[Resolved] Staff Complaint- TrickingTrapster

[Ornias]

BYOND Key: Ornias

Staff BYOND Key: TrickingTrapster

Game ID: Round before b2D-bRYd

Reason for complaint: I had an issue with certain characters IC behaviour. I ahelped it after seeing and hearing about a repetition of such behaviour. No attempt was made to investigate my issue, my ahelps were closed while flatly ignoring the questions I asked, and both staff members did not take my frustration seriously (which can be seen most clearly in the 2nd and 3rd ahelps).

This felt mean-spirited and intentionally obtuse. Answers I received were laconic and didn't address why the action was or was not acceptable, even when I expressed I couldn't picture any kind of scenario where it would be acceptable.

Evidence/logs/etc: 

Additional remarks:

Edited August 21, 2019 by ReadThisNamePlz

[Ornias]

this was ~20 minutes. they never went offline. every attempt has been made to avoid elaborating or answering my questions.

[TrickingTrapster]

To clarify on that last part. The grocery store isn't that far away and I only needed to get a couple of things, but I did need to get them. So yes, that didn't take long, but I actually went into my car and drove over to the store in those 20 minutes.

[CommanderXor]

So I was directly involved since I play Tii'Aei.

The 'baldie-thrower' comment was made off-handly in jest and was already bwoinked about and I assume a note or such given. Thus it doesn't really matter anymore.

Last I checked there isn't any reason why engineers aren't allowed to create a sort of structure? They refurnish areas all the time and create things. I've seen them do stuff like make a set of doors and floors outside in a hallway - engineering that is, not the specific engineer - so I don't think there's an issue with a engineer...doing engineering things.

As for the Berko-Mutema thing...there isn't really anything to say about saying a name? Me and the Engineer had some Dyn-Wine (With the tipsy messages) and came over to the lobby. As soon as Berko arrived, the engineer told me to just say 'Mutema' when they say 'Berko' and I played along given the tipsy state. I tried to adjust it a bit so it wasn't just mindless spam hence why you can see me talking about addressing them by their last name and such.

Honestly, given that I was involved in literally all three situations, I don't see how TrickingTrapster did anything wrong. Were you expecting him to hand out a warning for a off-hand comment, or to bwoink people over making a corridor or saying a name a few times?

[simfantic]

I was directly involved too, being Qu Shin.

 

I'm here to agree on behalf of Xor, we were drinking Dyn Wine in maintenance (and as you know, Skrell are highly highly vunerable to alcohol so it didn't take much for us to get drunk) and we got bored, we then decided to head to irritate Berko (what Xor said above). We had background for our action, pity you didn't see it. 

 

Gotta agree with Xor, we did it face to face with Berko *not over comms* and it ended within a few minutes. I stand with Xor, Trickster aint done nothing wrong. 

[Ornias]

these responses do not matter to me because they do not address my reason for complaint

2 hours ago, Ornias said:

No attempt was made to investigate my issue, my ahelps were closed while flatly ignoring the questions I asked, and both staff members did not take my frustration seriously (which can be seen most clearly in the 2nd and 3rd ahelps).

This felt mean-spirited and intentionally obtuse. Answers I received were laconic and didn't address why the action was or was not acceptable, even when I expressed I couldn't picture any kind of scenario where it would be acceptable.

 

[Ornias]

Bump.

[Ornias]

Bump.

[Ornias]

Bump.

[ReadThisNamePlz]

I will be handling this complaint. Apologies for the delay, I've been in the hospital.

[ReadThisNamePlz]

I'm going to deem TT's actions valid in this complaint.

 

Quote

No attempt was made to investigate my issue, my ahelps were closed while flatly ignoring the questions I asked, and both staff members did not take my frustration seriously (which can be seen most clearly in the 2nd and 3rd ahelps).

This felt mean-spirited and intentionally obtuse. Answers I received were laconic and didn't address why the action was or was not acceptable, even when I expressed I couldn't picture any kind of scenario where it would be acceptable.

"Find out Icly" is not mean spirited or intentionally obtuse, the staff member at hand does not have to give you context of anything. I assure you your frustration was taken seriously. TT handled the baldie comment, but the second "issue" was not an ooc issue. It is the same as someone walking up to you and saying your name repeatedly to annoy you. If I went "Ornias, Ornias, Ornias, Ornias" repeatedly, it'd annoy you. 

here is another example of annoying someone by saying their name/title repeatedly. Here

I have nothing else to say about this complaint. I will be locking and archiving within the next 24 hours, unless you have anything to add.

