users. A lot of people tend to ignore that last part, and a lot of staff even admitted this. Hell, this doesn't extend to just Schev; staff have countlessly justified bad behavior by going "Well that's just how he is." or "It's just their way of banter." I recall pointing out how one of the administrators quite literally insulted me in an argument after a head administrator stopped about the insults and then the head administrator goes "That's just how they are, don't worry about it."

What Garnascus admitted was that the deal had problems, not that it was unjustified.

1 hour ago, BurgerBB said:

Regardless of anything that has happened thus far, you have never changed your stance. In discord arguments you'd complain about the drama and then give your hot take of "Both sides are at fault." unsolicitedly without providing much explanation why. This post might be the only time you ever explained yourself and quite frankly I find the explanation not very good.

You Were both at fault, so trying to say 'No I wasn't, it was all Schev!' isn't going to wipe that away when it's a foregone conclusion that was uncovered in both of your complaints. The truth is I have explained my position, multiple times. Everytime I did it, you shrugged my input off as 'No, I have a different idea of talking behind peoples back.'

No, the issue here is you are also at fault. I was present for a lot of your rants on other Discords. Try re-reading your two previous threads I linked. You would purposely go off onto another server and spread gossip about Scheveningen and other people, practically slandering them infront of groups of people. You really ought not be surprised when they are offended about it. You were part of the problem at the time of Garnascus making the deal. This doesn't excuse their behavior but it certainly doesn't excuse yours either no matter how much you try to downplay it.

1 hour ago, BurgerBB said:

Also resentment is a significantly lighter word than insult. Resentment is defined as "bitter indignation at having been treated unfairly."; insult is defined as "speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse."

When you posted, I explained my use of the two was identical and I was just avoiding repetitive word use, you still dwell on that and try to 'Gotcha' me and strawman my argument. Yeah, I guess this'll be my last post here, as you're arguing in bad faith. Please learn from this as it's not the first time.

Edited by Chada1
Small typo and continuation.
Link to comment
Just now, Chada1 said:

What Garnascus admitted was that the deal had problems, not that it was unjustified.

You Were both at fault, so trying to say 'No I wasn't, it was all Schev!' isn't going to wipe that away when it's a foregone conclusion that was uncovered in both of your complaints. The truth is I have explained my position, multiple times. Everytime I did it, you shrugged my input off as 'No, I have a different idea of talking behind peoples back.'

No, the issue here is you are also at fault. I was present for a lot of your rants on other Discords. Try re-reading your two previous threads I linked. You would purposely go off onto another server and spread gossip about Scheveningen and other people, practically slandering them infront of groups of people. You really ought not be surprised when they are offended about it. You were part of the problem at the time of Garnascus making the deal. This doesn't excuse their behavior but it certainly doesn't excuse yours either no matter how much you try downplay it.

When you posted, I explained my use of the two was identical and I was just avoiding repetitive word use, you still dwell on that and try to 'Gotcha' me and strawman my argument. Yeah, I guess this'll be my last post here, as you're arguing in bad faith.

Okay. There is literally absoultely no point in saying this because I literally admitted that I am also at fault in this scenario. The argument that should be had is how much and how much should be considered. Your post doesn't really contribute anything because you're arguing points that have already been discussed and resolved ages ago or in this thread.

Also this isn't me dwelling on it. When someone keeps doing the same thing over and over again, and then comes up with a poor excuse to justify it, I'm not going to believe them. You even did it again in this post by saying that I spread gossip about Schev when I literally didn't. There is a huge difference between gossip and venting about someone. Gossiping involves spreading unconfirmed instances like saying "Oh Schev probably smells." while venting is "I'm tired of fucking Schev and here is why." I would not go out of my way to shittalk Schev in that private chat. It was my place to vent semi-privately in order to avoid conflict. Hell, to prove the earlier point I ended up leaving that chat and never vented about Schev again. This was way before the deal with garnacus was made and I think I stopped before the first player complaint I made against him.

All the shittalking I did in that semi-private discord was for my own sanity and not to damage Schev's sanity. If I wanted to hurt Schev out of anger, I would've said the words to his face.

 

 

Link to comment

I will be handling this complaint.

 

As I understand it the focus of this complaint is that Garnascus, and administration as a whole, do not care enough about issues to properly investigate them and instead resort to a 'token' equal punishments in times where there are two people at fault?

Please correct me if that is wrong.

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, ShameOnTurtles said:

I will be handling this complaint.

