Staff Complaint- TheGoret

[Ornias]

BYOND Key:: Ornias 

Staff BYOND Key: TheGoret

Game ID: b1F-bwjQ

Reason for complaint:

I ahelped over an issue I had with the CE. Logs for the full ahelp are attached.

Crux of the issue was, 30 seconds into the round (literally), I ran from the Journalist's Office to Engineering to catch the engineering team before they got into the swing of setting up the engine. The Corporate Reporter has access to the engineering lobby. I enter, and the following transpires (trimmed to only relevant logs):

Quote

OVR-FLW talks into the chief engineer's headset
Te Ariki Harwood beams, "Ah-ha!".
 [Common] OVR-FLW says, "ISD."
OVR-FLW talks into the chief engineer's headset
OVR-FLW says, "ISD."
Te Ariki Harwood kneels down, inspecting OVR-FLW!
 [Common] OVR-FLW says, "The reporter just tresspassed into Engineering."
OVR-FLW talks into the chief engineer's headset
OVR-FLW says, "The reporter just tresspassed into Engineering."
Te Ariki Harwood looks over OVR-FLW's hazard vest!
OVR-FLW says, "." 
[Common] OVR-FLW says, "Please come remove them. Apply a trespassing charge."

I feel like this is unacceptable play. I did not end up getting charged for trespass, as it changed its mind. However, it didn't speak to me before trying to lambaste my character over the common radio, as a head of staff, for trespassing into an area I have access to.

This is poor form, so poor that it falls into rulebreaking. You need to interact with people, and though I'd have no issue if they were to kick me out of the department, immediately calling for security on a false charge 30 seconds into the round without talking to me goes far too far, especially for a head of staff.

Throughout my ahelp, details were constantly confused and gotten wrong, and I got the feeling the TheGoret had made up his mind early on. Logs are available below. The following was specifically notable:

Quote

[12:49:02] ornias -> thegoret: You can't just act like I'm being a fucking child because I'm annoyed, show that you HAVEN'T read the logs properly, and then say "I'm done with this".
[12:49:27] thegoret -> ornias: I can. Because I made my decision. I told you that I spoke with them. The issue is resolved, do you understand that?
[12:49:31] ornias -> thegoret: I want another staff member on this, man. Someone who's actually invested in trying to find out what's going on.
[12:50:53] thegoret -> ornias: Cut the passive agressive now, because I'm starting to get annoyed. You'll not get any other staff members, because its resolved. So let me do a recap: You acted like a weirdo, and rushed in engineering. They called security immediatly, which was quite fair since you acted like a weird guy, but I still spoke to them about giving interaction. What do you want more than that?
[12:52:44] ornias -> thegoret: You're being leagues more passive-aggressive than me, man. I'm frustrated because you haven't given me any indication you're actually trying to follow the events that transpired- frequently getting info wrong, giving a passive-aggressive 'Then give them?', telling me to 'calm down' when I capitalized specific words for emphasis. I don't know what you talked to them about, but I've got no faith whatsoever that what you told them was actually representative of the issues I had.
[12:52:59] ornias -> thegoret: plus, ALL the other stuff i brought up i still don't know whether got resolved or not.
[12:53:34] ornias -> thegoret: like, you literally said "You acted like a weirdo, and rushed in engineering. They called security immediatly, which was quite fair since you acted like a weird guy,". That sentence has errors, or REALLY subjective statements in it. That's why I feel like my issue is unresolved.

Prate eventually took over the ticket, but it had been nearly an hour by that point, and I do not feel like I could have relayed all the information sufficiently a second time over ahelps.

I provided quite reasoned arguments, and The Goret acted as if I was somehow being vitriolic. I capitalized one sentence because I was frustrated that something literally and identifiably untrue was said- 

Quote

[12:46:05] ornias -> thegoret: I didn't illude a single thing about what it said. How do you not view this as a hugely significant issue? If I, a CMO, 15 seconds in, accused someone of petty theft because I didn't like the color of their hair, and told security to arrest them when they hadn't violated any regs, ANY different from this scenario?
[12:46:48] thegoret -> ornias: You rushed inside their department and acted like a weirdo. This is a totally different situation.
[12:46:58] ornias -> thegoret: Acted like a /weirdo/? I SAID 'AH-HA!'
[12:47:08] ornias -> thegoret: How is that acting like a weirdo?????
[12:47:10] thegoret -> ornias: Te Ariki Harwood kneels down, inspecting OVR-FLW!
[12:47:16] ornias -> thegoret: AFTER HE TOLD SEC TO ARREST ME
[12:47:29] thegoret -> ornias: Could you like, calm down?
[12:48:11] thegoret -> ornias: It was before he called sec to arrest you.