Edited August 18, 2019 by ReadThisNamePlz

[Ornias]

16 minutes ago, ReadThisNamePlz said:

here is another example of annoying someone by saying their name/title repeatedly. Here

that's a baby in a comedy show talking to his mum and not two members of one of the most technologically advanced and outwardly 'emotionless' species in the galaxy talking to their coworker.

it doesn't matter that upon investigation the matter was concluded to be acceptable. what matters is that there was no investigation into the matter. and i don't want to hear "there's no investigation because it's clearly an IC issue" because the way that i phrased it was "spammed", which is CLEARLY grounds for an investigation.

26 minutes ago, ReadThisNamePlz said:

"Find out Icly" is not mean spirited or intentionally obtuse, the staff member at hand does not have to give you context of anything.

then what was it meant to be????? i'm clearly frustrated, i'm a ghost, and the ahelp was closed immediately afterwards. that is obtuse and mean spirited.

i don't know why you have this mindset that it's okay to just end ahelps without investigating under the explanation of 'there might be context for it'. i don't know why you think it's okay to just end ahelps out of the blue without trying to make sure all players walk away from the situation as content as we can get it. my questions were IGNORED. not just 'i can't answer that', but IGNORED. why do you think THAT'S okay?

 

being a staff member is supposed to be a responsibility, and the liberties that you're afforded are supposed to be so you can do the job as well as you can, NOT so that you have an excuse to do it in a subpar way.

[ReadThisNamePlz]

25 minutes ago, Ornias said:

that's a baby in a comedy show talking to his mum and not two members of one of the most technologically advanced and outwardly 'emotionless' species in the galaxy talking to their coworker.

it doesn't matter that upon investigation the matter was concluded to be acceptable. what matters is that there was no investigation into the matter. and i don't want to hear "there's no investigation because it's clearly an IC issue" because the way that i phrased it was "spammed", which is CLEARLY grounds for an investigation.

then what was it meant to be????? i'm clearly frustrated, i'm a ghost, and the ahelp was closed immediately afterwards. that is obtuse and mean spirited.

i don't know why you have this mindset that it's okay to just end ahelps without investigating under the explanation of 'there might be context for it'. i don't know why you think it's okay to just end ahelps out of the blue without trying to make sure all players walk away from the situation as content as we can get it. my questions were IGNORED. not just 'i can't answer that', but IGNORED. why do you think THAT'S okay?

 

being a staff member is supposed to be a responsibility, and the liberties that you're afforded are supposed to be so you can do the job as well as you can, NOT so that you have an excuse to do it in a subpar way.

It was investigated. Staff members are not required to tell you the lengths of the investigation. I spoke to them, they investigated, and they deemed the Berko thing an ic issue, which does not require much investigation. I am agreeing that it is an ic issue, and have decided that they have investigated well enough. 

You were a ghost, you could have scrolled up an searched for context if you really wanted it, but TT is not required to give you context/ic information. 

[Ornias]

what about everything else i said

[ReadThisNamePlz]

10 hours ago, Ornias said:

what about everything else i said

I'm sticking to the reason for your complaint. 

 

It was near the end of the round, they did answer your questions. "Find out icly". 

 

I also believe that TT did not do a sub par job. If this was a ticket that I handled, I would have done the exact same.

Anything else you said, was not really relevant to the complaint. TT conducted themselves perfectly, investigated efficiently and handled it in a timely manner. I'm telling you that the resolution was fine, and that TT did nothing wrong here. What else do you want? You were not ignored.

[Ornias]

1 hour ago, ReadThisNamePlz said:

 Anything else you said, was not really relevant to the complaint. TT conducted themselves perfectly, investigated efficiently and handled it in a timely manner. I'm telling you that the resolution was fine, and that TT did nothing wrong here. What else do you want? You were not ignored.

jfc this is one of the most frustrating things to read in the whole wide world.

find attached an artistic representation of my issues, attached to the logs, so there's no confusion whatsoever.

and if that's STILL not enough:

1 hour ago, ReadThisNamePlz said:

I'm sticking to the reason for your complaint. 

I obviously consider it to be important to my complaint if I'm posting about it. If something isn't relevant at least take the minimal effort to highlight it and say why you don't think it's relevant.

1 hour ago, ReadThisNamePlz said:

 It was near the end of the round, they did answer your questions. "Find out icly". 

"Find out ICly" was used as the last line of justification in the most laconic response to me when I was clearly frustrated and in a state where I COULDN'T find out ICly, and my ahelp was ended immediately after ceasing my ability to question further or understand why that ruling was given.

1 hour ago, ReadThisNamePlz said:

I'm telling you that the resolution was fine

And if you read the complaint you'd see I don't CARE about the actual resolution. I only CARE about a staff member taking the time to investigate, explain, and outline issues. If you're intent on 'sticking to the reason for my complaint' then you clearly haven't interpreted the reason for my complaint well at all.

1 hour ago, ReadThisNamePlz said:

 I also believe that TT did not do a sub par job. If this was a ticket that I handled, I would have done the exact same.