 

As I understand it the focus of this complaint is that Garnascus, and administration as a whole, do not care enough about issues to properly investigate them and instead resort to a 'token' equal punishments in times where there are two people at fault?

Please correct me if that is wrong.

Yes. I feel that this is roughly the case.

This is mere speculation at point and armchair psychology, but the way the situation was dealt with is that no one really wanted to look at the situation so instead that deal was created to convince us into not causing trouble rather than to enforce the rules. When trouble was caused, the deal was mostly ignored or in cases where it legitimately broke the deal, delayed.

It's easier to just blame both people and disregard who's the most at fault than to sift through the sand and find out whose more at fault than others and apply an appropriate punishment to both.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, BurgerBB said:

Okay. There is literally absoultely no point in saying this because I literally admitted that I am also at fault in this scenario. The argument that should be had is how much and how much should be considered. Your post doesn't really contribute anything because you're arguing points that have already been discussed and resolved ages ago or in this thread.

Okay so if you know what I'm saying is correct why are you trying to assert bias on me as if what I'm saying is incorrect? Why not just Agree with that part of my post and move on to my reasons for thinking Garns deal is justified? My post does contribute something because I'm an involved party sharing my perspective. Why are you trying to invalidate my input?

6 hours ago, BurgerBB said:

Also this isn't me dwelling on it. When someone keeps doing the same thing over and over again, and then comes up with a poor excuse to justify it, I'm not going to believe them. You even did it again in this post by saying that I spread gossip about Schev when I literally didn't. There is a huge difference between gossip and venting about someone. Gossiping involves spreading unconfirmed instances like saying "Oh Schev probably smells." while venting is "I'm tired of fucking Schev and here is why." I would not go out of my way to shittalk Schev in that private chat. It was my place to vent semi-privately in order to avoid conflict.

This is you dwelling on it, you literally took my post, ignored half of it, and tried to argue I was biased, all because of one word. It reaks of you trying to assume malice from me for no reason.

Gossiping is the term for what you were doing, gossiping does not have to involve lies, you can 'vent' through gossip, and that was not a private chat. 'Semi-Private' is even pushing it, anyone could join if they had an invite link and there were no rules on handing them out. Many Aurorans were there and each of them read what you were saying, not just about your shittalking of Schev but also it's happened of other people.

The sad part about this is you chose a part that we agreed on (That you were also at fault) and tried to argue against it instead of addressing my point -- That Garnascus actually had justification for warning you both with a ban and that the deal was useful as a tool to deter you two from stirring the hornets nest with each other. I even agreed that it had problems, but your complaint is with the whole thing.

6 hours ago, BurgerBB said:

Hell, to prove the earlier point I ended up leaving that chat and never vented about Schev again. This was way before the deal with garnacus was made and I think I stopped before the first player complaint I made against him.

All the shittalking I did in that semi-private discord was for my own sanity and not to damage Schev's sanity. If I wanted to hurt Schev out of anger, I would've said the words to his face.

You left on August 6th. The second complaint was put up on July 25th, that's a multiple day difference and you hadn't left before the complaint, the deal was made on the 27th of July. Secondly, talking behind someones back to people they interact with on a daily basis is MUCH worse than 'Saying the words to their face'. You arguably cause more harm by doing that as it makes the other people hate them and puts them into a position where they feel they have to defend themselves to those people. (Or they will lash out at you.) It's provocative. So literally stop trying to excuse it.

Edited by Chada1
Actually found a part that was untrue after cross checking.
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Chada1 said:

Okay so if you know what I'm saying is correct why are you trying to assert bias on me as if what I'm saying is incorrect? Why not just Agree with that part of my post and move on to my reasons for thinking Garns deal is justified? My post does contribute something because I'm an involved party sharing my perspective. Why are you trying to invalidate my input?

This is you dwelling on it, you literally took my post, ignored half of it, and tried to argue I was biased, all because of one word. It reaks of you trying to assume malice from me for no reason.

Gossiping is the term for what you were doing, gossiping does not have to involve lies, you can 'vent' through gossip, and that was not a private chat. 'Semi-Private' is even pushing it, anyone could join if they had an invite link and there were no rules on handing them out. Many Aurorans were there and each of them read what you were saying, not just about your shittalking of Schev but also of other people, I even caught you insulting someone who was making a map change just because you also had a map change up.

