Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
UnknownMurder

UnknownMurder v. Lancer

Recommended Posts

BYOND Key: UnknownMurder

Staff BYOND Key: Lancer#7243

Game ID: N/A

Reason for complaint: Once I engaged Lancer in a serious but yet simple conversation.  All I wanted to hear his explanation backing up the decision. Someone irrelevant to the situation decided to step in and speak for the person. Lancer then could not answer his question for his ruling and let someone else answer the question. Once someone else answered the question, Lancer decided to post this to my face and thought I was someone not worth explaining to or hearing out his rationale reason. This is uncalled for and unprofessional to respond to a simple question to a recent made policy.

Evidence/logs/etc:

image.thumb.png.30e5e8f599f6f428a1ff356f999bc674.png

image.thumb.png.c36d858864e8c5e5ac9dc42a39b47d3c.png

image.png.3bde41be6a090433965b0dbd21c6c6b9.png

 

Additional remarks: I wouldn't show up out of nowhere while in middle of college and ask Lancer this question. 

Share this post


Link to post

fat giorno was the response to you telling me that people want you as head CCIA instead of me. As for your question, I tell you clearly that paradox was right at what he said, meaning that I had nothing else to add to him saying that the workload is already great, and we don't need to interview a bajillion witnesses. I perceived your tone as overall hostile, coming out of nowhere and attacking me for making a change, and that's why I replied with "what's it to you?"

proof2.png

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah i dunno man the whole "i have people complaining to me telling me i should have been head CCIA" comes off as really hostile. If someone mentions me out of the blue with something like that i would probably tell you to sod off. It seems to me that paradox answered your question and lancer concurred with it. 

Share this post


Link to post

Contact me privately if you would like to know @Garnascus, I just spit the facts out straight when asked for it. I have a player that is willingly to voice to you privately about Lancer's conduct (who just DM'd me in discord when I made this complaint). I'm relaying evidence and persons interested to @Alberyk atm through Discord.

18 minutes ago, The lancer said:

As for your question, I tell you clearly that paradox was right at what he said, meaning that I had nothing else to add to him saying that the workload is already great, and we don't need to interview a bajillion witnesses.

And you said as I quote "uh" and allowed someone to explain your ruling and pulled off "yeah, what he said". This tells me that you could not explain your argument or answer questions (or because it's morning and you're not in the right mentality if you live in U.S. then I wouldn't have made this staff complaint).

18 minutes ago, The lancer said:

I perceived your tone as overall hostile, coming out of nowhere and attacking me for making a change, and that's why I replied with "what's it to you?"

I'll swallow this one. Maybe I should have been more kinder but I wanted to get to the point rather going through obstacles ("how are you" "oh im good how about you" "good too, so uh what's this about your ruling"). Just give the facts that should have been explained in the announcement whether obvious or not. But in this case, Paradox and Lance became snarky while called to duty, of course, I responded by being snarky back. Treat others as they would treat you.

Edited by UnknownMurder

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, UnknownMurder said:

Paradox and Lance became snarky while called to duty, of course, I responded by being snarky back. Treat others as they would treat you.

Dude the way i see you where snarky first...

"I have people telling me i should have been head ccia"

We're not always slaves to answering questions promptly and immediately when mentioned on discord. "uh" is literally the most neutral and non-snarky thing he could have said. This is after he corrected you by saying he did not limit it to three witnesses. Does this even matter? You got your question answered. 

Share this post


Link to post

Should anyone have grievances on how things are run, or my conduct for that matter, they are more than welcome to post them in a staff complaint. Also garn, the "I should be head ccia" came after he asked the witnesses question. I don't really think we were snarky though, paradox explained and I told UM that paradox was right.

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah thats what i mean.

1. UM asked a question.

2. lancer corrected him

3. UM made the head CCIA comment

4 Lancer posted fat giorno in regards to said comment. 

I just do not see the issue. 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Delete this if peanut gallery, but.
Yes, all I said was that 
1) It's to make IRs go faster, which they desperately need to.
2) It's extremely impolite to name someone to air your 'grievances' without actually coming forth and saying anything about them, if they're so egregious that Lancer needs to be replaced by a retired staff member.
It would've been preferable for you to state your actual issues with it first, instead of 'my friends say you've been doing badly, why are you decreasing CCIA workload?'

Share this post


Link to post

I dont know the history of you and Lancer and I honestly don't care but I can show you easily why this rule was set in motion and put in place. It is because people post these kinds of IR:

They list 15 people to interview here. Fifteen. Not even including the counter-IR that was also posted, that lists the same people again and thus, was merged. That's probably half the server that apparently have witnessed something. This is an ridiculous amount of workload. This is over 7.5 hours of pure interviewing, without counting in the time you need to schedule things (credit for the maths go to NerdyVampire). That's honestly unreasonable and so a way was brought up to limit the amount of witnesses that can be brought up. Interviewing 10 people who all say the same is a waste of time. (This is not to badmouth the IR above, but it is a prime example.). Lancer did not put this rule into place alone, he asked and most, if not all that were present agreed.

So I have to agree with Lancer.

Edited by KingOfThePing

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Garnascus said:

Dude the way i see you where snarky first...

"I have people telling me i should have been head ccia"

We're not always slaves to answering questions promptly and immediately when mentioned on discord. "uh" is literally the most neutral and non-snarky thing he could have said. This is after he corrected you by saying he did not limit it to three witnesses. Does this even matter? You got your question answered. 

He asked me "what's it to you" I responded with a fact. This staff complaint still matters to me. 

 

The order goes by. 

1. I asked a question.

2. Lancer "corrects" me.

3. I reworded my question.

4. Someone tries to answer in Lance's place but I want to hear from Lancer. 

5. Lancer does the snarky "What's it to you?" 

6. I straight up and say that people are coming to complain to me

7. Lancer does meme photo and tells me that's his response

8. Someone irrelevant to his ruling tries to explain his response and Lancer does "yeah, what he said".

9. Salt pours and "GAMER RIGHTS!"

If I had to say from my perspective, Lancer started being snarky first. 

Share this post


Link to post

You asked

I corrected

You "reworded your question" by asking a different thing: "why are you decreasing CCIA workload"

Paradox explains

I tell you that paradox explanation is valid

I ask you "what's it to you?" if we reduce unnecessary ccia workload, because if someone not on the team asks "why are you doing less work", how do you expect me to take it? We are not paid, we have lives, it's tedious. So yes, I will reply with a snark remark. Because you are not even on the team you are demanding its workload stay the same.

You respond with "people think I should be head CCIA"

fat giorno

Share this post


Link to post

So, i am sorry but i do not feel lancer's conduct is actionable. Even if i am willing to accept this is "snark" it is far below the level of snark i believe is acceptable for staff here. 

Share this post


Link to post

You may close this staff complaint. Irreparable damages have been done. I'll be sure to tell people that I can't help them anymore and will find someone else to express concerns. They'll have to take matters in their own hands and make a new staff complaint should they feel ridiculed rather coming to speak to me and hope my voice means something when it does not anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...