Staff Complaint - Lordfowl

[LordFowl]

Reddit has been proven time and time again to be considered irrelevant as far as this community’s administration is concerned.

And this complaint is about me, not burger. 

[Coalf]

Well people can draw their own conclusions, but I digress yes.

To explain my initial point, yes I think everyone acted inappropriately and everyone should be held to the same standard.

No, the response should not have been "Well that's a response Amory should get."
The response should have been "Why isn't Fowl calling an admin" and if one wasn't available or even was heckling alongside others, "Why isn't he making a complaint"
On the other side of the spectrum, the response should have been "Why isn't Amory talking in the feedback thread?" and "Why isn't Jackboot talking in the feedback thread?"

One side shouldn't have started "heckling" the other side should not have started "shitposting back at them". Fowl and Jackboot especially should have known better.

tl;dr two wrongs don't make a right and either all involved should be punished or nonbody.

 

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

If Amory makes Fowl upset, Fowl can bring it up to administration. A ping to an admin online can get someone bothering them a strike. It is fast and easy.

If Fowl makes a lot of PR's, Fowl should not get to take a pass for bad behavior. If it does, then we will need to create a hard number (12 successful merges?) by when the hard worker gets to ignore the rules and expectations.

Past behavior by Fowl is and will remain relevant because it sets the history. Recurring behavior cannot be examined if the behavior before this instant is invalidated. That is really weird to say.

1 hour ago, LordFowl said:

Again, no. What image do I confess doing this? I’ll be frank and say that no, I don’t particularly like the lore, but as a mature adult I’ve never created a PR purely to manifest this spite. You’ve made the accusations - the burden of proof rests on you. But for every screenshot, every quote that your hurredly collect out of context, there is valuable context I am all too willing to provide.

You are absolutely correct. The evidence is provided. This is another thing that you seem to do - it's like Schrodinger's cat. A Schrodinger's Joke. You do something divisive, then you both admit your were doing it out of bad faith, then say you had genuine reasons. Then whichever motive you actually have changes depending on what suits you in the conversation. Beat by beat by beat you do this every time.

You make a clearly controversial PR out of nowhere seemingly without ever talking to anyone on the Lore team. You did not talk to Pegasus, who I assume you have no beef with, despite this being entirely within his domain. You post it out of the blue. You then say that you both posted it to spite the lore team, then immediately after go off about a genuine interest in examining politics and ethics.

You say something inflammatory then immediately disavow it, then hype up how you disavow your own statements if you get blowback.

Maybe you genuinely are just joking. Maybe you were just having a good laugh with your friend Jackboot.

I will counter that this is the equivalent of, in the workplace, dumping water down someone shirt then laughing at the response you get from the person who is now pretty irritated at you. Just because you're saying something in jest does not absolve you from the consequences of what you are doing.

So, even if you are just having fun pranking your buddy here, it's still bad.

But you're not doing it to josh us all around. You're doing it to obscure yourself behind your Schrodinger's Joke, because the reactions you are getting from all this are funny to you.

Edited March 2, 2019 by Marlon Phoenix

[Scheveningen]

Defeatist responses aside here, I don't see anything that could've broken a rule here, I think the only thing that matters is the matter of breaking rules.

If you can't distinguish when Fowl is bantering or not, I'm gonna have to be blunt in saying that's your problem, no one else's. It's a lot more clear to me and everyone else when he's not being serious (i.e., being humorously brazen and saying stupid things just to get a chuckle).

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

8 hours ago, Scheveningen said:

It's a lot more clear to me and everyone else when he's not being serious (i.e., being humorously brazen and saying stupid things just to get a chuckle).

 

13 hours ago, Senpai Jackboot said:

I will counter that this is the equivalent of, in the workplace, dumping water down someone shirt then laughing at the response you get from the person who is now pretty irritated at you. Just because you're saying something in jest does not absolve you from the consequences of what you are doing.

 

[Scheveningen]

Sorry, I don't think that's really accurate, due to the lack of physical contact. This is more equivalent of talking trash/banter about someone else at the same lunch table as you but that person takes offense to the trash-talking.

Edited March 3, 2019 by Scheveningen

[LordFowl]

"You are absolutely correct. The evidence is provided. This is another thing that you seem to do - it's like Schrodinger's cat. A Schrodinger's Joke. You do something divisive, then you both admit your were doing it out of bad faith, then say you had genuine reasons. Then whichever motive you actually have changes depending on what suits you in the conversation. Beat by beat by beat you do this every time."

A very pretty idea. The only problem is that it makes no sense. Here's how things went down;

1) I made a PR. I said why I made this PR quite clearly.

2) Amory makes a statement to the effect of "I don't like this PR, but I will support it being merged if it allows us to continue X arc."

3) I reply to the effect of "I will support this PR being closed if it means we never have to do X arc again."

4) You immediately screenshot this, and post it in the feedback forum in violation of the suggestion board rules.