[THE LOGS FOR NOTE:]

 [Common] OVR-FLW says, "ISD."
OVR-FLW talks into the chief engineer's headset
OVR-FLW says, "ISD."
Te Ariki Harwood kneels down, inspecting OVR-FLW!

This really, really frustrates me. I'm not God's gift to earth in terms of how I acted, but I acted like most players are going to in an ahelp like this. I got frustrated when easily identifiable untrue statements were put forward, got frustrated when what I perceive to be unsubstantiated claims were made to refute my grievances. I typed one sentence in all capitals. Being told to 'calm down' in a condescending way like that doesn't really make me any calmer, especially when I feel like the logs show he was being just as if not more vitriolic than I was.

 

Evidence/logs/etc:

https://pastebin.com/ExaV1WUc

https://pastebin.com/gfEGz3aF

 

Additional remarks: 

Other issues were raised with Prate, but I feel like those were resolved.

I still stand by the "If I, a CMO, 15 seconds in, accused someone of petty theft because I didn't like the color of their hair, and told security to arrest them when they hadn't violated any regs, ANY different from this scenario?" argument. We don't allow Heads of Staff to call security on their coworkers for their convenience without any kind of interaction with the person they don't like.
That's vindictive, strongly clique-boosting behavior, when we say it's acceptable for Heads of Staff to try to use public channels and call security to embarrass and threaten players they haven't interacted with. If I was a new player, that could be enough to get people to quit outright.

Any questions pls ask

Edited June 9, 2019 by Ornias

[Goret]

38 minutes ago, Ornias said:

I feel like this is unacceptable play. I did not end up getting charged for trespass, as it changed its mind. However, it didn't speak to me before trying to lambaste my character over the common radio, as a head of staff, for trespassing into an area I have access to.

[12:48:35] thegoret -> ornias: Right. I'm done with this. I spoke to them about giving a bit more interaction before calling security.

I told them that it wasn't a thing to do. Which, Prate spoke to them about that as well. I also told you that if you had a problem against this character, you should get it brought up through a character complaint. Which would have been completely fair for you to do.

[12:33:53] thegoret -> ornias: For me its kinda an IC issue. Its their rights if they don't want you into engineering. As for the character itself, if you think there's a problem you could bring that up in a character complaint.

45 minutes ago, Ornias said:

 

Prate eventually took over the ticket, but it had been nearly an hour by that point, and I do not feel like I could have relayed all the information sufficiently a second time over ahelps.

I provided quite reasoned arguments, and The Goret acted as if I was somehow being vitriolic. I capitalized one sentence because I was frustrated that something literally and identifiably untrue was said-  

I asked Prate to take over because I was starting to question my judgement and I wasn't feeling up to continue.
I was confused because I was playing as well. Sorry, but when there is a changeling and a blob at the same time, I might get my stuff wrong, specially when I'm tired. I might have been a little harsh, and I'm sorry for that. I shouldn't have acted that way and I'm sorry. 

50 minutes ago, Ornias said:

This really, really frustrates me. I'm not God's gift to earth in terms of how I acted, but I acted like most players are going to in an ahelp like this. I got frustrated when easily identifiable untrue statements were put forward, got frustrated when what I perceive to be unsubstantiated claims were made to refute my grievances. I typed one sentence in all capitals. Being told to 'calm down' in a condescending way like that doesn't really make me any calmer, especially when I feel like the logs show he was being just as if not more vitriolic than I was.

I just don't like when people starts to get frustrated in ahelps. If you want something to be resolved, keep your calm. I am here to resolve conflicts, and starting to caps lock just makes me feel you're starting to get agressive and put you in the wrong spot. As I said multiple times in ahelps and earlier, the issue was resolved, because the player was spoke to. I wanted to play at the same time, and bringing the issue up again frustrated me as well and kept me from playing when for me the matter was clearly over.

[Ornias]

I appreciate and accept your apology. I do still want to leave this complaint open.

I had to fight to find out that what he did 'wasn't against the rules', and I only found out because I noticed how Prate was being very careful about how worded things.

It only takes one incident like this to lose a player. I do not feel comfortable seeing you on the staff team.

