Jump to content

Staff complaint - alberyk strike


Recommended Posts

BYOND Key: MarlonPhoenix
Staff BYOND Key:Alberyk
Game ID: (Alberyk#7868 145220807424081920). Case ID: [146]

Quote

Reason: stop dismissing people opinions and concerns as "you just don't like or agreed" it is concending

Reason for complaint:
The strike is improper. He was engaged in behavior he gave a strike over.
Evidence/logs/etc:

He calls an old event bullshit, which is demeaning language.  Other current loredevs on roster call my old work "shit", "bad", etc. If I used this language to describe current lore work from lore developers -- people still around to defend themselves -- I would be punished. This makes the application of the strike improper because it is applying different standards to different groups of players and staff unless the current staff members making statements that are similar in the strikes' justification -- being condescending -- are also striked.

Spoiler

[Shells / IPC rights conversation]

Alberyk — Today at 1:40 PM
This was due to the second antag contest
(which was bullshit)

Marlon Phoenix — Today at 1:41 PM
it was not bullshit, you just did not like it

Marlon Phoenix — Today at 1:41 PM
Shells were not the result of the 2nd antag contest, they were going in and they were used for the contest 

Alberyk — Today at 1:42 PM
Not what I said
I said that allowing them to be in these role was due to the second antag contest

Alberyk — Today at 1:42 PM
Stop saying that everything I say was because I do not agree
In fact

Alberyk — Today at 1:43 PM
!strike @Marlon Phoenix stop dismissing people opinions and concerns as "you just don't like or agreed" it is concending

Previous remarks are dismissive towards the tone and direction of the previous lore team which do not align with the current tone and direction. This following quote serves to show the pattern where he gives his opinion and I point out it's a matter of different design philosophies.

Quote

Alberyk — Yesterday at 2:22 PM
You can't really build anything meaningful upon shaky foundations

Marlon Phoenix — Yesterday at 2:22 PM
Shaky foundations. Sure. You mean foundations that are different from how you want it to be.

Alberyk — Yesterday at 2:24 PM
That is not subjective, having articles that talk about stuff that were retconned is a contradiction and it is not a good foundation

Being mostly an observer in-round and reading the news articles on the forum, I've been interested in seeing these things from the perspective of a new player, due to me being away from the server for awhile due to a targeted harassment campaign chasing me out. I compare it to the divide between a DM in a TTRPG who has all lore knowledge vs being a player who is in the dark except for what the DM explicitly says. Reading the news articles and reading the general chatter of the radio and conversations on the ship. In the following conversation I'm talking out what I've been seeing and how I feel about it. This is a pretty casual project on my end and it ended with me making suggestions in the suggestion subforum to improve things for people who are not one of the core 'Aurora mains' -- people who can play frequently and who participate in most lore events and are also active in the discord.

Alberyk joins the conversation and says I am being untrue, which I read as saying I am lying. It is demeaning to say this to me, and I could not say this in turn to others without being punished.

There is also a point where I am describing how I handled old news articles as a philosophy, and then leading into why I disagree with it.

Quote

Marlon Phoenix — Yesterday at 2:26 PM
I read the articles that come out. A lot of it reads like it is in a seperate game.

Alberyk — Yesterday at 2:26 PM
Also, that is untrue

[2:26 PM]
A lot of stuff back in the day was not even about the station

Alberyk — Yesterday at 2:26 PM
And was usually shoehorned to make some slightly sense
Most articles were not about the station.

Marlon Phoenix — Yesterday at 2:27 PM
Articles that i wrote were either about the station, living lore that people could participate in, things to get station-characters to have topics of conversation and disagreement, IC ways of announcing lore changes or new factions, or an action set-piece for the fun of it.
[...]
Marlon Phoenix — Yesterday at 2:29 PM
Maybe living lore was a bad idea, with how the framework I set up is being disagreeable to my current philosophy.
[...]

Marlon Phoenix — Yesterday at 2:34 PM
"Idk why the NBT suddenly means we’re not allowed to develop relationships between factions and advance other parts of the Orion Spur"
-- I'm saying that's not happening in a way that's reflective of the NBT.
The articles still use the same narratives prior to 2019.

Alberyk — Yesterday at 2:35 PM
Untrue once again
We are using different stuff
Like the phoron shortage

[...]
 

