Jump to content

MattAtlas + command whitelist team

Recommended Posts

BYOND Key: Scheveningen
Staff BYOND Key: MattAtlas
Game ID: Not applicable.
Reason for complaint: Denying a command whitelist application for no appreciable reason besides "having been given too many chances already."


Additional remarks: I am making this thread in the interest of addressing the issue of the whitelist process in addition to a lack of transparency and honesty from the command whitelist team. Several months ago back in April when I first attempted to reapply, I was essentially told "no, it is too soon", so I respected that and have essentially behaved not only in accordance of the rules but in recognition that my outburst several months ago was wrong, and that I would strive to do better.

Now suddenly the whitelist team has otherwise changed their minds and has stated that I am out of additional chances, despite that is otherwise on record from another representative of the command whitelist team that I would have a chance if I otherwise behaved, which I have, as I have no outstanding player behavior incidents since prior to April.

I recognize the type of person I was back in 2015 and 2016, which is where my first whitelist strippings occurred, and I greatly regret having been that person everyday I am alive. But it is on record throughout the years I have otherwise done my best to be as good of a contributor to command play as possible, and several individuals if pressed would testify to my quality of command play. The idea that the most recent incident from months ago (which, while stupid of me, was fairly mild in comparison for what the usual direct command whitelist is intended for) is otherwise proof I have receded back into that person and that I can no longer be trusted with in-game authority feels unfair and like a very personal indictment against me, especially considering that I was told I had a chance to be re-whitelisted otherwise if I simply waited and measured how I interacted with others better. I feel very much twisted around and lied to by the command whitelist team for not initially being honest about my chances for whitelisting, and I actually want this explained as to what the deal is and why I was given false expectations.

Link to comment
Posted (edited)

I have no idea, the complaint is wholesale as it is, given my assumption that whatever MattAtlas posted as a closing response on my application was the result of some internal discussion. I understand it only takes one person to say "no", but this isn't exactly my problem, it's that I was either led on with false expectations for my chances of being whitelisted or there was a very sudden changing of people's minds without my knowing as to why that even is. My app being closed without any details is just as confusing that I was told months ago that I still had a chance to be whitelisted. And I doubt ShesTrying would've said what she said if she was the only person who thought the same at the time. I have little to go on besides speculation because I did not receive any communication as to what exactly was the issue this time around, unlike the prior time.

Edited by Scheveningen
Link to comment

We did in fact discuss your whitelist internally and we came to the conclusion that we have more evidence to think that you'd do the same thing that got you banned again than not. You can say you've improved, and while that may be true, it doesn't excuse the fact that not even five months ago your whitelist was removed for some very heated moments in LOOC and AOOC. And this tracks backwards, too: that wasn't a sole incident. Off your record, I can spot instances from March, August 2020 and June 2018 on your notes. That is not counting the following infractions you have for bad conduct on the forums: 20 March 2021, 19 January 2020, September 10 2019, September 6 2019, July 17 2019, February 10 2019. The list goes on, but you get the point. Those were all warnings regarding abusive behaviour on the forums. With all of this, I'm not keen to believe that you improved as much as you think you have. While it is possible that you go off less, you still do it a lot. And it's not like avoiding this is hard. I'm not holding you to some unreasonable standard here. And your most recent one was not a light infraction at all: it's pretty severe. That's just a lot of notes for the same thing over and over again.

So, I stand by what I said: I don't trust you with a whitelist, and I'm not the only one in the command whitelist team that doesn't.

16 hours ago, Scheveningen said:

or there was a very sudden changing of people's minds without my knowing as to why that even is.

You did not inquire about this, anywhere, that I'm aware of. Had you asked me for information I would've gladly given it. I keep it curt on whitelist applications because I don't intend to dump people's note history unless it's required by a complaint.


Edited by MattAtlas
Link to comment

So what was with my being told that I still had a chance, to "feel free to reapply later", and then the vote is immediately turned to "never"? That's absolutely inconsistent and unfair. I waited half a year having been given the expectation that because there were exactly 0 issues with my being a command player, there wouldn't be a problem re-whitelisted at all. Was that a lie too?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Scheveningen said:

So what was with my being told that I still had a chance

I agreed with denying your whitelist back then, but looking back, I don't see a discussion in the whitelist chat about you being able to apply eventually, so I don't know.

Link to comment

Heya. I handled the last app, and at the time thought that you reapplying wouldn’t be an issue given time and improved performance. However with the discussions in command chat I would not have accepted your current app either. 


As Matt stated above— you haven’t improved that much. 

Link to comment

So, can delta ever re-apply or not? I see on the web interface he has only lost a head whitelist once. I think if we want to bar players from attaining a head whitelist it should be internally consistent with our policy of appealing permanent bans. Which is to say "Not happening after the second permaban". 

Link to comment
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Create New...