13 hours ago, Goret said:

 I just don't like when people starts to get frustrated in ahelps. If you want something to be resolved, keep your calm. I am here to resolve conflicts, and starting to caps lock just makes me feel you're starting to get agressive and put you in the wrong spot. As I said multiple times in ahelps and earlier, the issue was resolved, because the player was spoke to.

I think I kept my calm until you were said "thegoret -> ornias: Then give them?", which I think is a fair reason to get frustrated. You made comments about my character acting like a "weirdo" which were baseless, and the logs that we were both looking at showed this. This kind of stuff adds up when I feel like I've got a significant problem that's being ignored.

The player got spoken too, but apparently got told what he did wasn't against the rules. That's not resolved to me.

13 hours ago, Goret said:

I wanted to play at the same time, and bringing the issue up again frustrated me as well and kept me from playing when for me the matter was clearly over.

You're a staff member. I didn't feel the matter was clearly over, and I wanted more information- information I clearly needed, because, as noted, Prate told me that what it did was not against the rules. Telling me someone's been spoken to implies they were told that what they did was against the rules. "I got frustrated because I wanted to play" is not a defense for acting like this.

Edited June 10, 2019 by Ornias

[Goret]

7 hours ago, Ornias said:

I think I kept my calm until you were said "thegoret -> ornias: Then give them?", which I think is a fair reason to get frustrated. You made comments about my character acting like a "weirdo" which were baseless, and the logs that we were both looking at showed this. This kind of stuff adds up when I feel like I've got a significant problem that's being ignored.

I fail how to see how me asking for the logs would get you frustated, since it was not my intention. It might be because I'm not an english native, so my choice of words can be sometimes wrong.
My comments weren't baseless, I literally took example of the logs you posted: 

Quote

OVR-FLW talks into the chief engineer's headset

Te Ariki Harwood beams, "Ah-ha!".

 [Common] OVR-FLW says, "ISD."

OVR-FLW talks into the chief engineer's headset

OVR-FLW says, "ISD."

Te Ariki Harwood kneels down, inspecting OVR-FLW!

 [Common] Eric Bayer says, "Heyo."

 [Common] Ini Ugonma asks, "Hm?"

 [Common] OVR-FLW says, "The reporter just tresspassed into Engineering."

OVR-FLW talks into the chief engineer's headset

OVR-FLW says, "The reporter just tresspassed into Engineering."

Te Ariki Harwood looks over OVR-FLW's hazard vest!

For me, someone that rush into a department and do things like that is clearly acting like a weirdo. I don't know if you imagine the scene in real life, but for me its really weird. From this point, the chief engineer asking to get you out is completely fair. Also you need to keep in mind that a Head has complete "power" on its department and if they want to remove someone, they can. But-- Check bellow.

7 hours ago, Ornias said:

 The player got spoken too, but apparently got told what he did wasn't against the rules. That's not resolved to me.

Like I said multiple times, I did told them that he should have more interactions before calling immediately ISD and shoving people off. For me, it was clearly resolved because I spoke to them, and they acknowledged. So here is my question: What else did you wanted me to do more? Warn them? Ban them? Because I got clearly confused on what you wanted in the end. 

7 hours ago, Ornias said:

You're a staff member. I didn't feel the matter was clearly over, and I wanted more information- information I clearly needed, because, as noted, Prate told me that what it did was not against the rules.

It is really a gray area. We don't really know if its against the rules, but we try to enforce a minimum of RP, specially a head of staff. That was the "resolved issue" I was speaking about, and that is what Prate told you.

7 hours ago, Ornias said:

Telling me someone's been spoken to implies they were told that what they did was against the rules. "I got frustrated because I wanted to play" is not a defense for acting like this.

What I said earlier. Also, being frustrated is completely human and can happen sometimes. Thinking that just because I am from the staff team, mean that I cannot show any emotions is completely out of mind. My frustration also made me give the ticket to Prate, by a problem of subjectivity and that I clearly wanted for you to get your problem resolved. 

[ReadThisNamePlz]

Hello, I will be handling this complaint. 

Give me a little time to personally speak to all parties involved. I would also like for 

@Pratepresidenten and @Shadow7889 to post here. Thanks!

[Ornias]

2 hours ago, Goret said:

My comments weren't baseless,

2 hours ago, Goret said:

OVR-FLW talks into the chief engineer's headset

Te Ariki Harwood beams, "Ah-ha!".

