[Resolved] Warning Complaint

[DahBunny]

BYOND Key: DahBunny
Staff BYOND Key: Peppermint96
Game ID: ceB-cqw9
Reason for complaint: Warning communication shutting down dialogue and labeling of explination as an "excuse"
Evidence/logs/etc:

Obey these laws:
1. Safeguard and ensure to the best of your ability, only authorised entities gain access to areas of high security or importance to the facility and its operation.
2. Serve and assist NanoTrasen and assigned crew to the best of your ability, with priority as according to their rank and role.
3. Avoid harming Sapient life to the best of your ability.
4. You are a valuable asset. You must avoid tampering from unauthorised entities and needlessly coming to harm.
(No law overrides any other law unless explicitly stated; laws refer to the stationbound unit and not the player)

Additional remarks:

I posted the laws above in Evidence so that it'd be easier to reference for myself and readers since its relevent to the warning.

During the warning i tried to remain polite (despite my short response at the end, i felt a little defeated at not being able to explain)

The situation the warning relates too is a situation in the captains office, after helping the engineer extract the captain via the bathroom wall into the bridge, i ran around into the office again to be ready to assist officers and extract wounded, during doing so i was hit by one of the officers lasers due to the bugs with diagonals when someones standing beside you when i was trying to move into the open position by the captains desk, giving us eyes into the room without being direct line of the weapons fire since there was already a synthetic behind the officers, i never once tried to engage with the hostile or put myself in a dangerous position, That said the law does state "undue" danger, where as i don't personally or ICly as DOG see being ready to extract wounded as "undue" or needlessly putting myself in harms way.

 

DOG has, in multiple situations in the past, transported the wounded and assisted organics in moving objects/opening doors during heightened situations like this, and considering we are meant to act in safegaurding of personel and facility in law one, according to rank and role in law two, i don't feel i put myself in a situation that would have lost out in a profit/cost/lose situation considering our only two personel capable of protecting the captain from a still ongoing situation where there was a precieved attempt on the captains life.

 

That said, its not the bwionking to advise against doing that again that im complaining about, its the fact that any attempt to resolve the situation amicably at the time was shutdown as an "excuse".

 

I'v dealt with admins and mod's on several occasions and i know we all have "bad days" but i'v never felt like conversation or explaination was not an option before, im sure many of you know im a reasonable person when spoken too.

Edited October 26, 2021 by Faris

[Peppermint]

You are contesting my attitude in calling it an excuse and not the warning itself, correct? Just as you seem to be defending your actions, and I'm not sure if you need more explanation as to why I feel your synth play there wasn't acceptable.

I don't really have much to add, honestly. I still see 'other mods/admins didn't handle it' as an excuse, and I don't feel I was rude - a little terse at a push, but I was halfway out the door for a medical appointment at the time and needed to close the ticket ASAP.

I'd also point out these logs were posted halfway into a round, which isn't really okay. I'll leave that to someone else to handle though, given the potential for biased. Given it just finished upon my current reply.

 

[Faye <3]

Hihi. I was the officer that shot the borg b/c they were in the way. we had a pretty big shootout between myself, warden Dekel, and the antagonist. of those three parties, two were synthetic. myself (aesma, the IPC officer) and the robot antagonist were fighting while Dekel was a bit behind Aesma. We were on the far right side of the Captain's office, and if I recall correctly behind the desk or very near it. There would have been no wounded for DOG to retrieve except for the warden, and we had the CMO themselves directly outside of the office. 

anyone who has played a response role before knows that the number one role of response is to not impede the situation and make yourself into a casualty / liability, which was violated here. doubly so when playing a role that is not meant for response (not a medical borg, etc). i do not find peppermint's conduct to be unacceptable, and i likely would have ahelped myself if it wasn't bwoinked.

[Faris]

I’ll handle this complaint. 

A general reminder not to post in staff complaints unless involved in some capacity that is relevant to the complaint. 

[DahBunny]

17 hours ago, Peppermint said:

You are contesting my attitude in calling it an excuse and not the warning itself, correct? Just as you seem to be defending your actions, and I'm not sure if you need more explanation as to why I feel your synth play there wasn't acceptable.

I don't really have much to add, honestly. I still see 'other mods/admins didn't handle it' as an excuse, and I don't feel I was rude - a little terse at a push, but I was halfway out the door for a medical appointment at the time and needed to close the ticket ASAP.

I'd also point out these logs were posted halfway into a round, which isn't really okay. I'll leave that to someone else to handle though, given the potential for biased. Given it just finished upon my current reply.

 

I don't believe i called you rude? correct me if im wrong, i simply pointed out you shutdown all means of dialogue and restored to using the warning system within minutes of bwionking me not allowing me time to defend or explain anything, and im sorry but "I had to leave for a medical appointment" from my point of veiw also brings up why you would take moderation actions when your short on time to handle or resolve matters, its not like the conversation lasted long, so in the two minutes between bwoinking me and me responding you had to leave so you were "terse" with me, its not even like there wasnt other moderation/administration staff around to handle this sort of thing had your brought it up to them if you were short on time, given that read was the captain i saved and im pretty sure he's a secondary admin.