The sad part about this is you chose a part that we agreed on (That you were also at fault) and tried to argue against it instead of addressing my point -- That Garnascus actually had justification for warning you both with a ban and that the deal was useful as a tool to deter you two from stirring the hornets nest with each other. I even agreed that it had problems, but your complaint is with the whole thing.

You left on August 6th. The second complaint was put up on July 25th, that's a multiple day difference and you hadn't left before the complaint, the deal was made on the 27th of July. Secondly, talking behind someones back to people they interact with on a daily basis is MUCH worse than 'Saying the words to their face'. You arguably cause more harm by doing that as it makes the other people hate them and puts them into a position where they feel they have to defend themselves to those people. (Or they will lash out at you.) It's provocative. So literally stop trying to excuse it.

Except what you are saying is not correct. I'm not going to agree with something you said if the things you said have flaws in it that make it absolutely unagreeable, in this instance saying that garnacus did was justified.

At this point I don't care that you think I'm dwelling on it or not and mentioning this will not change the fact that I felt that your usage of words was incorrect and still incorrect. And I think you overly estimate the audience of that chatroom as it contained other users who could not give a shit about aurora. I also feel that you're over-exaggerating the consequences of what happened, as I think I believe that even in the complaint against me, the private chat stuff was deemed irrelevant and ignored considering the mediums that Schev used to do the same thing to me. I'm not saying that I was right in using that place to vent, but I'm asking you to at least attempt to understand why I used that chat to vent.

It seems I was wrong on the timing but the point is that I left the chat because I wanted to put this matter behind me. I specifically remember leaving that chat because being there was causing issues in the situation. I could've easily stayed and continued venting about him, because it wasn't against the deal since it did not take place on the forums, but I didn't because I chose to be an adult.

If you wish to submit a player complaint on my behavior regarding venting in that chatroom, I would be happy to do it there. I feel as if this thread is being derailed and would be better without this very likely to be endless argument.

You said that you had nothing more to say on the matter a few posts back, so I will be doing you a favor end ending it myself by not responding to any more of your posts.

Link to comment
15 hours ago, BurgerBB said:

Except what you are saying is not correct. I'm not going to agree with something you said if the things you said have flaws in it that make it absolutely unagreeable, in this instance saying that garnacus did was justified.

This is the problem with your reply -- I was outlying my perspective on you and Schevs conduct and instead of contesting my actual point you nitpicked and tried to call me biased, no amount of explaining myself to you worked because you're stuck on seeing me as a liar for no reason (When have I even lied in the past anyway?). You literally didn't even read the rest of my initial post past the first two bulletpoints as far as I know, as you didn't even contest the rest of it.

Why not next time focus on the actual point a person is making instead of nitpicking on word choice, accusing someone of bias, accusing someone of lying, accusing someone of not contributing anything despite not even engaging in their point at all. At best that's willfully disrespectful and in bad faith, at worst it's intentionally provocative.This is basically you saying you didn't like my word choice so you didn't consider my input after trying to invalidate it by 'Why are you even posting here.' more than multiple times. I can spoiler some quotations.

Spoiler
15 hours ago, BurgerBB said:

I can tell that this is already biased

15 hours ago, BurgerBB said:

I quite frankly don't understand why you're posting here.

15 hours ago, BurgerBB said:

Also this isn't me dwelling on it. When someone keeps doing the same thing over and over again, and then comes up with a poor excuse to justify it, I'm not going to believe them.

15 hours ago, BurgerBB said:

Regardless of anything that has happened thus far, you have never changed your stance. In discord arguments you'd complain about the drama and then give your hot take of "Both sides are at fault." unsolicitedly without providing much explanation why.

15 hours ago, BurgerBB said:

Your post doesn't really contribute anything because you're arguing points that have already been discussed and resolved ages ago or in this thread.

 

The problem with these is they add nothing to the conversation and are the main reason it derailed. You focused on subtly insulting me and trying to assume I was malicious or something, which is very Ad Hominem-like, instead of my reasons for agreeing with Garnascus deal. Again, at best uncaringly disrespectful, at worst intentionally provocative. I even did a search on Discord and I couldn't even find the 'Hot takes' you spoke of. Learn from this. Stop doing it. 

15 hours ago, BurgerBB said:

If you wish to submit a player complaint on my behavior regarding venting in that chatroom, I would be happy to do it there. I feel as if this thread is being derailed and would be better without this very likely to be endless argument.