 [Common] OVR-FLW says, "ISD."

I misstated. My character is a weirdo. But these are the three lines, from the start of the round to calling sec. Your claims that the CE called sec on my character for acting like a weirdo are pretty clearly false unless you want to claim that these three lines- the one thing I said- are acting like a weirdo, and sufficiently acting like a weirdo for a CE as an individual and a Head of Staff player to immediately call for security.

2 hours ago, Goret said:

From this point, the chief engineer asking to get you out is completely fair. Also you need to keep in mind that a Head has complete "power" on its department and if they want to remove someone, they can. But-- Check bellow.

Would have loved to live that dream of being talked to/acknowledged beyond being treated as an immediate annoyance on virtue of existing in the Chief Engineer's lobby.

2 hours ago, Goret said:

Like I said multiple times, I did told them that he should have more interactions before calling immediately ISD and shoving people off. For me, it was clearly resolved because I spoke to them, and they acknowledged. So here is my question: What else did you wanted me to do more? Warn them? Ban them? Because I got clearly confused on what you wanted in the end. 

I had absolutely no idea what you told them. I still don't, really. You tried to end the ticket incredibly dismissively, saying "I'm done with this". Of course I'm not going to think you necessarily resolved my issue.

If he was to do that again, I was told expressly he wouldn't be breaking any rules by doing so. While that wouldn't be desirable, he'd be allowed to do it again. That's not resolved to me, and I had to really FIGHT to get that info, so clearly I was right to 'keep you from playing' a little longer.

On 10/06/2019 at 00:55, Goret said:

I just don't like when people starts to get frustrated in ahelps

2 hours ago, Goret said:

being frustrated is completely human and can happen sometimes

Either we both screwed up, or neither of us screwed up.

Edited June 10, 2019 by Ornias
edited the last bit because to be less of a dickhead

[Pratepresidenten]

Hewwo, it is I, Pwate!

So what I could find and resolve here was:

This ticket shouldnt have taken more than 5-10 minutes tops. While there wasnt really any rulebreaks involved, namely being a dick, the CE's behaviour was way too dismissive in my opinion, thus kiling off any chance of roleplay. I told them to be more forthcoming and not dismiss people like that, and Im assuming Goret did too, as theyve said in PMs and to myself over msay.

Goret did right by handing off their ticket seeing their frustration with the situation, but perhaps this could have happened a bit sooner? A thought for the future atleast.

[Shadow7889]

Oh boy. Alright. Let me clear some stuff up, as I was the CE. We're going to get into some serious detail here because I believe a few things are missing. 

1. Yes. I did ask for the ISD to remove you from my engineering lobby at first. I've never played Reporter on SS13. I am not sure how far your access goes. I assume it's common areas like all the rest. Would love to have someone double check that, please. Because if you were in my Department without access, I was right in having you removed firstly, as that's ICly not okay for you to barge into an area in which you don't have access. If you do have that access, that's my bad. I'll keep this in mind in the future when dealing with Reporters. 

2. My LOOC comment '' Oh fuck, a reporter that's not afraid of a trespassing charge! '' Was a legit compliment. OOCly, I find this amazing. I'm not saying run into a firefight or get your ass slapped with an i200/i300 charge, but too many station reporters are afraid to disregard some low level infractions to get their ' scoops ' The fact that you might have just come in and completely ignored the fact that I was telling the ISD to remove you to get SOME details was hilarious. I loved it. 

3. You convinced the CE to let you stay. Yes, at first I had no intention of dealing with you, as the pre-round set up needed to be done, and that's what my CE was focused on. SM/Shields/RCON. Once that was done, I had every intention of speaking with you. 

4. I let you stay! Once you started digging in your heels, I was both ICly and OOCly convinced this might be fun. So I told the ISD not to bother, and even let you into my office to speak with me while I got ready to check the SM. One of our engineers had already set it, so I was like, fuck it. You want to get to know Overflow? Let's go check out the SM together. A place I would not normally allow any non-engineering crew. But you had convinced me both ways. (Besides, if you had touched a button, I could have had it fixed rather easily.  )

5. Unfortunately antag stuff got in the way. I was made aware of a ' POSSIBLE AIRBORNE ILLNESS ' which we knew to be the changling getting started, but not ICly, of course. At this point I had to declare a Code yellow, and get the ISD a head of staff, thus I took the role of Acting Captain until another head of staff arrived, in which case I would give them the role, if need be, because I don't like dealing with non-engineering emergencies. Medical ones are the worst. They tend to cause a panic. 