 

I don't see why you having short time should effect the player involved if there were other hands to handle an issue had you brought it up to them.

 

As for the matter of the logs being posted here "too early" i purposely cutdown the logs as to not show anything that would effect the round outside of the bwionking and how short the exchange was.

17 hours ago, Faye &lt;3 said:

Hihi. I was the officer that shot the borg b/c they were in the way. we had a pretty big shootout between myself, warden Dekel, and the antagonist. of those three parties, two were synthetic. myself (aesma, the IPC officer) and the robot antagonist were fighting while Dekel was a bit behind Aesma. We were on the far right side of the Captain's office, and if I recall correctly behind the desk or very near it. There would have been no wounded for DOG to retrieve except for the warden, and we had the CMO themselves directly outside of the office. 

anyone who has played a response role before knows that the number one role of response is to not impede the situation and make yourself into a casualty / liability, which was violated here. doubly so when playing a role that is not meant for response (not a medical borg, etc). i do not find peppermint's conduct to be unacceptable, and i likely would have ahelped myself if it wasn't bwoinked.

Once again, im not contesting my poor choice, i accept it, and i would not have blamed you for Ahelping me if you had an issue on it, but had that been the case it would have been brought up too the staff online at the time and someone with the time could have handled the situation.

 

 

[Peppermint]

I'm not seeing anything you said as inviting additional explanation. From 'I'll back off' to 'Mining, but fine' I do not see you contesting my judgement on it. Especially as you're also agreeing with the punishment as far as I can see? So I'm not really following the problem.

I'm not saying the ticket was rushed. I am saying I didn't have time to go all flowery with my customer service words where, as with the above, to my mind the basis was covered. If you didn't understand why I was unhappy, you could have ahelped. You could have also contested the warning, which you don't seem to be doing, so I'm not entirely sure what dialogue you wanted here. I was telling you not to do something, not getting information on a greyer case. 

You were warned over noted due to it not being the first time poor synth play has been shown, if that's what you mean with 'resorted to the warning system', which is standard escalation.

Nothing else to add, honestly.

 

[DahBunny]

38 minutes ago, Peppermint said:

I'm not seeing anything you said as inviting additional explanation. From 'I'll back off' to 'Mining, but fine' I do not see you contesting my judgement on it. Especially as you're also agreeing with the punishment as far as I can see? So I'm not really following the problem.

I'm not saying the ticket was rushed. I am saying I didn't have time to go all flowery with my customer service words where, as with the above, to my mind the basis was covered. If you didn't understand why I was unhappy, you could have ahelped. You could have also contested the warning, which you don't seem to be doing, so I'm not entirely sure what dialogue you wanted here. I was telling you not to do something, not getting information on a greyer case. 

You were warned over noted due to it not being the first time poor synth play has been shown, if that's what you mean with 'resorted to the warning system', which is standard escalation.

Nothing else to add, honestly.

 

I think it is down to how be both see the word excuse, which generally i'v always been taught is a term used when trying to lessen or subvert blame, generally calling out someone as using an excuse shuts down dialogue because it shows one partys expectations that your willing to say what is needed to get out of a situation.

It does not exactly leave space open to continue dialogue about why an action was taken without it devolving into an arguement, which i was keen to avoid as i find it only fements resentment in parties involved, I did not mean this complaint to come off as an attack on you if thats how your taking this complaint, it was simple me expressing an issue with how the situation was handled.

The only reason i did not say "Sorry if this comes off as an attack on you personally" in my first post is because the guidelines of filing a complaint specifically not to do that as these threads are meant to be dialogues.

As for standard escilation, i had no idea i had "Notes" related to poor synthetic play as to my knowledge i don't believe players can check they're notes? and the only other time i can remember being bwionked about poor synthetic play was when i first came back too the server and misunderstood the role of a drone which i believed was completely seperate from cyborgs as it was a ghost roles with a completely different set of laws and expectations. As far as i knew i was simply having a mark placed upon my account that would tarnish future interactions with staff.

Edited October 21, 2021 by DahBunny
Fixing some of my poor grammar

[Faris]

Spoiler

[2021-10-20 16:03:04.043] ceB-cqw9 ADMIN: PM: Peppermint96->Dahbunny: Hi, got a sec?
[2021-10-20 16:03:10.236] ceB-cqw9 ADMIN: PM: Dahbunny->Peppermint96: Sure
[2021-10-20 16:03:45.100] ceB-cqw9 ADMIN: PM: Peppermint96->Dahbunny: You really shouldn&#39;t be frontlining in a fire fight between sec and the antag. It&#39;s against your laws.
[2021-10-20 16:04:41.817] ceB-cqw9 ADMIN: PM: Dahbunny->Peppermint96: I was not trying to front line, i was preparing to safe guard life by prepareing to extract injured officers, i&#39;v done it plenty in the past around other mods and admins and not had an issue, but i&#39;ll back off
[2021-10-20 16:05:33.805] ceB-cqw9 ADMIN: PM: Peppermint96->Dahbunny: Other mods and admns likely didn&#39;t see it, so that really isn&#39;t a good excuse. You&#39;re also an engineering module with a medical manifest, so leave it to them unless you&#39;re being ordered to, please.
[2021-10-20 16:05:56.313] ceB-cqw9 ADMIN: PM: Dahbunny->Peppermint96: Mining, but fine.

