Zombie Event Staff Complaint

[SatinsPristOTD]

BYOND Key: SatinsPrist666
Staff BYOND Key: Yonnimer, ReadThisNamePlease Cyname
Game ID: b3W-dBkj zombie event round. VOTES HAPPENED THE ROUND BEFORE.
Reason for complaint: (State your reason for your complaint)
Well, Read and Yonni wanted to do a zombie event. They made a vote, and the answer to the vote was no. They then start saying in OOC how the mechanics have changed, and how people need to vote with the correct information. Essentially, it got hyped up in OOC. A new vote was made, and the answer was yes.

The problem is, several people had stepped away to do other things while they waited for the round to end. People logged off. People logged on. The vote was swayed due to OOC hype. This felt like admins were making votes and talking until the vote result would be what they wanted it to be.

It was a shoddy display at letting the community have a say so in whether an event occurred, and it's left a few people with a sour taste in their mouths towards the staff that were involved. Why let us vote if you're just going to vote sway and then revote again?

Evidence/logs/etc:
Additional remarks:
Cyname was the one that did the re-vote.

[ReadThisNamePlz]

I didn't make the new vote, I simply made the mechanics change known. 

I joked about making a new vote, but ultimately did not. I am not sure why I am in this. 

Edited October 28, 2019 by ReadThisNamePlz

[SatinsPristOTD]

Just now, ReadThisNamePlz said:

I didn't make the new vote, I simply made the mechanics change known. 

I joked about making a new vote, but ultimately did not. I am not sure why I am in this. 

Because you were one of the admins HYPING up the next vote, whether you realize or not. I've stated who made the second vote. You're a part of this.

[ReadThisNamePlz]

Just now, SatinsPristOTD said:

Because you were one of the admins HYPING up the next vote, whether you realize or not. I've stated who made the second vote. You're a part of this.

No, not really, but, okay. 

If you haven't noticed yet, I am a very vocal person in OOC, about literally anything. "Hyping" it up, was not something I did. Atleast, it was not my intention. Regardless, I have nothing else to say here.

[Cnaym]

14 minutes ago, SatinsPristOTD said:

Cyname was the one that did the re-vote.

I only want to correct the spelling of my name in that statement. Yeah, was me that did the vote. Staff will take a look at the events that lead up to it and decide whether it was okay or not.

18 minutes ago, SatinsPristOTD said:

They then start saying in OOC how the mechanics have changed, and how people need to vote with the correct information.

That happened. Yes. I let folks revote with the new information. It was a pretty clear yes this time, that would not have been changed by just a couple of people. If I've seen it right it ended 26-11, just leaving this here for the fact checkers and the Admin who'll take this complaint.

[Yonnimer]

Hi. I just want to say what exactly happend here.

I started a vote, it got out about 23-21(Might've been a bit different, it was close)

The vote was a no of course. During the vote I made a comment about alienzombies being added, and that this would probably have been the first one since then.

A few staff and players suggested a revote because of this.

Staff went back and forth on if we should, eventually we said we would, and cnaym did the vote. I was planning to do it myself but cnaym did it before I could say I would.

The vote was something like 28-11(again, not 100%. It was a noticeable difference). The 28 was for a yes, so the vote was a yes this time.

The vote was run since players were suggesting and saying they did not know the new additions to zombies happend. Fellow staff said they believe this as well, and to run another vote since people were aware now. 

Sorry for any grammar mistakes, i'll come back and fix it post-round.

Edited October 28, 2019 by Yonnimer
forgot to include this line.

[ReadThisNamePlz]

I actually need to rewrite what I put, so it doesn't seem like I jusst threw my colleagues under the bus.

I did hype the vote up, in hindsight. Although unintentionally at the time, I see how it could have been perceived as Hype.

I however, did not really mean I was going to make a second vote. I was completely okay with it, though. 
I did call for one. Though when I did, I was trying to be joking with it, though I did not have an issue with the idea, at all. 

I was okay with the idea because of the fact that most players were not aware of the changes, and a few wanted a revote.

Edited October 28, 2019 by ReadThisNamePlz

[BurgerBB]

I don't think that's how it went down, accurately.

A vote for zombies was called around the crew transfer shuttle. I made my case saying that zombies were excessively laggy during highpop and their balance was questionable. Players agreed, while staff kept saying things like "HOW COULD YOU NOT SAY YES TO ZOMBIES?", complained that zombie events were rare and that it was halloween, and were ultimately disappointed when people don't vote no.