6. After this, you went to cyrosleep and proceeded to bash me in Dsay. Repeatedly. I'm sure the logs are there. This kind of upset me, but as a staff member, it's something you have to get used to. Still, it hurt my feelings. I went out of my way to grant you access to an area you shouldn't be allowed, even showed you around the SM for a bit until the antag stuff got in the way. Had you not of gone to cyrosleep, I would have been more than okay with you tagging along me all shift. Maybe next time? 

 

I hope this clears up some of the issues. If not, let me know. 

[Ornias]

Ok. Sorry for assuming ill-intent on your LOOC comment.

I didn't want this to be a public matter, but the nature of a staff complaint kind of necessitates that this thing be brought out into the open. Sorry for putting you on blast like this.

On 11/06/2019 at 05:14, Shadow7889 said:

Because if you were in my Department without access, I was right in having you removed firstly, as that's ICly not okay for you to barge into an area in which you don't have access. If you do have that access, that's my bad. I'll keep this in mind in the future when dealing with Reporters. 

Cheers, but you kicking me out (previously established as acceptable) wasn't the issue. Just because you can do something as a head of staff doesn't mean you should. It's not a realistic, it doesn't make sense, to call security immediately. If someone was to walk into a room they weren't supposed to be in at your work, you wouldn't immediately call the police, you'd ask them to leave. Or, hell, maybe you wouldn't even do that, because people have reasons to be in areas all the time, and you shouldn't be treating your coworkers like criminals-in-waiting.

On 11/06/2019 at 05:14, Shadow7889 said:

4. I let you stay! Once you started digging in your heels, I was both ICly and OOCly convinced this might be fun.

This is the mindset problem. Players shouldn't need to convince you they're fun to be around before they earn interaction.

I feel like this mirrors the issue I had with your interaction with your employees, too. You've got a responsibility to interact with people, especially as a head of staff. A character can be more interested in their own tasks than helping others, most certainly, and that's not a bad thing, but there's a degree of interaction necessitated by playing and a degree necessitated by being the Chief Engineer.

On 11/06/2019 at 05:14, Shadow7889 said:

After this, you went to cyrosleep and proceeded to bash me in Dsay. Repeatedly.

I don't feel like I bashed you in Dsay repeatedly. I'm sorry if it came across that way, but while I did complain about your play, I feel it was very brief.

Edited June 12, 2019 by Ornias

[ReadThisNamePlz]

Okay so, after some long consideration, I think I have come to my conclusion. 

Goret isn't in the wrong here, they even sought after additional staff help to reaffirm their ruling. A staff member is not required to tell a player if another player was dealt with/what actions were taken. You're expected to just go "okay" when a staff member states it has been handled. Now, I will be speaking with @Goret after this complaint is wrapped up, regarding their attitude towards you in the ticket, but overall, they did nothing wrong. 

I'm not even going to touch the CE part of this complaint, considering this is a staff complaint, not a player/character complaint. 
@Ornias Does this sound good? 

Edited June 15, 2019 by ReadThisNamePlz

[Ornias]

8 hours ago, ReadThisNamePlz said:

they even sought after additional staff help to reaffirm their ruling.

he didn't 'sought after' anything. it was only after i insisted for one, and showed that his ruling depended on flawed and incredibly subjective statements. i don't think having to fight for additional input indemnifies him of anything.

8 hours ago, ReadThisNamePlz said:

Now, I will be speaking with @Goret after this complaint is wrapped up, regarding their attitude towards you in the ticket, but overall, they did nothing wrong. 

How can you simultaneously say you're going to be speaking to him about his attitude, and also say that he's innocent of wrongdoing?

8 hours ago, ReadThisNamePlz said:

A staff member is not required to tell a player if another player was dealt with/what actions were taken.

8 hours ago, ReadThisNamePlz said:

You're expected to just go "okay" when a staff member states it has been handled.

I wasn't asking for a ban-length, or anything. I didn't even need to know whether he was punished for it or not. I wanted to know that my issue was actually addressed. There is a huge difference between asking for specifics on a case and wanting to know the actual outcome of the ruling, which I was unhappy with and if I had not pursued to find out would not have the grounds to make a staff complaint.

'if another player was dealt with' is a pretty silly standard to keep, but I suppose this must be something to do with antags and not spoiling the round or whatever.