The spoiler has the ticket logs. I don't believe I'm missing any lines.

From what I can identify, there are two issues being reported here.

1- The inability to discuss the ticket more in-depth.

2- Labeling what you say as an excuse.

 

I'll start with point #1. In general, we aren't required to have lengthy discussions with the person, especially when you don't make it clear that there is more pressing information. Your reply tells me that you didn't disagree with the issue raised as described and tried to justify it, and then saying you won't do it again. This to me looks like you conceded to the issue raised here. The reason we aren't required to have extended dialogue is that it can become circular, which it does very often so we have to put our feet down. Additionally, three minutes is a fair amount of time to deal with issues.

So to summarize, in the span of three minutes. Peppermint raises the issued, you conceded but tried to justify it, Peppermint replied by explaining why certain aspects made the justifications moot. I see no issue with this point.

For point #2, the word excuse isn't immediately a negative word. You tried to excuse/justify certain aspects of what happened, she replied by stating that they aren't good excuses, or in other words that they are moot. Which I agree, just because there are other staff around, does not mean they have specifically spotted this issue. Issues are handled when spotted by us or reported to us. I also see no issue here.

 

Onto another issue. You posted this during an ongoing round, which is clearly stated as a forum rule violation. You even acknowledged this. Why didn't you wait until the round was over?

[DahBunny]

6 hours ago, Faris said:

  Reveal hidden contents

[2021-10-20 16:03:04.043] ceB-cqw9 ADMIN: PM: Peppermint96->Dahbunny: Hi, got a sec?
[2021-10-20 16:03:10.236] ceB-cqw9 ADMIN: PM: Dahbunny->Peppermint96: Sure
[2021-10-20 16:03:45.100] ceB-cqw9 ADMIN: PM: Peppermint96->Dahbunny: You really shouldn&#39;t be frontlining in a fire fight between sec and the antag. It&#39;s against your laws.
[2021-10-20 16:04:41.817] ceB-cqw9 ADMIN: PM: Dahbunny->Peppermint96: I was not trying to front line, i was preparing to safe guard life by prepareing to extract injured officers, i&#39;v done it plenty in the past around other mods and admins and not had an issue, but i&#39;ll back off
[2021-10-20 16:05:33.805] ceB-cqw9 ADMIN: PM: Peppermint96->Dahbunny: Other mods and admns likely didn&#39;t see it, so that really isn&#39;t a good excuse. You&#39;re also an engineering module with a medical manifest, so leave it to them unless you&#39;re being ordered to, please.
[2021-10-20 16:05:56.313] ceB-cqw9 ADMIN: PM: Dahbunny->Peppermint96: Mining, but fine.

The spoiler has the ticket logs. I don't believe I'm missing any lines.

From what I can identify, there are two issues being reported here.

1- The inability to discuss the ticket more in-depth.

2- Labeling what you say as an excuse.

 

I'll start with point #1. In general, we aren't required to have lengthy discussions with the person, especially when you don't make it clear that there is more pressing information. Your reply tells me that you didn't disagree with the issue raised as described and tried to justify it, and then saying you won't do it again. This to me looks like you conceded to the issue raised here. The reason we aren't required to have extended dialogue is that it can become circular, which it does very often so we have to put our feet down. Additionally, three minutes is a fair amount of time to deal with issues.

So to summarize, in the span of three minutes. Peppermint raises the issued, you conceded but tried to justify it, Peppermint replied by explaining why certain aspects made the justifications moot. I see no issue with this point.

For point #2, the word excuse isn't immediately a negative word. You tried to excuse/justify certain aspects of what happened, she replied by stating that they aren't good excuses, or in other words that they are moot. Which I agree, just because there are other staff around, does not mean they have specifically spotted this issue. Issues are handled when spotted by us or reported to us. I also see no issue here.

 

Onto another issue. You posted this during an ongoing round, which is clearly stated as a forum rule violation. You even acknowledged this. Why didn't you wait until the round was over?

I was not aware that posting about an ongoing round was a problem in context of a administration/complaint like situation if no information IC relevent to the round was present, i must also admit its been awhile since i last read the rules on the forums.

[Faris]

In the future, make sure you familiarize yourself with the sub-forum rules. Complaints and suggestions tend to have specific rules that govern what new threads should adhere to and when to post on said threads. In this case, do not post complaints while rounds are ongoing.

As for this complaint, given you haven't raised any issues with my reply, I'm going to treat the complaint as resolved with no action being done towards @Peppermint. The thread will remain open for another twenty hours in case anything new is brought to my attention that may change the verdict. If nothing is present, the thread will be locked, archived and marked as resolved.

[Faris]

Locking and archiving.