Staff Complaint: Mattatlas & Persephoneq

[Filthyfrankster]

BYOND Key: Filthyfrankster
Staff BYOND Key: Mattatlas & Persephoneq
Game ID: N/A
Reason for complaint: Receiving a warning today by Faye (Persephoneq) during the start of a secret round for ordering two first aid kits as security, one red and one white. The white I planned to keep for myself and the red I going to split up with the rest of security due to the medical based PMC he joined. While I had no initial disagreements until the conversation had mentioned that the admin who gave me my previous warning had added some interesting notes that I should be banned upon the next security related infraction. At this point the warning from Mattatlas had long been expired and invalid, yet still being used against me. The previous note had been 6+ months ago and expired and even stated so on the warning sheet. But the way it was put by Faye rang similar to 'I would of merely given you a talk, but due to the last note stating you should be banned (Which had expired) and the PG security history. I am not banning you, but giving you another warning'. A warning and a teasing of it being a ban over medkits seemed way too intense.

Seeking out further information and requesting the full administrative side note from a member of staff. I was rather appalled by the 'hidden' note that was available for staff only to see. Something that damn well put me off and only furthers to cause a level of hostility between staff and player for words from an admin being this down right insulting behind their administrative notes section. Failing to inform players that they are 'on the edge' and concealing it around for anyone but the players to view is disturbing. This is not some childish gigglefest where you can mock players in notes they are unable to see without staff assistance. The last warning was issued six months ago and expired, practically rendering it as a lesson learned. Yet used as material to issue a near-ban warning under the pretext of 'This thick-headed idiot should be banned next security infraction'. 

The player-side warning sheet
                               

The administrative side note not usually available to player displaying the level of ignorance and hostility by Matt. Shocked by the fact if this was given to me earlier, I would of filed a compliant for bias and the hostility. 
Evidence/logs/etc: 

Additional remarks: N/A

 

 

Edited January 29, 2022 by Filthyfrankster

[Faye <3]

Hi. I handled the warning. Happy to give my two cents.

I will re-iterate what I said in the ticket. Ordering red medical kits on security is powergaming, and it infringes on medical's gameplay. This would usually result in a note. I checked your notes. Your notes show a considerable history of powergaming in security / ERT up to the latest security-related note / warning. It says to ban you if security-related powergaming occurs again. Given it was from six months ago, I consulted staff about a warning over a ban out of respect for it being a few months ago.

19 hours ago, Filthyfrankster said:

Failing to inform players that they are 'on the edge' and concealing it around for anyone but the players to view is disturbing

I think it is strange that you are suddenly contesting the warning, as yesterday you told me yourself that the warning was justified. 

 

 

 

Edited January 29, 2022 by Faye <3

[Filthyfrankster]

Hello Faye, I merely wish to reclarify after a night of sleep and clearing my head from the event yesterday.

I feel the contents of the warning unfairly set the tone for whatever future interactions I'd have with staff by painting me (In this event, the actions of Mattatlas on the previous hidden-admin warning note) as incompetent and unreasonable fool, and created a negative bias that wouldn't otherwise exist. Thus possibly leading to the harsher approach by moderator Faye in terms of the warning that transpired yesterday.

Faye was only included in the report after fully discovering the hidden note by Matt and believing that the judgement issued by her could of been different and if the outcome from Matt note is appealed, then the secondary warning could be then addressed. 

[MattAtlas]

The administrative side of the note isn't available to players, you are correct, because it's staff-only info on a player's conduct. Generally, in 99% of the notes we place that field is left empty. In some cases, like yours, administrators fill it to tell other admins about their experience or what the minimum punishment for another infraction should be. As for the contents of the note itself, if someone has a questionable attitude in ahelps or keeps missing the point (as was the case in our ticket) I note it down so that staff don't waste their time on conversations that aren't exactly fruitful. Since that was the feeling I got from my conversation with you, and I'm not going to go into particulars unless you specifically want me to, I put it down like that. I maintain that my judgement was correct. I also don't exactly moderate my thoughts in private conversations, because I have no reason to. That note is private, so it shouldn't have been shown to you anyway. Had I wrote down something along the lines of "This player completely missed the point of our conversation multiple times", the outcome would've been the same. Complaining about the contents of a private note would be the same thing as complaining about someone saying some nasty shit in discord DMs about someone else - that's not really our prerogative unless it's something extremely bad.

You had a lot of notes by that point and considering the contents of the ticket I could not justify you not being banned if another security related infraction happened, hence why I put that disclaimer there.

14 hours ago, Filthyfrankster said:

as incompetent and unreasonable fool, and created a negative bias that wouldn't otherwise exist.

You're wrong in saying that the negative bias "wouldn't otherwise exist". You should be banned if you do get warned, then do the same kind of thing again. That's how punishment escalation works. I place these notes to make sure that staff actually go through with the escalation.

14 hours ago, Filthyfrankster said:

Faye was only included in the report after fully discovering the hidden note by Matt and believing that the judgement issued by her could of been different and if the outcome from Matt note is appealed, then the secondary warning could be then addressed. 