8 hours ago, ReadThisNamePlz said:

I'm not even going to touch the CE part of this complaint, considering this is a staff complaint, not a player/character complaint. 

We have a precedent that staff complaints are to be used when the matter was 'dealt with' by staff, but we were unhappy with the outcome. In addition, the validity of the CE's actions are pretty important here regardless. I don't think it's reasonable to completely ignore that facet of the issue, and change that precedent.

 

You didn't even "personally speak" to me as one of the involved parties, as you said you were going to. I am unhappy with this, and would ask you to investigate further.

Edited June 16, 2019 by Ornias

[ReadThisNamePlz]

4 hours ago, Ornias said:

he didn't 'sought after' anything. it was only after i insisted for one, and showed that his ruling depended on flawed and incredibly subjective statements. i don't think having to fight for additional input indemnifies him of anything.

How can you simultaneously say you're going to be speaking to him about his attitude, and also say that he's innocent of wrongdoing?

I wasn't asking for a ban-length, or anything. I didn't even need to know whether he was punished for it or not. I wanted to know that my issue was actually addressed. There is a huge difference between asking for specifics on a case and wanting to know the actual outcome of the ruling, which I was unhappy with and if I had not pursued to find out would not have the grounds to make a staff complaint.

'if another player was dealt with' is a pretty silly standard to keep, but I suppose this must be something to do with antags and not spoiling the round or whatever.

We have a precedent that staff complaints are to be used when the matter was 'dealt with' by staff, but we were unhappy with the outcome. In addition, the validity of the CE's actions are pretty important here regardless. I don't think it's reasonable to completely ignore that facet of the issue, and change that precedent.

 

You didn't even "personally speak" to me as one of the involved parties, as you said you were going to. I am unhappy with this, and would ask you to investigate further.

I didn't come personally speak to anyone, because I felt all that I needed was here onthe thread.

@Pratepresidenten stated that Goret handed it off to him, albeit at a later time than it should have been. Which to me, is seeking help.

If we take your ticket, your issue is being addressed. Goret is not obligated to say anything about the investigation, all he has to do is take it and get your side. It's optional for him to go "Ok, its handled" etc. Unless another staff member would like to correct me on that, it's what I've noticed for the past Year that I've been a staff member.

The CE portion needs to be a player complaint. Why? Because Goret and Prate both spoke with the CE and handled it. You're contesting Gorets conduct in the ticket with you,  not his decision against the CE. Atleast from my understanding.

And when I call Goret innocent, I was being too vague. He had a poor attitude, of which I will discuss with him privately. But it is not enough for him to be ejected from the staff team over it.

 

There is nothing else to investigate. I have gone over this complaint quite a few times now, and I come to the same conclusion each time. You need to be more specific regarding what you are not satisfied with, @Ornias.

 

[Ornias]

1 minute ago, ReadThisNamePlz said:

You need to be more specific regarding what you are not satisfied with, @Ornias.

I think the broadness of my complaint is being taken for a lack of specificity. I have an issue with a large number of things, all of which I cover in my complaint, but do not mistake that for being uncertain in where my issues lie. To clarify:

I am unsatisfied because I feel that his attitude towards me and my issue was extremely poor, and your post implied that he had commited no wrongdoing through this. I have admitted my own was sub-par, but I am not staff, and I feel that my own was not as bad as his.

I am unsatisfied because I feel that the action was clearly against the requirements for a head of staff, and an example of play in bad faith, yet it was not ruled as being a failure to uphold the standards of a head of staff.

I am unsatisfied because I feel that the idea that I should just say "ok" instead of seeking more information when I feel my issue has not been resolved defeats the purpose of staff, and is an unfaithful use of the 'staff rulings are final' rule.

I am unsatisfied because I feel that the claim that he is 'innocent' means that this is not being taken as a serious issue, which I feel it absolutely is.

4 minutes ago, ReadThisNamePlz said:

Goret is not obligated to say anything about the investigation, all he has to do is take it and get your side. It's optional for him to go "Ok, its handled" etc.

This is silly to me. Staff aren't just here to silently remove people from play if they violate rules, and making sure that players understand what's allowed and what isn't is vital.

If something is or isn't against the rules, as a staff member, you have a practical obligation to inform me as to why or why not. I did the same when I was trial mod, and I have never seen a staff member not take the time to inform me of the reason behind their ruling.