Marlon Phoenix — Yesterday at 2:55 PM
Anyway to condense what I said
The structure of articles is not good. They need, at the least, color coding. At the best, abandoning the forum model. The forum model was good when we had no idea what we were doing, but it's served its purpose. The meat of the articles feel less impactful than they used to. KoTW was the last big kick-ass thing we had. The current roster of living lore events is very conservative. The mood of the articles is depressing and archetypical. Antag / conflict stuff still relies heavily on terrorism and war. It's all becoming one-note. The consistency of the lore is improving, but the retcons also bring it back to be inconsistent. All in all there's an incredibly high cost-of-entry to keep up-to-date as an alien/new/casual player..

After this it leads into the used argument that since I have not played in-rounds, just observing so I can watch the ship's crew doing stuff and keeping myself detached so I can see how keeping up with the server's lore on-forum vs lore on-ship can be done, how easily, etc. He used his administrative powers to show my play-time when another player was asking me about it. This is a very old trope in aurora, to belittle someone's remarks on the server based on their playtime. I even talk about how I have a limited window and it's just what I see. Maybe I did not want to share my playtime with the public? Does the entire server need to see my playtime? What is the reason to post it? It seems to just be a way to show that I should not be taken seriously and that what I am saying is invalid. This behavior is inconsistent and falls under the strike he gave me, due to it being condescending. I am still trying to be involved in this community and this behavior towards me is demeaning. 

Quote

Alberyk — Yesterday at 2:38 PM
It is, just explained how
Phoron is rarer

Anti-Security Soldier Cybs — Yesterday at 2:38 PM
no offense but have you played on aurora, lately?

Marlon Phoenix — Yesterday at 2:38 PM
Wrong.
The contradictions come between the narrative of the newlore articles and the reality of the gameplay.

[...]

Alberyk — Yesterday at 2:39 PM
>>quoting Cybs
He did not play a single round this year as far I remember

Marlon Phoenix — Yesterday at 2:40 PM
But if you give me the minimum amount of times I should log in a week for me to read into your art, I can start clocking in?

[...]

Alberyk — Yesterday at 2:41 PM
I can see this stuff
unknown.png

 


Additional remarks:

 

Using administrative powers to win an argument by belittling me and using this language towards my past work, by calling it bullshit, etc, and then giving me a strike for being condescending towards him is inconsistent and improper. It sets the situation wherein a head administrator and players who play "enough" rounds can use language that I cannot use due to not playing enough, and they are able to use their administrative tools to get a one-up on me in a conversation by sharing information a regular player does not have access to. Even if I had logged in as a job every day for the entire year, he would still have the same responses to my arguments, the inclusion of my playtime is only misused in order to be condescending towards me.

This complaint is not about the merits of my arguments about articles, or the merits of design philosophies past or present. It is about the inconsistent use the strike and the misuse of administrative tools to manipulate a power imbalance between his powers as staff vs mine.

In the logs there were multiple conversations going on at once and it's hard to tell who is replying to what when. I tried to include just the immediately relevant logs as I have seen. Timestamps are included. Conversations take place mostly in the lore channel of the main aurora discord.

Edited by Marlon P.
Link to comment
34 minutes ago, Marlon P. said:

He calls an old event bullshit, which is demeaning language. 

Because the results were in fact. It was clearly biased towards the pro-synth.

Example of pro-synth objective:

-makes sure robotics equipment works

-make sure that x ipc is alive at round end

Example of anti-synth objective:

-destroy all of the stuff in robotics

-kill said ipc or harm them

As you can see, it was way easier to do the pro-synth stuff.

Now, on the strike, it was not the first time you dismissed an argument as "you just don't agree", because I never said this was based on my feeling or anything. You did the same thing here:

34 minutes ago, Marlon P. said:

Shaky foundations. Sure. You mean foundations that are different from how you want it to be.

I explained why I said they had shaky foundations. Confusing lore, outdated stuff, things that were not on the wiki. You know, stuff you also pointed out a while ago. But for some reason it is now just a design philosophy.

And when I said untrue, it is because you were making claims that could be verified, example: the fact we did reflect the phoron shortages in game. Which is something objective, not subjective. It is not the same saying that it is just your opinion or you want things different, these are facts that are not bound to opinions.

