Staff Complaint - Alberyk

[nodnodnod]

BYOND Key: N/A - Discord
Staff BYOND Key: N/A - Discord
Game ID: N/A - Discord
Reason for complaint: Permabanned for protesting a strike issued for 'arguing in bad faith' regarding the NBT taking months to be ready (which was a statement made in December of last year)
Evidence/logs/etc: It's logged on the Discord.
Additional remarks: 
Explain to me how I 'keep coming to this Discord just to stir shit up' when I come back after a few months to protest a strike given poorly, if not unfairly, especially when what I said proved to be accurate and true? Either way, uphold it and perma me from the server, or undo it. I've not stirred shit up, and I challenge you to show that I was ever intending to just randomly 'stir shit up'.

I requested the strike to be removed, and his response was a GIF of 'cope'.

Perhaps Alberyk should cope a little better with being wrong, but it is what it is.

[Alberyk]

I did not ban you as you can see in the warning. I don't even talk or want to talk with you, unsure what you wanted to happen when you decided to bring up something that happened close to three months ago. Also, you don't use the discord to make requests, that is what staff complaints are for.

 

Besides, I did not reply to your request with a gif of cope:

You made no request here.

[nodnodnod]

The request came following it, then - regardless, a double standard exists in your mind of how you expect others to treat you, and how you treat others. Consider this complaint about the strike given then, and I'll make -another- about the Discord ban.

[Alberyk]

You are making the accusation here, so you kinda need to explain how I was wrong. 

But, from what I remember, you barely participate in the community's out of character and just showed to keep poking the holes/issues we had with the vote. Then, you moved to say that we would not release/do the testing in time (which we did) and kept making outlandish arguments like trying to compare a one year old project with the vote we had to run to continue making stuff because we needed a ship name. You did the same thing when I made another announcement about the NBT. 

[nodnodnod]

Ah, because I don't spend all my time on the Discord and only comment on things relating to a huge event (a map change), I'm not allowed to give feedback, or suggest that you use (and have ample time to do so, as the NBT still isn't out) a style of voting that might take awhile, but would ultimately be a more 'fair' result and allow for people to consolidate their votes toward a ship name they want? The result was rather unpopular at the time.

I said that I don't trust timelines because, inevitably, something comes up, a delay arises, et cetera - it happens all the time. And that is 'arguing in bad faith'?

Alright. Complaint stands, didn't argue in bad faith, didn't even argue, you simply couldn't cope with someone that doesn't believe in release dates, and I'd like to know on what grounds it is strikable to express doubt of an 'official' timeframe.

[Alberyk]

20 minutes ago, nodnodnod said:

Ah, because I don't spend all my time on the Discord and only comment on things relating to a huge event (a map change), I'm not allowed to give feedback, or suggest that you use (and have ample time to do so, as the NBT still isn't out) a style of voting that might take awhile, but would ultimately be a more 'fair' result and allow for people to consolidate their votes toward a ship name they want? The result was rather unpopular at the time.

I think it is an issue when the few times you engage in it and it usuallys ends being something negative. Because there was no point in coming after the vote was done and announced to propose a new method, when that could probably have been done before, just to point out that we did something wrong. And when I explained why we did that way, you replied by making a strawman out of my argument: I said it was too complex for the vote, and you said we should delete the nbt because it is also complex. That is clearly arguing in bad faith.

Saying that we were either lying or not prepared was also just throwing wood in the fire. When we announced the start of testing, everything was ready to go. That is why there was roughly a month between the announcement and the start of the testing. And as we can see, we did the tests on the day we said we would start. So, yes, it was arguing in bad faith because you were not adressing what I was saying and just making a strawman of what I said.

You were not striked because you did not believe in the official date or whatever.

[Garnascus]

As this is directed at a headmin i will look into this. Our strike system is configured in such a way that strikes applied to users automatically expire after a few months. So, your strike at this point should already be gone. Are you still contesting that Alberyk should not have struck you to begin with?

[nodnodnod]

 

12 minutes ago, Garnascus said:

As this is directed at a headmin i will look into this. Our strike system is configured in such a way that strikes applied to users automatically expire after a few months. So, your strike at this point should already be gone. Are you still contesting that Alberyk should not have struck you to begin with?

If the strike is gone, then I don't care. It's a moot point. The other complaint would be the only one I really care about.

[Garnascus]

Just now, nodnodnod said:

If the strike is gone, then I don't care. It's a moot point. The other complaint would be the only one I really care about.

Alright. Then i will lock and archive this one and we can focus on the the ban. I might need to reference posts from this one since it seems the interaction in contention is expounded on here a bit. That sound alright? 

[nodnodnod]

Do what you need to.

[Garnascus]

Alrighty. Locking and archiving.