If you don't inform me there and then, you're literally necessitating a staff complaint if I want to get any more information as to why something does or does not violate the rules, and placing the onus on me, as a player, to try to dig through to understand the ruling and put you on blast.

Staff aren't really "obligated" to do sweet F.A. But they absolutely should, and failure to do so is incredibly subpar staffing.

15 minutes ago, ReadThisNamePlz said:

You're contesting Gorets conduct in the ticket with you,  not his decision against the CE. Atleast from my understanding.

This doesn't follow for me. Staff complaints have ALWAYS been the medium for contesting staff rulings, and I have a problem with his decision as well as his conduct. I don't see why I should need to go through three separate channels in order to get someone to be told that something is against the rules (or, in the case of it NOT being against the rules, go through three separate channels to have a rule EXPLAINED to me).

51 minutes ago, ReadThisNamePlz said:

And when I call Goret innocent, I was being too vague. He had a poor attitude, of which I will discuss with him privately.

13 hours ago, ReadThisNamePlz said:

Goret isn't in the wrong here

13 hours ago, ReadThisNamePlz said:

they did nothing wrong

That's not being vague. These are literally contradictory. I'm running into exactly the same issue that I ran into in that ahelp. If something is, or isn't, allowed; tell me. You're saying he'll be spoken to about his attitude, but how can you expect me to believe you to any meaningful degree if in the same breath you're calling him innocent and saying they did 'nothing wrong'?

 

Note: I've spoken to Prate privately about the ticket being passed off, just so it doesn't feel like I'm doing shady under-the-table DMing lol

[ReadThisNamePlz]

 

 

 

Quote

I am unsatisfied because I feel that his attitude towards me and my issue was extremely poor, and your post implied that he had committed no wrongdoing through this. I have admitted my own was sub-par, but I am not staff, and I feel that my own was not as bad as his.

 

 

 

1

Quote

I am unsatisfied because I feel that the idea that I should just say "ok" instead of seeking more information when I feel my issue has not been resolved defeats the purpose of staff, and is an unfaithful use of the 'staff rulings are final' rule.

Quote

I am unsatisfied because I feel that the claim that he is 'innocent' means that this is not being taken as a serious issue, which I feel it absolutely is.

 I'm sorry my post may have confused you, but he was wrong in the sense of his attitude. I find his attitude to be the only thing he's done that is wrong. I standby the fact that he is not obligated to express details of a punishment/ruling. He just needs to go "It's been handled" or something along those lines, to keep you informed.

Yes, if you tell a staff member you feel your situation is unresolved, they should delve further into an explanation, but generally, if you're asking to know what was done to the other party or parties, they are not obligated to tell you. I planned on discussing this with Goret. 

Quote

 

Goret is not obligated to say anything about the investigation, all he has to do is take it and get your side. It's optional for him to go "Ok, its handled" etc.

This is silly to me. Staff aren't just here to silently remove people from play if they violate rules, and making sure that players understand what's allowed and what isn't is vital.

 

See above.

 

Quote

If something is or isn't against the rules, as a staff member, you have a practical obligation to inform me as to why or why not. I did the same when I was trial mod, and I have never seen a staff member not take the time to inform me of the reason behind their ruling.

Yes, if you are the offender in question. For instance, you kill an SSD person. SSD person comes back and ahelps, we bwoink you and deal with you accordingly. But we will not inform the player who reported the rule-break what we did to you/told you because it breaches your privacy if we do that. We'd simply tell them "They've been handled" or "We've spoken to them" etc. If they requested more information, I'd usually say "I dealt with them accordingly. I'm not going to explain what I did to them because it is none of your concern." Make sense?
 

Quote

If you don't inform me there and then, you're literally necessitating a staff complaint if I want to get any more information as to why something does or does not violate the rules, and placing the onus on me, as a player, to try to dig through to understand the ruling and put you on blast.

Okay, see, if you were the person being punished, and you wanted to know why you were being punished, then yes, a staff member should dive further in and explain what you did wrong. But, since you opened a ticket against the CE for poor command play, you knew it violated the rules, which is why you opened a ticket. So why would you, the reporting person, need to know how it violated the rules if you already knew it was a breach in the rules. Just because a staff member doesn't dive deeper, it doesn't mean you need to make a complaint.
 

Quote

Staff aren't really "obligated" to do sweet F.A. But they absolutely should, and failure to do so is incredibly subpar staffing.