And the play thing was someone asking if you played, which you said you did, while you just observed a couple of rounds:

Now, I did show the graph to show that you did not play. And I never used this to win an argument. I kept talking to you about this stuff even when I posted it. But I think it was important, because cybs was talking about how you did not notice these effects in game, which were clearly visible. So yes, being out of touch with the game here was part of the argument. You also said I was wrong when I said you did not play. You later tried to defend yourself by saying you believed that observing is equal to playing.

And on the claim I used my power to undermine your agument, I never did. You were concending to me in the main and lore discord by ignoring my arguments by merely dismissing them as my preferences, while I took everything you said without saying it is just opinion and debating the facts.

I would also like to point out that at some point you said I said you should not give any opinions, while in fact I said you are free to. You later claimed that you did not see, but you posted a reply in the conversation right after. I decided to give you the benefit of doubt, but after the incident in the lore discord, I think you are pretty much arguing in bad faith and being concending because I say you are wrong when you make assumptions about facts or events.

Link to comment
Posted (edited)

Thank you for replying. 

How you say the event had a bias in favor of pro-synth is a completely justifiable thing to say and I agree with. I didn't take offense to it being criticized, but how you were criticizing it. If I point to your serial killer arc, and said it was "bullshit" specifically, would that be condescending towards you? I think that it would be, which would be a violation of rule 2. That is why I feel you using it on something I did was an equal violation of rule 2.

Quote

I explained why I said they had shaky foundations. Confusing lore, outdated stuff, things that were not on the wiki. You know, stuff you also pointed out a while ago. But for some reason it is now just a design philosophy.

We both agree that things can be improved. I also point out that things written by current devs are inconsistent and confusing. There is a difference in design philosophies and both of them have flaws. I try to not use abrasive language to describe my thoughts on it. You have - using 'bullshit' etc. It is condescending.

Quote

And when I said untrue, it is because you were making claims that could be verified, example: the fact we did reflect the phoron shortages in game. Which is something objective, not subjective. It is not the same saying that it is just your opinion or you want things different, these are facts that are not bound to opinions.

When talk about forum stuff not being reflected on ship, I acknowledge that there are efforts by the loredevs to have it be reflected. However, as I said, the level of intensity put forth by the canon on the forums is different from the intensity of the canon on the ship. You yourself have pointed out how when I experimented with reflecting the economy on-ship, through price hikes that were then dropped on everything but cigarettes to show price gouging, you said it was not good. That is an example of me using the same argument in a situation where it is now your side doing something. I am saying the methods by which the intensity of the forum lore is not reflected in the intensity of the lore on-station and then on-ship.

Quote

Now, I did show the graph to show that you did not play. And I never used this to win an argument. I kept talking to you about this stuff even when I posted it. But I think it was important, because cybs was talking about how you did not notice these effects in game, which were clearly visible. So yes, being out of touch with the game here was part of the argument. You also said I was wrong when I said you did not play. You later tried to defend yourself by saying you believed that observing is equal to playing.

This does not sound consistent. You posted it to retort a statement I made. You posted my logs to prove me wrong in a conversation. I don't have this ability to counter your argument. It shows your superiority over me in the conversation, because I have no way to pull up your logs as far as I am aware. It is improper/condescending use of admin powers that shows hypocrisy in the strike.

I did say that observing is equal to playing; for the purpose of observing lore effects on the ship, it is just as valid because I am seeing the entire crew whizz past me in the chat bar. That is what I am looking at. I was saying that the vibe of the crew is one not super duper concerned with the earth-shattering events hitting our holoscreens every once in awhile ic'ly, as I see it from limited ghost observations.

You were wrong when you said I do not play, unless being a ghost is not playing. In which case I don't play. That doesn't make my observations any more wrong. Pointing it out is only used to belittle my point of view. Pointing out that my playing less than an invisible goalpost makes my points less valid is very much condescending because it gives people who play more a superiority over me.

The only rebuttal I can give is to play rounds more. Would you agree with everything I had said in that conversation if I played more rounds than you? If not, why post the logs? To show the person I was talking to was superior to me in the conversation. I have personally never seen playtime logs posted in a public chat to prove someone 'wrong' in a conversation. How often is that done?