Escalation would still have been the same after that warning. I in fact specifically told her to warn you instead of banning you because enough time had passed to think that you probably learnt your lesson and just had a minor fuck up, as things like that happen to everyone.

[Faris]

Taking this with @WickedCybs under the supervision of @Alberyk

[WickedCybs]

Me and Faris reviewed the relevant information. We don’t believe @MattAtlas and @Faye <3 were wrong in their judgements here. I’ll walk you through the why @Filthyfrankster.

To start this off, a clarification on escalation. This is something that is also visible on the rules page as it describes when a punishment is usually applicable. I'll post the temporary ban section here for ease of reference.

Quote

Temporary Ban: Temporary bans are handed out for situations where a single warning may not suffice, and will prevent you from playing the game on our server for a set amount of time (usually applied with lengths of 1, 3, and 7 days). All attempts to evade a temporary ban (e.g. by multikeying) will result in the ban being made permanent. 

So in essence, a warning can result in a temporary ban. This has always been the case.

Regarding Faye’s ticket and verdict. I did not see the harsh approach you spoke of. Faye did not seem to be aggressive nor did they speak out of turn. She followed the proper escalation and was just informing you, not teasing you. There’s zero mentions of a ban in the ticket as well. I’ll be posting the most pertinent details in the spoiler below.

Spoiler

This is the start of the exchange.

This is near the end.

So, I don’t see any real aggression on her part. It tells me this could have been a note, but you absolutely wouldn’t have gotten out of it with just a talk.

Onto the discord log…

This is how escalation works. You have notes and warnings over your security play. They continue to be a factor as they are very relevant when it comes to repeat occurrences. I don’t believe in harshly punishing someone for just slipping up as Matt said still, which is why you did not get banned. The time elapsed was acknowledged. You can DM myself or Faris to go further into the content of the ticket itself if you’d like.

On review of Matt’s ticket. You were quite confrontational whereas Matt was just trying to walk you through the reasoning. I do understand the additional remarks hurt to see but there’s no basis to throw out its relevance solely on that and as mentioned at the start of this post, warnings are something that stay considered otherwise It’d be easy enough to stop playing for a while and let the warning expire. I’ll be posting further details in the spoiler below.

Spoiler

This was a long ticket, so I’m sticking to what I consider the relevant parts. Please DM me or Faris if you have further questions or would like to go into the full log. The background to this ticket was that a techomancer sent out an announcement using the Captain’s ID. Security is armed up by the Research Director to meet the threat since they’re in the Captain’s office after all.

To start. You complained about the mode upon discovering it was techomancer and encouraged other people to cryo.

Quote

 

OOC: (LOCAL) Filthyfrankster : see, problem is

OOC: (LOCAL) Filthyfrankster : if only one of us cryos

OOC: (LOCAL) Filthyfrankster : that looks bad

OOC: (LOCAL) Filthyfrankster : we both cryo? no one can say shit

 

That’s not a proper use of LOOC. You were set on an aggressive track before Matt even spoke to you. Getting into the actual ticket now…

Quote

 

MattAtlas->Filthyfrankster: Pretty much it would've been all great if you'd only used carbines there instead of jumping straight to laser rifles, is all.

Filthyfrankster->MattAtlas: Right. I believe I see your point, but I&#39;d rather go in with what force I can instead of half-assing it and one of us getting killed. But in the future, I&#39;ll take this advice and slowly go up the spectrum them. If I avoid a note.

 

Here you aren’t so much as acknowledging what he’s saying, just conceding while saying you don’t understand what the issue actually is so you can avoid the note. But that’s not how it works.

Matt’s response

Quote

MattAtlas->Filthyfrankster: I wouldn't call just not escalating to the maximum immediately "half-assing it". As security your job isn't only to shut down the antag ASAP. You're expected to give them wiggle room too, and to give them some room for their gimmick.

Later on.

Quote

 

Filthyfrankster->MattAtlas: I can see that, but if they took a more subtle approach instead of instantly blaring out that the STATION NOW BELONGS TO captain Bulldozer, we would of went in with a small response of a code green situation. They opted to go loud and state their incharge.

MattAtlas->Filthyfrankster/(Ketmahzarjurlthaa Mrrojrimakhan): I mean you CAN change your response there. You can reasonably go for carbines! Or shotguns with LTLs. Those would've been great options and would've been fine. But going to LETHALS isn't.

Filthyfrankster->MattAtlas: I see your viewpoint however, and I understand to try and give a little more wiggleroom and lessen the response. If you are suggesting going for LTLs or carbines in the future, I&#39;ll do that. Okay?

 

Things got more reasonable to an extent, but the key point was that you shut down the antags hard with no real recourse. Matt had to keep repeating himself and offering suggestions.

In summary, the warnings are valid. They won’t be overturned. I don’t believe you were treated with any bias and I think Matt was doing you a solid by not bringing your LOOC and OOC conduct into it. I do think the staff only portion of a warning should be written more formally and will advise that.

The complaint will stay open for a day or two in case there’s any further responses.

Edited February 15, 2022 by WickedCybs
I used below two times in the same sentence