I did say that, but that was before you tried to invalidate my input with (accidentally) false information. We'll end it here then. And no I won't be taking this up in a player complaint unless you start doing it again and you've stopped doing it. That doesn't mean it wasn't a problem when Garnascus struck his deal and included you in it. It was, and that is what makes my input relevant here.

Edited by Chada1
Continued on, added some peeves (Sorry) to my final post and clarified many things for closures sake.
Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

As ShameOnTurtles resigned a few days ago I reviewed this complaint (and will review the complaint against skull soonish)

 


Garn already confirmed that the move to make a deal again was a wrong move and will just lead to PMs from people asking if said deal has been broken or not thereby making the enforcement of the deal in a time sensitive manner much more difficult.

For the future I would recommend to, if both parties are at fault to warn both parties (if these issues occur on the forum that makes it even easier since escalating punishment is automatically applied based on previous warnings received) or ban them if there is sufficient reason (repeat offense + previous warnings)

Should either one of the involved parties engage in behavior designed to antagonize the other party that behavior should be dealt with via the standard administrative channels (with escalating punishment) instead of having to contact a single person to verify weather or not said behavior breaks a established deal.

If this procedure change is accepted as is by the Headmin for the administration team, then I do not see the need to take any further actions.

 

Regarding Shevs GitHub ban:
The ban was until appeal and has been appealed by Shev here: https://forums.aurorastation.org/topic/10597-scheveningen-aurora3-repository-ban
After the appeal there were no further incidents on GitHub , or the ban would have been reapplied.

The purpose of the first action on a specific platform should never be to punish, but to correct behavior.
Therefore it served its purpose as a correctional tool.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Arrow768 said:

As ShameOnTurtles resigned a few days ago I reviewed this complaint (and will review the complaint against skull soonish)

 


Garn already confirmed that the move to make a deal again was a wrong move and will just lead to PMs from people asking if said deal has been broken or not thereby making the enforcement of the deal in a time sensitive manner much more difficult.

For the future I would recommend to, if both parties are at fault to warn both parties (if these issues occur on the forum that makes it even easier since escalating punishment is automatically applied based on previous warnings received) or ban them if there is sufficient reason (repeat offense + previous warnings)

Should either one of the involved parties engage in behavior designed to antagonize the other party that behavior should be dealt with via the standard administrative channels (with escalating punishment) instead of having to contact a single person to verify weather or not said behavior breaks a established deal.

If this procedure change is accepted as is by the Headmin for the administration team, then I do not see the need to take any further actions.

 

Regarding Shevs GitHub ban:
The ban was until appeal and has been appealed by Shev here: https://forums.aurorastation.org/topic/10597-scheveningen-aurora3-repository-ban
After the appeal there were no further incidents on GitHub , or the ban would have been reapplied.

The purpose of the first action on a specific platform should never be to punish, but to correct behavior.
Therefore it served its purpose as a correctional tool.

I find it a little disappointing that the focus on what went wrong in the complaint was not that it was an unfair punishment but that it was just an ineffective punishment because it lead to people bothering Garnacus. His response, and your response, wasn't "Yeah that deal was unfair." but "That deal was just a waste of our time."

The impression I'm getting is that neither you, Garnacus, nor Skull really care about the deal being fair or unfair and that's what matters to me here. You could implement all the policy in the world and have the ability to have microsecond response times, but that won't matter in the end if there are serious issues with how you keep track of problematic users.

What I mean by that is what I'm seeing from the administration team is not the correction of bad behavior, but postponing of bad behavior. So many times other users insult or berate others in OOC, Discord, on the forums, and the usual action is just muting OOC, applying warnings that expire after a month, or telling them to take it somewhere else. The staff aren't babysitters, but I think there is a point where you need to take a step back and realise "Okay there is an issue here that exists for some reason and has existed for I don't even remember how long, how come this hasn't been solved yet?"

History is almost always ignored outside in game when dealing with someone unless it's done by an automatic system, and the automatic system in question is programmed to forget about warnings after a short period of time. For example, I've had this conversation before with one of you where I stated "Was I like this before I joined, or before this whole situation with Shev started?" and the response was "No." I then asked "Was Shev always like this before I joined, or before this whole situation with him started?" and the response was "Yes." Despite all this, we were given equal punishment. To be honest, I'd say it wasn't really equal punishment because at the time, I was arguably effective more by a forum ban considering the fact that I was a contributor who relied on the forums and Shev had several other platforms to voice his dislike of me.

 

I'm going to sound like an absolute fucking dick here but I need this to prove a point because I feel that I need to be strong in order to get the message that history is ignored when dealing with situations:

You currently have 1/4th of lore team fighting with a developer.