Quote

And on the claim I used my power to undermine your agument, I never did. You were concending to me in the main and lore discord by ignoring my arguments by merely dismissing them as my preferences, while I took everything you said without saying it is just opinion and debating the facts.

How you feel about something is a preference. How I and you feel about something is a preference. If you think something I wrote was bullshit, and I don't think it was bullshit, who is right? You? Why? I point it out because a lot of comments from your lore department are sweeping generalizations that is an opinion presented as a fact. You do this too, which is why the strike is inconsistent.

Quote

I would also like to point out that at some point you said I said you should not give any opinions, while in fact I said you are free to. You later claimed that you did not see, but you posted a reply in the conversation right after. I decided to give you the benefit of doubt, but after the incident in the lore discord, I think you are pretty much arguing in bad faith and being concending because I say you are wrong when you make assumptions about facts or events.

I don't know how to prove whether or not I missed a message. I acknowledged I beefed it in the convo when you pointed it out. I apologize for misunderstanding you.

Edited by Marlon P.
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Marlon P. said:

How you say the event had a bias in favor of pro-synth is a completely justifiable thing to say and I agree with. I didn't take offense to it being criticized, but how you were criticizing it.

You never said that. You just said that I said it was bullshit because I just did not like, which was not really the first time you did this.

14 minutes ago, Marlon P. said:

If I point to your serial killer arc, and said it was "bullshit" specifically, would that be condescending towards you?

No unless there was a reason for it. At this point, we are going to debate how offensive is to call something bullshit. I don't think your response would be any different if I said unfair or badly done, because you dismissed my arguments, which could not be interpreted as offensive by anyone, before by just calling it a preference.

If the issue is using language that can be offensive, sure I will just stop doing it in a conversation at all. But even so, I still think you were pretty much arguing in bad faith based on the previous interactions.

16 minutes ago, Marlon P. said:

It is condescending.

Talking about a five years old event that was clearly biased is different than just brushing aside someone in a conversation.

17 minutes ago, Marlon P. said:

This does not sound consistent. You posted it to retort a statement I made. You posted my logs to prove me wrong in a conversation. I don't have this ability to counter your argument. It shows your superiority over me in the conversation, because I have no way to pull up your logs as far as I am aware. It is improper/condescending use of admin powers that shows hypocrisy in the strike.

I still did not shut you down or made the argument you are wrong because you did not play in that conversation. I could have brought it up at any point, but I was pointing out that you were not being honest to cybs during the conversation. I think this would be a valid concern if I used this like you used the preference argument in the same way you did in both discussions; if you brought up something and I said you did not play.

19 minutes ago, Marlon P. said:

How you feel about something is a preference. How I and you feel about something is a preference. If you think something I wrote was bullshit, and I don't think it was bullshit, who is right? You? Why? I point it out because a lot of comments from your lore department are sweeping generalizations that is an opinion presented as a fact. You do this too, which is why the strike is inconsistent.

Here is the best example:

Quote

Alberyk — Yesterday at 2:22 PM
You can't really build anything meaningful upon shaky foundations

Marlon Phoenix — Yesterday at 2:22 PM
Shaky foundations. Sure. You mean foundations that are different from how you want it to be.

Alberyk — Yesterday at 2:24 PM
That is not subjective, having articles that talk about stuff that were retconned is a contradiction and it is not a good foundation

I say that we can't develop stuff due to shaky foundations. You ouright claim I just don't like stuff and want to change it. You pretty much assume that I just don't like or I want different things. When in fact I have observed objectives elements that exist besides my opinion. Example: if unathi lore says that they had a war with dominia, but dominia lore says they did not, that is a contradiction, that is a fact, it is not bound by preferences.

Sure, everyon makes generalizations, but my issue is you just being condescending towards what I said by calling it a preference. I would not mind if you said I was wrong and pointed out why, but literally saying "that is just your opinion" when I am pointing out objective issues we have based on observable fact, is in fact an issue.

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
On 17/07/2022 at 16:54, Alberyk said:

Example: if unathi lore says that they had a war with dominia, but dominia lore says they did not, that is a contradiction, that is a fact, it is not bound by preferences.