5) I make fun of this ridiculous behavior, especially given the silly point your post made.

I don't know why this chain of events is so hard for you to follow that you feel justified to call this "Schrodinger's 'Joke'", nor why you think my motive changes "beat by beat". My actions have a pretty succinct cause and effect.

Either way, I've explained the context behind this image twice now, so either you get it or you don't. Whatever that means, posting it a third time is not going to change my explanation.

[LorenLuke]

On 03/03/2019 at 07:47, LordFowl said:

 

5) I make fun of this ridiculous behavior, especially given the silly point your post made.

 

On 02/03/2019 at 16:09, Scheveningen said:

I think the only thing that matters is the matter of breaking rules.

• Don't be a dick. We're all here to have fun, not fight and argue with assholes. Don't ruin the game for everyone else, and use common sense. This includes anything from attacking other people, starting arguments over nothing, etcetera. Note that this rule applies primarily to OOC, LOOC, AHELP, and DEADSAY.

On 02/03/2019 at 11:33, Senpai Jackboot said:

Just because you're saying something in jest does not absolve you from the consequences of what you are doing.

 

[LordFowl]

“starting arguments over nothing, etcetera.”

Almost like that quotation applies more to Jackboot than to me since I made fun of the things said, but Jackboot tried to start a spurious flame war in the forums...

:big_think:

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

You told me to make a staff complaint rather than post on the pr feedback thread. So I did. A staff complaint is not a flame war.

[LordFowl]

I agree, I was not implying that it was.

Edited March 5, 2019 by LordFowl

[Scheveningen]

Then we should all be punished, for all of us have our fair share of instigating a reaction out of the other.

It doesn't matter who started it, yes, but being a part of that engagement makes anyone just as at fault as others who do virtually the same thing.

There's a lot of disparagement that goes on behind the open nature of the Aurora discord as well. There is surely unlimited amounts of ammunition for either side to launch at the others.

This is not as simple as Fowl being "bad guy who uses mean words and constantly harasses" and Jackboot who is "a good person who never mocks others and never makes a mountain out of a molehill." 

If Fowl's to be held accountable for alleged mean-spirited douchebaggery I expect the same amount of punishment to go around for anyone who dares do the same. I guarantee you that no one who posts regularly on the discord or the forums hasn't made a point out of doing this before.

I don't think Fowl solely has the blame here. But if the community is absolutely insistent upon silencing and removing others from their position because they cannot get along with one another, then it will be difficult to oppose such an effort, wouldn't it?

[Scheveningen]

10 hours ago, Senpai Jackboot said:

You told me to make a staff complaint rather than post on the pr feedback thread. So I did. A staff complaint is not a flame war.

Your following attempts at feedback was followed with personal attacks and unfounded accusations of Fowl making a PR simply to troll everyone. Which was very clearly not the intent, considering the amount of arguments posed by Fowl and others in support of it. You went off-topic to insist Fowl made the PR in bad faith only rather than addressing why the PR was bad.

If you don't think directly attacking other people isn't a foundation to create a flame war out of, especially considering the history between you and Fowl, then I don't know what to tell you.

[Skull132]

All posters are to take into consideration the rules of this sub-forum.
If you do not have any further evidence, clarification of circumstance, or other such items to add to this complaint, then CEASE POSTING.

If Fowl is discussing these circumstances with you then you are fine.

If you are depositing opinion or commentary, then any further posting will be met by post removal and a board warning or two. And note that warnings may be applied retroactively based on posts already in this thread. I just do not have the time right now to scour the already made posts.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

On 02/03/2019 at 13:24, Coalf said:

Well people can draw their own conclusions, but I digress yes.

To explain my initial point, yes I think everyone acted inappropriately and everyone should be held to the same standard.

No, the response should not have been "Well that's a response Amory should get."
The response should have been "Why isn't Fowl calling an admin" and if one wasn't available or even was heckling alongside others, "Why isn't he making a complaint"
On the other side of the spectrum, the response should have been "Why isn't Amory talking in the feedback thread?" and "Why isn't Jackboot talking in the feedback thread?"

One side shouldn't have started "heckling" the other side should not have started "shitposting back at them". Fowl and Jackboot especially should have known better.

tl;dr two wrongs don't make a right and either all involved should be punished or nonbody.

 

I missed this.

Please show where i was shitposting so i can identify the issue, the posting on the feedback thread made by lordfowl that i placed was removed by lordfowl and he asked me to make a staff complaint instead. I also have fowl blocked, and only interact with him via these avenues for the explicit purpose of avoiding confrontation. This is not successful, due to the bewildering effort to be provacative to put down me or the lore team in general.