Everyone involved has a history; they've been at each other's throats for like 6 months.

One of them is considering resigning.

 

How does this issue still exist?

 

 

 

Link to comment
14 hours ago, BurgerBB said:

I find it a little disappointing that the focus on what went wrong in the complaint was not that it was an unfair punishment but that it was just an ineffective punishment [...]

The impression I'm getting is that neither you, Garnacus, nor Skull really care about the deal being fair or unfair and that's what matters to me here.
You could implement all the policy in the world and have the ability to have microsecond response times, but that won't matter in the end if there are serious issues with how you keep track of problematic users.

The main issue with the "deal" was that it was practically unenforceable by administrative staff due to the "above my paygrade issue" you mentioned, and therefore unfair as there was little that could be done without contacting the person that set the deal in place to confirm weather or not something has broken the rules or not, thereby making it unfair as fair administrative actions can no longer be dispensed in a time-sensitive manner.

Weather the initial version of the deal (both get a ban if both engage each other) is fair or not is not really my concern as this deal has been set in place ~ 7 months ago and is no longer enforced / needed as there is no longer a reason to do so.

Especially since the procedure change I recommended already contains a part that requires to determine if one or both parties are at fault and then apply administrative actions accordingly.

20 hours ago, Arrow768 said:

For the future I would recommend to, if both parties are at fault to warn both parties (if these issues occur on the forum that makes it even easier since escalating punishment is automatically applied based on previous warnings received) or ban them if there is sufficient reason (repeat offense + previous warnings)

Should either one of the involved parties engage in behavior designed to antagonize the other party that behavior should be dealt with via the standard administrative channels (with escalating punishment) instead of having to contact a single person to verify weather or not said behavior breaks a established deal.

Regarding ignoring history.
With the new forum system, history is taken into account with the warning point system. (And can be taken into account easier for manual administrative actions).
Ingame History is taken into account aswell via the use of notes.
On Discord, taking the history into account is a bit of an issue since we do not have a note system and there are some issues with the bot that prevent strikes from being logged properly (however they can still be applied).
A PR to fix the strike logging on discord is currently awaiting review and then it should work just fine.
(Once the PR is merged it is just a matter of using the system and history will be taken into account aswell (full automatic).


I do not see the point in arguing weather or not the punishment given back then was equal or not, as none of you are effected by it at the moment.
 

To sum it up:

  • We have systems in place to track the history of the infractions of a certain individual.
  • Most of these tools have some level of automation to them (forum warnings, discord strikes)
  • The discord strikes have been used irregular since 2018-03 due to a issue that resulted in insufficient logging and visibility, but a PR is up to fix that issue.
  • A "deal" such as the one set in place between you and delta by garn should not happen again (due to the issues outlined above) instead standard administrative actions should be applied.
  • Whatever happened with the lore team and fowl is out of the scope of this complaint and will not be discussed here, as there is another complaint about the same topic active at the moment.

Things that I will discuss with the mins:

  • More liberal application of discord strikes (after the bot is fixed)
  • Longer delay until strikes / warnings expire on discord / the forums
  • More steps in the automatic escalation based on warnings / strikes.
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Arrow768 said:

I do not see the point in arguing weather or not the punishment given back then was equal or not, as none of you are effected by it at the moment.

Actually this is false. One of the primary reasons why I resigned as a developer is because I did not enjoy working for people who treated me like trash. This whole situation, as well as the response to it, is a contributing factor as to why I think Aurora is a toxic environment to work in.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Arrow768 said:

Well, maybe I am just misunderstanding what you are saying here, so I´ll just ask you directly.

What would you like to come from this complaint that has not yet been addressed?

This is probably asking too much but I would very much like to see the current staff be treated with respect at least. I mean I'm a lost cause and what's done to me was done, but it really depresses me that this is an ongoing issue where players or sometimes staff members insult or belittle other staff members constantly without repercussions.

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...
On 08/03/2019 at 05:37, BurgerBB said:

This is probably asking too much but I would very much like to see the current staff be treated with respect at least. I mean I'm a lost cause and what's done to me was done, but it really depresses me that this is an ongoing issue where players or sometimes staff members insult or belittle other staff members constantly without repercussions.

We (headmins/headdevs) are already taking steps to reduce the friction between different section of the staff team and improve the interactions between the different teams.

I will close and lock this in 24h unless there is anything else.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...