Foundation is what came before that you're building on now. The retcon you specifically point to is something done by newlore, so it's not foundational. Pointing to a retcon your generation has done to say why oldlore is inconsistent is confusing.

On 17/07/2022 at 16:54, Alberyk said:

but I was pointing out that you were not being honest to cybs during the conversation.

I played the game as a ghost for reasons i said. You are saying how i have been playing is invalid. I'm not complaining about cybs, im complaining about your use of the logs to demean my part of the conversation. Cybs is a player on the same level as me and can't go logscraping.

I wasn't lying. Being a ghost is a way to play the game. I said why i have been playing this way.

Edit: i am also confident quite a few staff don't play very much, and they can do more than I can with my comments on server lore and policy -- they enforce server lore and policy. It's condescending to use admin perms to belittle my playtime without allowing a player the same tools to see the staffmembers own playtime. If staff shouldn't have to share playtime logs with the entie public to justify their opinions or policy decisions, i should not have to in order to have an opinion on something. That's a big crux imo to show the strikes impropriety.

And thank you for acknowledging your language was inappropriate. I'm glad you're not going to do that anymore.

On 17/07/2022 at 16:54, Alberyk said:

I don't think your response would be any different if I said unfair or badly done,

You say this stuff all the time. It probably would have been different since i agree that it was unfair and badly done and my criticism of the process changed how i did future events. It's how you speak in condescending ways, not what you say. Which is part of why it is inconsistent to strike me, as you engaged in behavior that made me feel looked down on.

Edited by Marlon P.
Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...
8 minutes ago, ReadThisNamePlz said:

Hello, I am taking over for Faris. Please allow me a few hours to reach a conclusion.

I meant to post this at noon, I'm unsure as to why this just now posted. 

Anyway.....

After taking time to review this complaint, and after I've spoken to another staff member, I am going to rule that the strike is inproper. 

Alberyk should not have applied a strike for this as he was directly engaged in the conversation. Alberyk took a firm stance on a view, this is shown by the choice of words used. "(which was bullshit)", of which directly violates the second rule of the discord- "Rule 2: Don't be a dick. Harassing or belittling other users, or using intentionally discriminatory language/remarks/phrases will be punished." 
By utilizing the term "bullshit", Alberyk directly insulted the work of a past lore-master, and regardless of the view on the previous lore or events hosted, respect should be maintained at all times. 

The strike is inproper, and the conduct of Alberyk will be discussed internally.

@Marlon P. is there anything you'd like to add to this before I wrap it up? 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, ReadThisNamePlz said:

Alberyk should not have applied a strike for this as he was directly engaged in the conversation.

Unsure what this even means. Can we not handle anything in any discussion we are involved in the discord? If someone insults some staff, the staf in question can't strike or ban the person? Can't they handle someone derailing a conversation they are in?

Besides, you are ignoring what my reasoning and judging the whole thing because I called something bullshit. You are not considering that this was not the first time marlon did what he did, with the first one not involving anything that might be offensive at all.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Alberyk said:

Unsure what this even means. Can we not handle anything in any discussion we are involved in the discord? If someone insults some staff, the staf in question can't strike or ban the person? Can't they handle someone derailing a conversation they are in?

Besides, you are ignoring what my reasoning and judging the whole thing because I called something bullshit. You are not considering that this was not the first time marlon did what he did, with the first one not involving anything that might be offensive at all.

Let me clarify further. 

Staff members are allowed to handle issues in discord, engaged or not- but in a case like this, where you're seen as instigating the reaction from Marlon (whether it was intended or not), you should not be the one to hand out the strike, regardless of previous behavior. Marlon did nothing here, from what I can see, aside from defend his past work- something that anyone would do in his situation. 

If Marlon responded with "It was not bullshit you (insert whatever slur or insult you want here)" then it'd be fine for you to strike them. But since Marlon simply took a respectful and defensive position against you calling his work "bullshit", you really should not have been the one to strike him, regardless of past history. He did not get aggressive in his replies, and he did not portray anything that was in violation of rule two. I am not saying you cannot intervene when someone goes off the rails in a conversation, I am simply saying that in this specific case, he did nothing to warrant the strike. 

I understand your reasoning, but I am struggling to see where Marlon violated any rules by simply defending his position regarding his past work.

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