[Coalf]

Well reading back at it you're right, you've never really initiated anything you seemed to have just joined the conversation halfway through, but since this doesn't add much to the thread here. I saw "out of context" somewhere in this thread, so I searched up all three of those screenshots and post the arguments in which they were involved from start to end:

Spoiler

https://puu.sh/CWqhu/ea6294c159.png

Spoiler

https://puu.sh/CWqhJ/1068d1fe3b.png

Addendum: It's a lot of screenshots so I might have missed something, feel free to post the possible missed in-betweens.
Additionally, I have only provided context to the screenshot posted here. This is why it sometimes seems like some screenshots are missing, that is because people keep referring to the posts on the feedback thread in discord without posting images or links to specific arguments.
 

 

 

Edited March 7, 2019 by Coalf

[Skull132]

Simple notes first.

Arrow can correct me, but it is not necessary for developers to coordinate with lore writers regarding a PR. Usually the maintainers have facilitated communication between the two houses, and this was done this time as well, with myself gathering feedback on the matter.

I will also note that even if lore writers decide a PR is a no-go lore wise, we are not obligated to close it down just then and there. Just as we are not obligated to merge a PR when the lore writers OK something. There is a process to PRs, and this process seems to last an average of a week now a days, unless crucial, so any PR which doesn't outright break the git rules is going to take a while to get dunked. This applies to Fowl's PRs as much as it applies to, say, Paradox's, where multiple chances to discuss feedback and to conform the PR are provided. Granted, Github would probably look a heck of a lot neater if we shot first and asked questions later, but eh, this is considered the better solution at present.

Beyond that (not consulting with lore devs directly), can you, in a concise manner, explain how Fowl's conduct with his PRs is done in "Bad faith", @Senpai Jackboot? I went over the entire photo album epic, but saw little in the way of implying that it was posted as a way to undermine something or someone; or as an insult towards someone. 

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

I outlined the issue.

I originally was a bit annoyed because I believed what Lordfowl said. When I brought up this screenshot and asked for what the goal he wanted to accomplish with the PR was, the posts were hidden and I was told to make a staff complaint. So I did.

This is the behavior I saw.

[annoying action (Wage gap PR)] > [admittance of why he did it (to mess with the lore team)] > [disavowal of admittance (it was just a joke)] > [snarky potshots taken at criticism]

Edited March 11, 2019 by Marlon Phoenix

[Skull132]

And @LordFowl can you explain, clearly and concisely what the intent of the PR in question was?

[LordFowl]

@Skull132 As I told PoZe long before any of this peripheral drama began, the PR does not have any grand intent. It was created because I had an idea and an idea of how to implement it. This is how most of my PRs are born. However, the bare stated intent was stated in the project thread when it was created, also before any of this peripheral drama began:

Quote

This PR is intended to represent a form of prejudice that is implied but never touched upon in the lore, despite the heavy focus on species and national prejudices.

As you can see, the claim that I created the PR in order to undermine the lore is based on a personal interpretation. Jackboot is of course free to believe that I was lying all the many times someone asked me what the big idea was before Amory did, but I am also free to say that's paranoid as fuck.

Jackboot's order of events is somewhat maligned also, even from the context available to him,  so let me shed my own light on the matter:

[PR is created] > [reddit brigades] > [arrow asks for feedback thread] > [feedback thread is created with intent CLEARLY stated] > [people shitpost on thread] > [I moderate thread, get involved in drama on the discord] > [Amory says something to the effect of "The PR is awful and Fowl is just creating it just to boost his ego, but I support it if it means we can revive the political arcs." I reply with the frequently screenshot'd comment] > [jackboot latches onto this comment as proof of my malintent, tries to turn the feedback thread into a witch hunt] > [I take snarky potshots on the discord at such a transparent action].

I'd also like to say that the quotes "When I brought up this screenshot and asked for what the goal he wanted to accomplish with the PR was, the posts were hidden" and "[snarky potshots taken at criticism]" makes Jackboot's actions seem far more objective than they were. His post was not a criticism, nor was it a question. It was a straightforward and classic derailing attack, and I moderated it as such. The exact hidden post can be seen below, and if you want more context you can see the rest of the hidden posts yourself.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

Thanks for showing the post and the timeline. 

I did not see your conversations with PoZe. I saw what you posted and took what you said at face value. In my order of events you appeared malacious. 

[Arrow768]

Since this sat quite a while by now, I came to the following conclusion:

• The cause for the staff complaint was the believe that LordFowl used this PR in a malicious manner as part of a personal vendetta.
  • With the information and timeline provided by LordFowl, Senapi Jackboot agreed that the PR was not made in a malicious manner.
• Another issue raised was the moderation of comments in the feedback thread.
  • I do not see an issue with the hidden comments, as developers explicitly have moderation permission in the suggestions forum to moderate Feedback Topics.
  • I checked the comments that were hidden by LordFowl in the "Wage Gap" feedback topic and found that all comments made were either off topic or not contributing to the Topic at all.

Therefore if no further issues are raised by the involved parties this will be closed in 24 hours.