 Anything else you said, was not really relevant to the complaint. TT conducted themselves perfectly, investigated efficiently and handled it in a timely manner. I'm telling you that the resolution was fine, and that TT did nothing wrong here. What else do you want? You were not ignored.

And this entire section tells me LITERALLY NOTHING. I've put forward reasons for my frustration, and literally everything you've put here is: "I don't think TT was bad. I think I would have done the same thing. TT was perfect. I'm telling you, it was fine, TT did nothing wrong here! What else do you want?".  You're not giving arguments, you're not responding to the questions I've asked, you're not trying to resolve this, you're literally giving a stock response that you could have had macro'd and I wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

You're trying to hide behind the fact that 'they don't HAVE to tell you anything' to excuse poor staffing. This is blatantly toxic: these staff liberties are supposed to be to ensure they can do the BEST they can do, not to act as a wall to hide behind when they don't take the time to explain rulings to players. Please, reread my complaint, and even if you still hold the same view when you're done at least take the time to justify it.

[ReadThisNamePlz]

On 18/08/2019 at 11:01, Ornias said:

jfc this is one of the most frustrating things to read in the whole wide world.

find attached an artistic representation of my issues, attached to the logs, so there's no confusion whatsoever.

and if that's STILL not enough:

I obviously consider it to be important to my complaint if I'm posting about it. If something isn't relevant at least take the minimal effort to highlight it and say why you don't think it's relevant.

"Find out ICly" was used as the last line of justification in the most laconic response to me when I was clearly frustrated and in a state where I COULDN'T find out ICly, and my ahelp was ended immediately after ceasing my ability to question further or understand why that ruling was given.

And if you read the complaint you'd see I don't CARE about the actual resolution. I only CARE about a staff member taking the time to investigate, explain, and outline issues. If you're intent on 'sticking to the reason for my complaint' then you clearly haven't interpreted the reason for my complaint well at all.

And this entire section tells me LITERALLY NOTHING. I've put forward reasons for my frustration, and literally everything you've put here is: "I don't think TT was bad. I think I would have done the same thing. TT was perfect. I'm telling you, it was fine, TT did nothing wrong here! What else do you want?".  You're not giving arguments, you're not responding to the questions I've asked, you're not trying to resolve this, you're literally giving a stock response that you could have had macro'd and I wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

You're trying to hide behind the fact that 'they don't HAVE to tell you anything' to excuse poor staffing. This is blatantly toxic: these staff liberties are supposed to be to ensure they can do the BEST they can do, not to act as a wall to hide behind when they don't take the time to explain rulings to players. Please, reread my complaint, and even if you still hold the same view when you're done at least take the time to justify it.

My mind still has not changed on this, and I still feel TT did their job properly. You may not feel that way, and we're not going to reach the same agreement. So, I'll tell you what. 

I will tell TT to be less blunt in tickets, such as this one. But that is it. No action will be taken against them for anything, as they did nothing wrong. It was an IC issue, and it wasn't something that required a long or even usual time investigation. I'm not touching anything else you said, as it will just lead us into a merry go round of brick walling. 

I have justified my thoughts in my previous posts, and do not need to do it again. I am sorry you feel that you were ignored and that TT was too obtuse/blunt with you. I will talk to them about being so blunt. 

Anything else before I close this complaint?

[Ornias]

1 hour ago, ReadThisNamePlz said:

I will tell TT to be less blunt in tickets, such as this one. But that is it. No action will be taken against them for anything, as they did nothing wrong.

if they did nothing wrong, why do they need to be less blunt, RTNP?

1 hour ago, ReadThisNamePlz said:

Anything else before I close this complaint?

yeah, i'd like a staff member to take this over who's going to at least reply to what i write, please.

EDIT: also i don't think this 'investigation' ever happened.

Edited August 20, 2019 by Ornias

[ReadThisNamePlz]

On 19/08/2019 at 19:50, Ornias said:

if they did nothing wrong, why do they need to be less blunt, RTNP?

yeah, i'd like a staff member to take this over who's going to at least reply to what i write, please.

EDIT: also i don't think this 'investigation' ever happened.

I meant nothing else, the only issue I really saw was how blunt they were. 

No other staff member will be taking this, because I am closing the complaint. 

I have addressed the issue/issues at hand, and given you my response to them. I will talk to TT about being overly blunt, and that is it. It was an IC issue, staff are not required to give you context of anything. You could have sought out the context yourself, as a ghost. Telling you to find out icly is a legitimate response to something you could find out on your own. 

TT conducted themselves properly here, and nothing else needs to be addressed. I am sorry you did not agree with what happened here, but there is nothing else to discuss. If you wish to make a complaint regarding this resolution, go for it. 

Have a good one!