Hey uh... Honestly? I have no idea what you mean by "F.A."... If you could expand on the "F.A." for me, I can get back to you on this. Sorry! 

 

Quote

This doesn't follow for me. Staff complaints have ALWAYS been the medium for contesting staff rulings, and I have a problem with his decision as well as his conduct. I don't see why I should need to go through three separate channels in order to get someone to be told that something is against the rules (or, in the case of it NOT being against the rules, go through three separate channels to have a rule EXPLAINED to me).

The reason I asked you to be more clear on this complaint, is because I couldn't tell if you're contesting the ruling, or contesting his conduct in the ticket. Or both. But, now you've made this clear to me, and we can move forward at a more efficient pace. 

The CE was spoken to by both Goret and Prate, they both explained what he did basically shut down roleplay and told them not to do it again. What more do you want from that? That's the same thing I would have done. 

 

Quote

That's not being vague. These are literally contradictory. I'm running into exactly the same issue that I ran into in that ahelp. If something is, or isn't, allowed; tell me. You're saying he'll be spoken to about his attitude, but how can you expect me to believe you to any meaningful degree if in the same breath you're calling him innocent and saying they did 'nothing wrong'?

So, regarding this, look at what I said in the first paragraph, please. 

[Ornias]

7 hours ago, ReadThisNamePlz said:

He just needs to go "It's been handled" or something along those lines, to keep you informed.

18 hours ago, ReadThisNamePlz said:

It's optional for him to go "Ok, its handled" etc.

7 hours ago, ReadThisNamePlz said:

I find his attitude to be the only thing he's done that is wrong.

7 hours ago, ReadThisNamePlz said:

Yes, if you tell a staff member you feel your situation is unresolved, they should delve further into an explanation, but generally, if you're asking to know what was done to the other party or parties, they are not obligated to tell you. I planned on discussing this with Goret. 

I'm not tryna 'gotcha!!' here, but again, these are literally contradictory. It feels like you're trying really, really hard not to admit any cases where I have a point, to the point that even when you acknowledge something I say is right you insist that you don't.

7 hours ago, ReadThisNamePlz said:

since you opened a ticket against the CE for poor command play, you knew it violated the rules

So it violated the rules, right?????? If I'm supposed to 'know that it violated the rules', then why is TELLING me that it is or isn't against the rules an invasion of privacy? This is knowledge that, in your model, I already have. That's jumping through hoops to justify not explaining stuff which is important for me, as a player, to know.

That's literally the only bit of info I needed- whether it was or wasn't against the rules. I didn't need to see him command-banned, or even warned. I just wanted to know that it was against the rules, and that's not based on ANYTHING to do with the CE in question outside of them being the one to act as an exemplar for the ruling.

7 hours ago, ReadThisNamePlz said:

The CE was spoken to by both Goret and Prate, they both explained what he did basically shut down roleplay and told them not to do it again. What more do you want from that? That's the same thing I would have done. 

I want someone to say 'what the CE did was against the rules/obligations to remain a head of staff, and repeating said action is unacceptable'. Someone say that in this thread. Otherwise Goret/Prate didn't 'tell him' to do shit, they just advised it.

8 hours ago, ReadThisNamePlz said:

If you could expand on the "F.A." for me,

F.A. means 'fuck all'.

8 hours ago, ReadThisNamePlz said:

Just because a staff member doesn't dive deeper, it doesn't mean you need to make a complaint.

My issue was not resolved to a satisfactory degree, because the staff member did not properly analyse the information provided and made subjective judgement calls and refused to provide information as to whether or not their behaviour was against the rules. This is exactly what complaints are for.

And that's the thing. Despite the fact that you seem to be objectively acknowledging that Goret was flawed over the course of the ahelp, the language and way you're framing your decision makes it seem like you view this complaint to be erroneous and unnecessary.

[ReadThisNamePlz]

Yikes, its been sitting for 11 days, I'm sorry, life has been pounding me with no remorse. ?

After reading through all of this again, I'm simply going to say this.

I'm going to close this complaint. I explained that I'm going to speak to Goret about their actions in the ticket and how it was handled, I do not believe any further punishment needs to be pursued regarding Goret or the Chief Engineer, as Prate handled that part. I'm sorry you feel this was not solved to a satisfactory degree, but Goret was not and is not obligated to share details of a ticket with you. 

If you don't like this outcome, I'm sorry, but we're going in circles and this has been sitting for way too long. (That's on me, but I've been meaning to get this handled.)