After the round ended, there was another vote by another admin. Some players were confused as hell because there was already a vote. Noticeably less people voted since it was round end, but the result this time was "Yes" with ~60% of the players voting yes. The admins, during the vote, cited that the players were just simply misinformed and that the gamemode actually had new features. That statement probably would've gotten a "half true" rating on PolitiFact as the only feature that was added is that now all species can get infected. The lag issue or the balance issues weren't touched and people's mains concerns weren't addressed, but of course it was enough for people to vote yes.

Yonnimer then told people that if they don't like zombies, then they should just not play.

This seems kind of malicious; doing a vote twice because you didn't like the previous outcome even if you think players are "misinformed". Like imagine if an admin cancelled the crew transfer shuttle because people were misinformed about the round's progression and then just held another vote. I don't really see the difference here. It 100% feels like they expected people to vote zombies, but when people voted no, they were surprised but just held another vote and started vote swaying the fuck out of everyone this time.

[Resilynn]

Two things.  One, this event was in no way mechanically different from zombies except for that people could play xeno zombies.  If they wanted to be a zombie before, they could have just spawned human.  So, you hyped it up even though there really was no change to the game mode.

Two, it is absolutely unacceptable to spam votes to get your way.  And that's what happened, that's why yonni took to ooc to go UNLESS ANOTHER ADMIN DOES IT.... so many times.  I don't care if someone else did it, you called for them to do it and the vote was no.  You said yourself you explained it was a 'different zombies' (it wasn't) during the first vote.  You even argued on the point in OOC.

Do not take a vote in the first place if players do not have a choice.  And no, saying 'if another admin votes though...' over and over again does not count as giving people a choice.  For once, I completely echo burger's concerns about yonni's conduct.  "If you don't like the game mode just don't play" is a shitty thing to tell people whose votes you just ignored, who you baited into voting.

I PERSONALLY was not there to vote the second time because we had already voted, I considered that that, and went to start making dinner because we were between two rounds.  I came back to see another vote happened while I was away and yonni, quite frankly, being absolutely rude in OOC.  I'm shocked, I did not realize he was like this, personally.

[SatinsPristOTD]

KingOfThePing: second vote was 26 -17

I don't know where 28-11 comes from, but that's quite a different amount. 9vs17 is a MASSIVELY LARGE DIFFERENCE in the numbers you are putting out here, Yonni.

[SatinsPristOTD]

Also, I'd also like to put out here the "Well, /I/ didn't make the revote" "Oh well /I/ didn't make the revote" doesn't honestly... benefit anyones case. We're aware of who made the re-vote, but every name mentioned here was a part of this ordeal by either hyping up a zombie change (and I swear to God, if the only change is the species.. that's really messed up..)

or by making the revote to get your way.

[KingOfThePing]

I am sure the numbers can be looked up somewhere. I am almost sure the second vote was either 26 - 17 or 27 - 16, something like that. But don't pin me down on that. I may not be overly salty about how this turned but I also find it questionable what happened. Why make a vote in the first place, if you just vote again until you get the desired outcome. Just say "Zombies now, take or leave", it's not like anyone could stop you anyway. Zombies just has the same premise as Xenos, they were removed - Zombies remain for some reason.

[Garnascus]

Hello

So to start off i want to state some initial observations i have. 

1. Its not against the rules to vote-sway

2. It is in theory reasonable to premise a second vote if the old one was predicated on wrong or incorrect information

As an example lets say we have a vote on if we have apples or oranges for lunch. The vote passes 29-11 in favor of oranges. However after checking our stores we find out that we are all out of oranges and instead have only avocados. It is reasonable in this instance to start a second vote on having avocado's or apples for lunch. Given this line of logic I am afraid i do not find myself agreeing that this was a reasonable situation in which to call a second vote. We do not have this written down anywhere but here are the following vague rules as far as doing events goes. These rules are explicitly stated to every administrator upon their promotion.

1. Call a custom vote the round prior briefly describing the event. If it passes you're good to go.

2. You are STRONGLY ENCOURAGED to take into account the will of the people. 

Number 2 requires a little bit of explanation. Lets say i want to an insanely chaotic and combat oriented event. The event barely passes at something like 12-11. Let us also say that there are about 56 people online. We can gather two important pieces of information from this. One in that the vote was VERY CLOSE and that the majority of people did not vote. While it is not a hard line rule to not do the event most experienced administrators would say the wise thing to do would be to not do the event. I would agree. 

I feel that the presence of a second vote here did not reasonably fulfill the conditions required for a second vote and that they undermined the premise upon which we call votes to begin with. Going forward i am going to have to ask our administrators that they call one vote and only one vote. Am i missing anything or does this resolution address this complaint?

[Resilynn]

That would resolve it on my end.

[SatinsPristOTD]

Happily resolved on my end. Thank you, Garn!

[Garnascus]

Cool beans. I will archive this in 24 hours. Ive done an everyone mentions on our admin channel so that they can all read this.